Talk:Koenraad Elst

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
	This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Reference used 2 Discussion about controversial Elst 3 Political Motives 4 Discussion on the "Vedanta westernized" quotation 5 The Arya Samaj Connection 6 Citation 7 Controversies about Elst's links with the neocons and the extreme right 8 About the latest debate 9 'Researcher' 10 De Danaan ref 11 About above issues 12 Coom 13 NPA 14 WP:BLP 15 Zydenbos' link

[edit] Reference used

Most of the content of this page is from Elst's homepage at http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/ Imc 22:57, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion about controversial Elst

It is impossible to speak of K. Elst without mentionning the very controversial aspects of his writings. I have added a few sentences, with a general reference, and added a link in the External links which help to better contemplate the rather particular point of view that K. Elst represents. AlexOriens 7, Jan 2006.

Yes, but Wikipedia is not the place for original research. René Guénon's (1886-1951) "Introduction Générale à l'Etude des Doctrines Hindoues" is rather irrelevant for a biography of Elst. I don't think he made links between the israeli-palestinian conflict and Ayodhya or else please provide sources that Elst makes links between Ayodhya and the israeli-palestinian conflict. Your other assertions like the conspiracy theory of a vast campaign are not npov either. The link you added is a internet forum discussion from a partisan website.

AlexOriens The sentences I added are not from any original research stuff. I just mentionned the controversies about Elst. René Guénon citation is on the contrary extremely relevant, not for a biography of Elst (I never said that, and it is not in any "Biography" section), but to understand the general setting of someone's referring to the founder of the Arya Samaj doctrine. The links made by Elst between the israeli-palestinian conflict and Ayodhya are from his book "Ayodhya: the case against the temple" which has a chapter 8 entitled: "From Ayodhya to Nazareth". And the rest is not about "conspiracy theory" but just about facts. However, I admit to suppress that latter part, as it is a matter of controversy. The link I added is not an internet forum: it is a a collection of mails between Elst and a famous Indologist, R. Zydenbos. I admit we can discuss about how to make addings and modifications about Elst's section in Wikipedia, but it is impossible to deny the controversies about K. Elst. AlexOriens 7, Jan 2006.

AlexOriens 8, Jan 2006. Without any intention to focus and insist, I have to say thay the controversies about K. Elst are not only about Hinduism in itself, but also on his rather particular and politically oriented "views" on the Hindu/Muslim problems in India. The sentence I added about the Ayodhya/Nazareth link is not an invention of myself, it comes directly from Elst's writings (see above). Some events involving Hindus and Muslims in India are interpreted by Dr. K. Elst and other few people in a very specific way and they serve, among other things, as a basis for a so-called "rewriting of Indian history", which is of very controversial nature, and, in fact, very controversed by many Hindus themselves and also by the vast majority of Indologists. Hence I believe that a sentence must be added on that subject, because that subject made an important part of Dr. K. Elst's "works" in a recent past. If the sentence I added about the Ayodhya/Nazareth link is not the best for a wikipedian, then may be we can try to find another sentence if you want, but, in an article on Elst, the subject cannot be hidden.

Since when is René Guénon an authority on Hinduism? Elst's works are relatively free from political bias. He writes truthfully about communalism and is critical of the political establishment in India, including the Sangh and Congress governments. "I don’t need to belong to ... any specific ideological categories in order to use my eyes and ears."

AlexOriens Elst free from political bias ? Impossible to admit ! Voice of India, in which many of his books are published, is pretty well known to be on the far-far-right side. I am not saying that Elst is linked to a particular political movement, it does not matter in fact, I do say that his opinions take place in a framework that has a strong political bias. Wikipedia is an encyclopedy, and as such, in it, we can contemplate the origin of ideological movements. Can you understand the difference ? Elst's books and articles speak by themselves, whatever rectifications Elst might add to simulate his views are not biased. And, on Hinduism, yes, I'm sorry but Guenon's "Introduction..." is infinitely much more valuable, and of a very different nature, by the way. You will note that I don't mention Guenon here about Hinduism in general, I just mention a chapter of his "Introduction..." ("Vedanta westernised") to help better understand in what current Elst's influences take place. AlexOriens 12, Jan 2006.

Elst, through his writings, is actually attempting to detract Hindu revivalists from taking a non-secular course. He affirms a thoroughly secular approach in his works. I seriously doubt that encouraging this impartial (i.e. everyone is equal under the law) attitude can be considered politically biased. By this, you are claiming that Elst is unreasonably critical or prejudiced. According to this logic, Martin Luther King is also biased for having promoted equality. You are incorrect in claiming that Elst "is linked to a particular political movement". Perhaps you should mention which movement this is? Writing books does not make him part of any movement or ideology. This article is not about Hinduism, so mention of Guenon's book (or a chapter of it) does not belong here in the first place. I (as of now) fail to understand how this book on "Hindu Doctrine" from 1921 would shed any light on why Elst would write specifically about communalism (and Ayodhya), which seems to have reached a peak 70 years after Guenon's book. I haven't read this, so I encourage you to post excerpts showing these "currents" which shape Elst's "influences". Hopefully these will show if there is anything that substantiates these allegations. At any rate, Elst has made it clear that he is not a Hindu and most of his writings don't go into too great detail about Hindu doctrines.

1- You allowed yourself to change my answer by deletting a sentence of it: "linked to a particular political movement" and, after that, pretend that I said that Elst is actually linked to a political movement, which exactly the contrary of what I wrote. AlexOriens

- Not 100% sure how this happened, but I must've cut out your text. Sorry. If you go back and check, you will see I have also edited out some of my own language and might have mistaken your line for my quotation. However, if I wanted to "fraud" I wouldn't have quoted your original statement. I think you're overreacting, I also know how Wikipedia functions. An embarassing mistake though. - Now that I've looked over the edit history, I realize I might've hit enter while applying cut and paste to import the quote into my reply. This has upset me though, because the last thing I wanted was to be accused of this. Once again, my apologies.

2- So before you modify my answer, I did wrote: "I am not saying that Elst is linked to a particular political movement, it does not matter in fact" which should answer the first part of your "honest" interrogations.

3- For your question about Guenon, let me remind you what I wrote (and this time you did not delete it, which lends me to think you undergo serious problems in reading people's quotations in a non-distorted way whenever you don't attempt at modificating at people writings): "You will note that I don't mention Guenon here about Hinduism in general, I just mention a chapter of his "Introduction..." ("Vedanta westernized") to help better understand in what current Elst's influences take place".

4- Yes, Ayodhya events comes 70 years after Guenon's book, but this is not the point here. Try to exercize yourself in findind how typical writers of what is described in "Vedanta westernised" appear in Elst writings. That wouldn't be too difficult, if you read the chapter I mentionned. The quotations you are asking for are entirely in Elst productions. AlexOriens

- I don't totally disagree with your points, but asked only for you to prove them by posting excerpts from the book. Since you haven't, I'll try to get access to it before we continue this discussion.

AlexOriens I will post what you ask for very soon. In the meantime it will serve for others authors that make use of Elst's writings, like Gauthier. AlexOriens 13, Jan 2006.

- My purpose behind editing this article was only to weed out any false assumptions about Elst and his work. The edited article mentions "a stream of thinking not devoid of political motives". This implies that Elst himself may not be politically motivated, but this stream (i.e. thought current) is. Hence, this is what I meant by you appearing to link Elst with a movement or ideology. On one hand, (you and I appear to agree) Elst is personally unattached to any movement. But then you say his writings are linked to a movement with a political bias. I find this perplexing , since his works (or the stream of thinking his works are a part of) cannot be linked to any movement if Elst himself isn't linked to it. Anyway, I have no objection to the paragraphs you've added as long as they're true. That's why I'd asked for a deeper explanation of the paragraphs and then for proof of their validity. I think we're done for now, but I'd definitely like to know more about the "Vedanta westernised" chapter.

AlexOriens I accept your apologies and I admit that you cut my sentence by mistake. I will post very soon the references you ask. AlexOriens 13, Jan 2006.

AlexOriens 15, Jan 2006. Here are the references and comments you requested. Firstly, let me notice that I don't agree with you on the fact that Elst is (or is not) personnally linked to a particular political movement. I just said that Elst's personnal political involvement does not matter in the type of questions we are discussing, and it is only Elst's concern, not ours. The most important point is to understand the context of Elst's writings: someone can display political extremism in books or articles, without being personnaly engaged in a particular extremist movement, for obvious reasons of discretion. Let us remark that Elst's writings are published by a Delhi publisher which strongly advocates for the far right. To my opinion, that clearly indicates the political bias that we might found in Elst's works. However, we will find such bias by a direct inspection.

Now let's go into the details. Elst's works and interests fall into the following categories:

1- the "Aryan Invasion Theory" debate,

2- The Ayodhya events and "communalism" problems in India,

3- Strong anti-Islamic propaganda through the use of "secularism", and, in the same vein, but to a lower extent, psychological considerations about Jesus and Christianity.

4- A particular standpoint on Hinduism through the interest on the so-called "Hindu revivalism".

I will not comment on another field that interests Elst, according to Elst's own declarations: european neo-paganism and the New Age movement, although it may give other interesting indications of the connections between apparently different ideological currents.

The "Aryan Invasion Debate" is of a very special nature. It has never been considered in India and Hinduism, through all its long history, but only in very modern times:

Swami Dayananda Saraswati was perhaps the first to dispute the Aryan myth

(Michel Danino and Sujata Nahar, "The Invasion That Never Was" -Michel Danino is an author very close to Elst's views-).

So where stands the basis of such a debate ? According to Elst himself, this new "debate" originates from Dayananda Saraswati and others. In other words, Elst, who presents himself as a strong supporter of Hindu "revivalism" has to admit that this question has been, during more than 5 millenaries, of no interest for the vast majority of Hindus. That is quite right: the question is rooted in a political agenda that originates, among others, from the creator of Arya Samaj. This is why I say that Elst views inherit from such an ideological ambiance. Please consider the importance of the AIT for Elst and other people that share the same ideological foundations: the thing is merely political in nature. On the "revivalism" side (a topic that interests Elst at most), here again we find most of Elst's influences:

This 'revivalism' is not a recent phenomenon but began in the early stages of the British rule of India by groups like Arya Samaj and Brahmo [sic] Samaj under the leadership of influential reformers like Vivekananda, Dayananda Saraswati and Swami Shraddhanand. Nor is this revivalism limited to those within the Sangh Parivar or other similarly oriented organizations. According to Elst "the most interesting formulations of Hindu revivalist thought have been provided by individuals outside the said organizations, from Bankimchandra Chatterjee and Sri Aurobindo to Ram Swarup , Sita Ram Goel and their younger friends. (p.584).

(source: Koenraad Elst--Sangh Parivar's Apologist by By A. Khan, http://communalism.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_communalism_archive.html).

Incidentally, on the anti-Islamic side of Elst's stance, we find another reference to the founder of Arya Samaj. Other references to Dayananda Saraswati are easily found in Elst's writings, so we can say, at least, the the founder of Arya Samaj lies at an important place in Elst framework:

Thus, Swami Dayananda Saraswati's Satyartha Prakash ("Light of Truth", 1875), probably the very first Hindu writing to polemicize against Christianity and Islam, has interiorized some of the prophetic-monotheistic categories upheld by Christian preachers[...] But Dayananda at least took the trouble of studying and criticizing Christian and Islamic scriptures in detail, and of showing that there was much "anti-human" and "lacking in spirituality" in them [...]. By contrast, later Hindu spiritualists like Vinoba Bhave, the Ramakrishna Mission, and numerous Swamis and secularists, have merely memorized a handful of goody-goody points from the Bible and the Quran, and hold these up as proof that "Hindus have a lot to learn from them", or that "all religions essentially say the same thing". This nauseating sentimentalism has by now become an unquestionable dogma, except among those anti-Hindu secularists who insist that there is a radical difference after all [...]

(source: "Ban this book, by K. Elst, "http://www.bharatvani.org/books/foe/ch15.htm). Also, quoting Elst himself:

The first detailed criticism of Islam, and in particular of the Quran, was written by Swami Dayananda Saraswati, founder of the Vedic reform movement Arya Samaj in 1875. He mainly lambasted the contradictions, irrational beliefs and inhumane injunctions in Islamic scripture

(K. Elst, "Wahi: the Supernatural Basis of Islam").

From the previous excerpt, see how a mere statement on the fundamental unity of the essence of different religions (a truth which is of intellectual order, not of psychological character) is interpreted by Elst as "nauseating sentimentalism".

Consequently, we can easily find what I called "the ideological ambiance" that serves as a basis for Elst, and which is precisely the one described by René Guenon in his above-mentionned book.

About Elst's comments on "revivalism", the following reference contents detailed proofs of Elst's patent lies and ideological bias: "Koenraad Elst--Sangh Parivar's Apologist" by A. Khan http://communalism.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_communalism_archive.html. Khan's point is substantiated by historical evidences carefully deleted by Elst.

Now on Elst's secularism standpoint that you mentionned. Once again, it suffices to cite Elst himself to get acquainted with his use of secularism as a weapon to dissimulate other motives:

But now, the historical evidence has definitively been verified. After every single historical and archaeological investigation had confirmed the old consensus, the secularists have now been defeated in the final test. The deceit turns out to be their own. Their lies stand exposed and recorded for all to see. Their strategy to sabotage peace and justice in Ayodhya was based on history falsification. With all the blood on their hands, they have disgraced the fair name of secularism. Henceforth, we should be kind enough to ignore them except to hear the confession of their sins. Ideas have consequences, and so do lies. Before the “eminent historians” and other militant secularists are called up to purgatory, they would do well to clear their conscience by offering restitution to the scientists and Hindus they have smeared. And by begging forgiveness from the families of the Hindu and Muslim victims of riots triggered by a controversy that could have been old history already by 1989, had there not been the secularist obstruction.

(K. Elst, "Ayodhya, the Finale -- Science versus Secularism in the excavation Debate", chapter IV).

In other words, as long as secularism substantiates Elst's point, it is of value. If not, let's reject it. But it is not "universal" secularism that is important to Elst:

"To a secularist in the Western tradition, the whole Ayodhya controversy was a non-issue.

Hence, according to Elst, secularism is geographically valued. On the Ayodhya affair, we can't rely on secularism. This is why we can say that the secularist argument is just a shadow curtain used by Elst to hide considerations of another order. Here is another reference on Elst's curious use of "secularism": good against Islam, bad for the study of "communal" problems:

The fundamental mistake of Indian secularism is that Hinduism is put in the same category as Islam and Christianity. Islam and Christianity's intrinsic irrationality and hostility to independent critical thought warranted secularism as a kind of containment politic.

(source: Bharatiya Janata Party vis-a-vis Hindu Resurgence - By Koenraad Elst p. 9-142). Also, on the use of secularism, here is what Elst writes in "Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society"

The most important opponents of Hindu society today are [...] the interiorized colonial rulers of India, the alienated English-educated and mostly Left-leaning elite that noisily advertises its 'secularism'.

Such a sentence should also give a clear indication on Elst's political preferences, according to a question you raised above, and should definitively be called as an answer to people who make the affirmation that Elst is "politically unbalanced", which is an enormity regarding Elst's ideological references. Also, same reference:

The two enemies of this effort ["Indian pride"] are the pseudo-secularist morbidity that glorifies the destroyers of Hindu culture, and discourages its study altogether...

As a matter of fact, the real greatness of India rests in its long tradition of true Hindu Spiritual Masters, from the original Rishis period through Sankaracarya, Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi, up to the present times with Nisargadatta Maharaj and others. Each of them being aware the real Unity veiled under the mantle of the various religions.

In conclusion, Elst's stance suffer from very partisan and ideological bias, and it is important to warn readers in a non-partisan encyclopedy like Wikipedia. AlexOriens 15, Jan 2006.

Elst is a controversial figure, and it is difficult to describe this controversy in a manner which does not inflame feelings on either side of the debate. It serves no purpose to insist on portrayals which clearly show sympathy with one or the other side in this debate, as that is not a description, but partisanship. The portrayal by Hkelkar is problematic in that it does not attempt to take a neutral stance. I have tried to portray the controversy without taking a stance on it. If Mr. Kelkar insists on calling this "vandalism" again and reverting to his old version without giving any reasons for this, then I am afraid that I shall have to call upon the Wikipedia authorities to look into the matter. But I do hope that this will not be necessary. It serves no purpose to indulge in wars of opinion online here; the readers of Wikipedia are mature enough to follow up on a controversy when it is pointed out to them, and come to their own opinion without the need of pointing them on their way. Kochank 1 October 2006.

You have provided no sources to back up your claims and thus your most recent edit is a violation of WP:Reliable Sources and a blatant violation of WP:BLP.This is a defwarn.Hkelkar 21:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Tsk tsk; what passions such strong measures do show. Interesting. Kochank 13:59, 6 October 2006

Our revels now are ended.Hkelkar 12:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Motives

vkhaitan Finally I changed The whole paragraph making it more neutral and removed POVs. The reason behind why I wanted to remove "vedanta westernized" reference is because it is Point of View of an author on a topic, which is highly subjective. Hence Stressing upon the fact that he is actually well describing about streams of thinking is POV. But there was one merit in the paragraph that it wanted readers to understand that His opinions are closely related to A stream of thinking. So I elaborated upon that fact so that readerss could get to know about two streams of opinion. --Vinay Khaitan 14:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

vkhaitan "Secular Historians" word is incorrect, because there has been many questions over their secularism, particlarly because of biasing towards islam. --Vinay Khaitan 16:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

TwoHorned After having read Vinay Khaitan, I responded to him (see above) and noted that he suppressed the paragraph on "Vedanta westernised" for purely POV arguments. So I put the paragraph back. TwoHorned

vkhaitan I myself have read various books by Koenraad Elst. Interesting to current context, I have read

1. Aryan Invasion Theory - UPDATE
2. Psychology of Prophetism- A secular Look at bible .

Both the book are available on the web, as far as I remember. I think, this is quite easily acknowledgeable that third party comments over any issue is not good evidence to put forth. We should analyze things not based upon some commentary by some author, but by direct inspections in the books and articles written by koenraad elst.

In my answer, I quoted Elst himself TwoHorned.

Yes, but also third party reference to show that really elst wanted to be biased. That third party reference, according to my study, is utterly biased. The quotes, which you have quoted from his book shows nothing wrong with elst. Elst doesn't recognize any kind of unity among religions, purely they preaches different thing. At any rate, it doesn't show any kind of bias of elst.

The criticisms of Dr. Koenraad Elst are :-

1. His views are in sync with special type of ideology stance of Hinduism. 2. The ideological stance have political motives(and this is important to note on wikipedia of political motives) 3. His view about islam/christianity is biased and he is partial towards secularists idea. 4. more .....

I would reply to specific allegation of "link to political motives". Basically Koenraad Elst is in sync with Hidutva side in ongoing conflict between communist historians and nationalist/hindutva historians. I do not link Hindu historian wave to any kind of political motives, in the same vein as I do not link communist historians to any kind of political motives.

TwoHorned Is it a joke ? Truly Hindu historians may not link to political motives, but Hindutvadi historians do.

Vinay Khaitan okay, so lets get the facts straight. Most of the real competent history work in AIT debate has been done by historians who are published by VoiceOfIndia publication. ALL of those historians are outsider to RSS-BJP. the founder and his close associate actually had been connected to communist movement(till the point, they saw anti-indian element in communist movement)! Read their biography.

In fact, elst criticised RSS for not publicizing these works and publicising their own low-grade think tank booklets. So actually, there are no competent "Hindutvavadi" historians. In fact, the first massive work of OIT formulations was done by "Shrikant Talegiri" (perhaps after rigourous studies over decade(s)). After reading his book, I really applaud the work done by Shrikant Talegiri.--Vinay Khaitan 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

TwoHorned By the way, why not just rely on plain and authentic "historians" without added propaganda? Are you saying that on these subjects all historians are either marxist or on the far-right realm ? What a disappointing duality! TwoHorned

Vinay Khaitan its a real disappointing scenario of indian history. In fact, I can view some historians as hindu nationalist approach, but never I see elst biased to any side. He has criticised both sided.

That does not mean he is right. AlexOriens

If you really want to know about communism scenario in india, read this article of arun shourie, West bengal communist government history communalisation--Vinay Khaitan 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Vinay Khaitan Here the word "politcs" is being used in literal sense instead of as a metaphor(the metaphor means "saying something else, intending something else"). This is an intellectual battle. The nationalist side sees the current aryan invasion theory as a colonial imposition to malign their glorious past. This is an open fact that British did really do this intentionally. But what is right and what is wrong in aryan invasion theory, that is to be determined still. The wikipedia article has nothing to do with that debate. Still I give some clue to understand the Koenraad's intentions. Vinay Khaitan

Sorry but that debate is at heart of Elst's stance. TwoHorned

okay. If you want to know about elst's impartiality ,read this article by him Merits of Lord Macauley . yes it is heart of mine too actually. And you should know that Elst has criticized both OIT/AIT side. --Vinay Khaitan 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Vinay Khaitan Ongoing archeaology and use of latest technologies has given ample amount of evidence of Aryan native theory. Because of lack of any kind of evidence for invasion, there are no takers remained of Aryan Invasion theory. Communists now promote "Aryan Migration Theory". Where as Nationalist historians promote "Out of India Theory"(aryan native theory). All the evidences only points towards Aryan native version(the latest entrant in the mounting evidences is genetic studies, not done by nationalist historians of course ;-) ), except one which is still troubling the native aryan version. That is linguistic aspect. The linguistic relationship between Indo european lanugage points towards Proto-Indo-European language existing prior to vedic sanskrit, which is not known to be existing anywhere in the world currently. These are speculations and many Hindu historian(e.g. NS Rajaram) have debunked this objection on the basis of the fact that it is mere speculation and in the past these speculations have proved many times wrong(A good example of that is linearb script). Because there are other archeological,astronomical and comparative civilization studies in favour of OIT/ANT. NOw the most important point is..... Koenraad Elst is totally against debunking Linguistic arguments by Hindu Historians. His opinion is that so many linguistic studies and their expert cant be wrong totally. In his book, He lashes upon both camp(hindu/communist) for acting as if they have successfully conquered all the difficulties of their theory.

The point was to mention that AIT, as it is contemplated by Elst, is very modern in nature, that is was of no interest for traditional hindus during millenaries, and that it is was started from political motives geared by the British Empire. I will not write one more time what was explained above... TwoHorned

Certainly AIT had political motives(as have been accepted by max muller too), like nazi propoganda. but it doesn't mean every argument from this has to be wrong. That's why elst notes the merit of AIT too. --Vinay Khaitan 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Vinay Khaitan sadly, ideological battle of history has turned into political gamut too. Communist historians have always been dominant in History circle, hence they had power to push their standpoints(if you had experience of conditions of Delhi University and JNU, you would have understood it better). So politics is also being utilized for pushing own standpoint. But, the bottomline is that politics may have been involved in pushing standpoint, but not the motive. Vinay Khaitan

Once again: historians are not divided between communists and far-righters. Please get some education. TwoHorned

Surely they should never be. But in india, this is a reality. And its roots are deeper, going back to independence time. Anyway, if you don't want to see them as different camp, I would be more than happy. Then the word 'streams of thinking" should be removed.--Vinay Khaitan 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Second thing about islam, he may have some factual inaccuracy(although I dont know any), but blaming directly of "carefully deleting the facts' is too much of blame in any context.

It is on the contrary an extremely serious drawback for anyone attempting at doing history.TwoHorned

surely, but elst is not one of them.--Vinay Khaitan 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

His all psychological standpoint about prophetism is his opinion and analysis, but the fact is that Quran and Hadis shows political base of how islam has evolved.

Just saying that his view about Islam is extremely particular. Nothing more. And that must be mentionned in a non-partisan encyclopedia like Wikipedia. And your sentence on Islam is POV. TwoHorned

Vinay Khaitan if you want to mention his views on islam, mention it. I would like it(so that some reality of genocide in india comes out). as far as POV is concerned, the talk page can certainly have POV :) . I was just giving you some hint, how to understand islam. Vinay Khaitan

Not sure it's a good idea to learn Islam from you or Elst...AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan About word secular, it is really disappointing that you cant even understand the two types of secular word he is using. In one case of secular, where he is talking positively, he is using it in its real sense. In second type, where he is opposing, he is using it in sarcastic tone. The reason is that muslim appeasement and opposition of hindu cause is being always done in the name of "secularism" And there are always so much of allegation of communalism on hindu-side of affair. Hence "secularism" word is used many many times as sarcastic tone and many times it is just a synonym of pseudo-secularism. Vinay Khaitan

So you are saying that Elst's problem is really muslim appeasement ? So why is it so ? Please tell us.TwoHorned

Vinay Khaitan I would be more than glad to enlighten amount this issue. In his book "Negationism in india: Concealing the record of islam" he uses pharse like "Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU, the Mecca of secularism and negationism) in Delhi" (just to show his sarcastic tone throught their books and articles).As far as muslim appeasement is concerned, there are some reasons behind it. I you want to know why, I would elaborately write it in quite detail mostly. it is somewhat politically connected. Why the communist government communalised the history, can you think? I hope, some of the points here should be quite enlightening to you. --Vinay Khaitan 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Vinay Khaitan There are many allegation on Elst, I dont buy those arguments too. But for the case of defaming words on Wikipedia, I think this much is enough. In fact, I want to change the tone of whole para, currenlty I want immediately of "political" word to be removed. Wikipedia is not about controversial arguments to be ushered. one more thing, If you have any doubt about islam being same as other religions and teaching essentially the same, first of all read Quran and Hadis yourself. Vinay Khaitan

This is POV. TwoHorned

Vinay Khaitan I am talking to you according to my POV. for islam, please read some historical documents about its development. those are well recorded in quran/hadis. It is better if you understand the political theory and then verify from quran/hadis.--Vinay Khaitan 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

AlexOriens The main starting point of all that discussion was to mention that Elst is extremely controversial and that must be mentionned in a non-partisan encyclopedy like Wikipedia. Just browse other articles about controversial authors: that point is always mentionned. Wikipedia is about knowledge and facts. Controversies about Elst have been exemplified and demonstrated by the arguments explained above. AlexOriens.

Vinay Khaitan Then write a different paragraph about criticism, that is okay. But accusing of political motive is more than just even POV.--Vinay Khaitan 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, about your sentence on Quran, just recall that reading sacred texts, be they Quran or Vedas, can be done with or without understanding. TwoHorned

surely, but I have done it within context and with understanding.--Vinay Khaitan 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

When you are discussing with people in the "Discussion" part on Wikipedia, just try to put your answers below the text, without re-editing the sentences of your counterparts. What you have done with my addings is quite scandalous. Try to learn for yourself Wikipedia's basics. Let me warn you, as it has been done already here, that Wikipedia's contents is recorded, so people can easily see the parts you moved. TwoHorned

Vinay Khaitan If that really happened, please readd those deleted sentences. That happened unintentionally and I apologise for that. I don't think that re-editing talk-pages comments just for the sake of clarity is anyway harmful. I have seen this happening. Vinay Khaitan

[edit] Discussion on the "Vedanta westernized" quotation

Vinay Khaitan One more important thing. Apart from "political motives", I am also unhappy with the "René Guénon'" thing. It is well described or not, that is a POV. if you want to mention that book, please either write it in this form "René Guénon' wrote about elst that ......" or "René Guénon' describes this like this" or something like that. Remember that sentence should not look like evaluating the writing of Rene as good/bad/whatever. --Vinay Khaitan 17:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It not my intention to follow a discussion with you on these matters. I just want to recall that the excerpt on "Vedanta westernised" has been put in this Wikipedia after a long discussion done by AlexOriens. It has been substantiated, discussed by different people, and given citations and examples, as it is required by Wikipedia's rules. You can't cancel other's works just because you don't like it. So the deleted paragraph has been put back. TwoHorned

Vinay Khaitan You are free to not follow discussion. "discussed by different people" ? I don't see more than 2-3 people at all! And most of them have not read much of Elst at all, so you were able to prove yourself. I had been actually reading quite a lot of elst lately. As far as POV is concerned, this is not possible to have POV on main article at all, whether you follow the discussion or not. it was never substantiated. So it is better to put forth the paragraph as an opinion of author "René Guénon", instead of evaluating the work of "René Guénon" as Good( evaluation is a POV). I had actually added the paragraph of AIT only to articulate your good motive to let the readers know about two "streams of thinking".
I would delete the paragraph because of POV, as mentioned quite explicitly above, if you don't give arguments why it is not POV. If you again put it back, I may ask for administration arbitration. Vinay Khaitan

TwoHorned Just to sum up with: Rene Guenon's citation is just here to mention a chapter of his book, "Vedanta westernised" which is given to underline the Arya-Samaj connection with some of the topics adressed by Elst. AlexOriens's citations and development substantiates that, as it can be seen above. If you don't agree, then ok, ask for arbitration, but accusing others of not knowing their subject, as you do, is not very convincing either... TwoHorned

Vinay Khaitan If that is the case, then write whatever that chapter wants to tell about elst in connection to arya samaj. But don't write that chapter is really correctly describing elst.Second thing, Elst is not only about arya samaj connection, that is actually miniscule of points. He is much much more than that, hence the book cant describe him properly too! In any case, the POV of Rene is not acceptable . --Vinay Khaitan 18:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

AlexOriens I will answer your last remark but let me comment as a whole your preceding sentences. The main point about the inclusion of Rene Guenon's reference here is to put forward the "intellectual" framework on which Elt's influences hinge on. I don't tell that Elst is personnally related to Arya Samaj or other more recent organisations of a more political character, it does not matter, I just mention that book to explain from where his stance comes from. Arya Samaj is merely unimportant today, but it was the expression of something that has had some importance in the beginning of the XXth century. "Vedanta westernised" does not describe Elst (Guenon died in 1951 !), and it is not Guenon's POV either, it contains the explanation of the origin of currents that reapearred later. To answer more preciselly your question, the chapter that interests us here is the one called "Vedanta westernised", first two pages, in the paragraph describing the origin of Arya Samaj. It is here for the reasons explained above, I won't recall them again. The influences that Guenon describes come from very suspect milieux in which are found, among others, the antitraditional action of Brahma (followed rapidly by Arya)- Samaj and other reformers which where clearly the puppets of some action coming from the British Empire and strongly related to anglo-saxon neo-spiritualism of XIXth century. This is demonstrated in Guenon's chapter, just read it. On that subject, you may find it also very useful to read what Guenon has to say about Arya Samaj in another book: "Theosophism: history of a pseudo-religion" which covers also some aspects of our discussion. And it concerns Elst because of his spontaneaous and self-declared interest in such reformers (see above). Of course, other currents pave the way of Elt's works, but that one cannot be ignored. If you disagree, try to prove that the above demonstration is false. I can personnally engage with you a discussion on that matter. Now let me briefly comment on some of your preceding remarks.

Vinay Khaitan I have replied separately about the arya samaj connection. That description is purely to show that elst is not linked to that kind of deformations(assuming guenon to be right), but he evaluates their work as a historian. So your dubious connection is not of any use.--Vinay Khaitan 08:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

AlexOriens About your words "dubious connections", see my answers in the appropriate A. Samaj section. AlexOriens

AlexOriens 1- Saying that indian historians dramatically fall into your two categories ("communists" and "far-righters") is extreme exageration.

Vinay Khaitan No. Try to find out the names of famous historians of indian circle and you will immediately know about this issue. Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens But, admitting that would be true, it wouldn't matter however, for quite one good reason: most indologists are not of Indian origin, so they don't fall into your dichotomy. For the vast majority of indologists, Elst is nothing else than a blatant impostor and a vicious lier, grounded with very suspect political agenda.

Vinay Khaitan Elst has very nicely said about that foreign current indologist views, why they are so. The problem with indology watchers are that they get to know about "secular history" and "communalisation" from those historians who call themselves as secular historian. This is what is the power equation in academic circles, which is problematic to the correct history. Elst has many times pointed towards this power equation.
also try to think why communist historians are biased towards islam , when they don't have any connection os ideology with islam(if at all, that is only against islam). Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens You can't rely and refer to academics when it serves your intentions (like referring Elts as an historian like you did above, or referring to scientific evidences or official archeology) and dismiss the international community of professional Indologists when they don't follow your opinions or Elst's. This is not very honest, and quite typical of those individuals that share Elst's opinions or yours. AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan As far as Indology are concerned, AIT scepticism with good evidences have started late 20th century. AIT has dominated and still dominate the academic circle. AIT scepticism, in spite of of good evidences, have not got such a good academic exposure. Hence this is quite normal that people still see all the evidences with AIT/AMT coloured eyes. History very much are coloured with prevalent theories especially in those area, whose historical evideces are scarce(like ancient india). Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens If you don't believe me on that point, just have a look on the discussions on the famous Indology list.

Vinay Khaitan I have many times read that list. Have the study of why Elst had to leave that list. I don't understand the level of those intellectual who immediately stoop to the level of name-calling and hatred. Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens You say that the founder of VOI was a communist ? May be, if you say so, but so what ? Does that change the general "colour" of VOI publications ? We are talking on ideologies, not on individuals.

Vinay Khaitan Yes. I know it. And try to find out why so by the biographies of Sita-ram Goel and Ramswarup. The reason is apolitical motive and it was a reaction to ongoing aggression on hindu causes.

AlexOriens 2- You should be more careful when saying things like AIT was supported by nazi-propaganda, that could be very problematic for the POV you represent, you know.

Vinay Khaitan heh, I just did a "labelling" to AIT as communist historians do the labelling of "AIT sceptics" as communal. Max mulller died much before nazis. He made the big part of original conceptions of AIT(driven by political motives of British).

AlexOriens And that would be quite funny also: would you dare pretend, for instance, that Tilak was driven by pan-germanist ideas ?

Vinay Khaitan nopes, neither to max-muller :). Initially the comparative linguistics gave such a good arguments in favour of AIT, that many nationalist swayed away.

AlexOriens 3- On the heineous diatribe of Elst against Islam, upon which you seem to agree, just let me recall that Metaphysics does not say that all religions are the same, but that there is one and only one truth, veiled under the mantles of different religions. This is rooted in Vedanta. That the proponents of the different religions don't understand it, that is another problem. But blaming on the religion itself, as Elst does it, is extremely perverse. And that weapon could be used against Hinduism also, just think about it. AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan To tell you the fact, "all religions essence unity" what is comonly told by all hindus. I came to this conclusion separately with elst(and I am happy that elst have the same views) that the problem is islam not muslims. If you want to finish islamic terrorism, do something like what kamal pasha did in turkey. Just cut musalmans from their jehadi roots. If you want to talk about islam, please get some facts of islam first, then only talk!

AlexOriens Unity can be affirmed in profane ways, but to realize it is another question... Again, blaming on Islam itself is an extremely grave accusation, and, most of all, it is pure forgery. Elst does the same in saying that he has no problems with muslims but with Islam: this is, on the contrary, the sign of a much more profound intellectual (or psychological) pathology than blaming on muslims. AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan I just can't debate on pure philosphies which are without any factual content.

[edit] The Arya Samaj Connection

Vinay Khaitan A quote from Elst.

Few among the Hindu nationalists have really studied the relevant evidence. Some even reject the whole notion of historical evidence as pertinent to this question. From Jaimini’s Mimânsâ-Sûtra (BCE) down to Arya Samaj founder Swami Dayananda’s Satyârtha Prakash (ca. AD 1875), a school of Vedic scholars has believed that the Vedas were not a human creation, but were created by the Gods aeons ago and then revealed in complete form to the Vedic seers. Oddly, for people who held the Vedas in such awe, their theory flies in the face of the Vedic testimony itself: unlike the Quran, the Vedas never take the form of a statement by God addressing man. Instead, they take the form of hymns in which man is addressing the Gods. The names of the seers composing the hymns are also given, and they are put in a historical context, often with their mutual relations, genealogical kinship and faction feuds detailed in the texts themselves. Moreover, a number of presumably historical events are described or alluded to, most famously the Battle of the Ten Kings. All this points to the historicity of the Vedas: they came about as a creation of human poetry in a specific society at a specific phase in its development. But Vedic enthusiasts like Dayananda and to a lesser extent Sri Aurobindo Ghose chose to disregard this information and reinterpreted all these mundane data as spiritual metaphor. Though they also happened to reject the invasion hypothesis, they excluded the Vedic information as possible source of evidence for their own indigenist position. Aurobindo’s correct observation (1971:242-251) that the Vedas contain no mention of an Aryan invasion, thereby loses its force.

The paragraph above is quoted to debunk the elst's any kind of arya samaj connection or any historical political hindu revivalism connection. Just to show that the understandings of elst is his own, not borrowed. His views on hindu revivalism is made up by himself and by own factual studies. Hoping that this should end the debate of vedanta westernized! Elst has quoted various people from historical nationalist movements(which pertains to the topic) and then examined them. For example, he has given example of VD sawarkar that he had accepted AIT! and he is supposed to be the best advocates of Hindu cause in politics!

AlexOriens Unfortunately, your quotation subtantiates my point: Elst says that A. Samaj or Aurobindo contain good elements from a reforming point of view, but they don't go far enough in the sense that they don't accept the Vedas to be human scripture, which is a enormity from the most basic Hindu point of view ! In other words, reformers like those people or institutions offer a good starting point from Elst's point of view, but Elst proposes to go much more farther from that ground. This is why it substantiates my point: Elst considerations are linked with that previous motives, and they fall in exactly the same category than those described in "Vedanta westernized". And please note, incidentally how that pattern fits particularly well with the following excerpt of "Vedanta westernized":

...However, the spirit that had presided over the birth of this organisation [Brahma-Samaj] did not confine itself to this one appearance, for similar attempts were set on foot as opportunity offered, though generally with no better success...

(R. Guenon, Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines, p. 233).

That Elst denies a total accordance with A. Samaj or other reforming movements does not mean he finds them useless. And, by the way, how can you refer to the "defense of Hinduism against foreign agressions", as you do and as Elst pretends to do, and promote writings like those of Elst which, according to the quotation above, are so excentred from the most basic Hindu orthodoxy, and which deny the Vedas of their non-human origin ? AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan I have read your quotations in connection with arya samaj. I don't know how you interpret them as "dayananda saraswati" lying at heart of Elst? Dayanand saraswati certainly wrote against Islam and Aryan invasion theory(according to elst, probably the first). so of course elst will have to give his reference if he is trying to give history of the topic? If he doesn't give, then it is a mistake! As far as AIT is concerned, it is of recent origin(in 19th century). Hence its debunking also cant be prior of that!

BTW, the book is available on google print. So you can refer to any paragraph of 4 page "vednata westernized" to put forword your viewpoint. I have read it on google print and I think, as much I have read of elst, that doesn't say anything correct about elst's connections.

Vednata westernized 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens I did not write something like "D. Saraswati lying at heart of Elst", I said that it one of his influences,

Vinay Khaitan I would counter this statement. He has read of satyarth prakash and know about D saraswati's views. It doesn't mean that he is influenced. It only means that he has gathered that knowledge too. Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens It would be very difficult for you to counter, because it is easily demonstrated. By "influences" I don't mean Elst agrees on it, but that there is a sharing of ideological ground. What is Elst's viewpoint ? He was mainly interested in political aspects of reforming movements in India and to "communal" problems ("was" because we describe his interests at that time: he seems to be less interested by those today. It would be interesting in itself to know why, by the way). Such reforming movements have political counterparts (Hindutva, RSS etc.), other have also political origins, but of a different nature. Arya Samaj is one of them. That does not mean Elst is in phase with that movement. It means it is one of his materials to elaborate his work. Elst is contemplating modern India from the viewpoint of reformers. This is the reason why Guenon's reference is not only justified, but one of the best references we can find on that matter. Not to describe Elst himself (he is such of little importance) but to get a general view of from where reforming movements come from. AlexOriens

hence justifying the "Vedanta westernised" reference which explains the origin of A. Samaj.

Vinay Khaitan no justification till now. Here I would like to iterate my understanding of vedanta westernised chapter. It talks about India reformist movements being influenced by foreign elements(political and apolitical) and hence deforming the actual spirit of Hindu spirit. Political influence and political motives are not necessarily the same. Arya samaj's political motives are not even said in that chapter. As far as elst is concerned, He has actually criticised exactly these deformations by arya samaj! Even then elst is one of those people? I am surprised! Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens Yes you are right, the one that makes use of political influence, or whatever kind of influence (here the BE) has an agenda that does not necessarily matches the reformer's movement being influenced (A. Samaj). A. Samaj political motives are not mentionned because they are of no interest here: the point was to underline the influencer, and to demonstrate the heterodoxy w.r.t. Hindu spirit. You seem to persist in misunderstanding: I am not describing Elst's political motives, nor A. Samaj's. "Political motives" here refer to the origin, not to A. Samaj intentions ! The expression "political motives" is here to signal that the reforming entities we are talking about where influenced by political considerations coming from the BE, it is not intended to describe Elst's in anyway ! I mention a book that describes, from a non-partisan and general persepective, the milieu in which reformist movements of modern India appear. A. Samaj is one of them, not the only one, but one of them. I took the A. Samaj connection here just to name one of these influences. Elst is mainly interested in what he calls "Hindu revivalism", that is to say to certain aspects of self-declared reforming entities of modern India. From that perspective, he is obliged to consider A. Samaj, and many others. He may have a critical view on it, and he does, but the main point here is to describe from where comes his materials of study, and the general ideological ambiance that is pervasive in his writings. So yes, Elst has criticised RSS, AS, BJP etc. but these are the limitings boundaries of Elst's considerations: hence the justification of a neutral reference describing these movements w.r.t. to Hindu orthodoxy. AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan I think you are quite misinterpreting the chapter. The chapter doesn't say that the whole stream of thinking had political influence or political motive. It talk about hinduism being westernized. Brahma samaj could have been supported by BE, but as far as arya samaj is concerned, it is the spirit which has gone to arya samaj, that is alike creating brahmanical church. This may have been borrowed from foreign interactions, but political influence is by no means justified. The reason is that AIT scepticism and other things done by Arya samaj were detrimental to BE. The chpater doesn't claim about Arya samaj being in political influence at all even.

If you read carefully the stream is concerned only to deformations of actual spirit of Hinduism because of western influence. That spirit has nothing to do with elst.
Now, as far as RSS is concerned, it is by no means that revivalist, which is quoted in vedanta westernised chapter. The reason is that RSS didn't try to westernise things. ( I dont know, but if there are few instances, those are not of any significance). It emerged in reaction for organised retaliation of aggressions. The environment of that time required. So please try to understand that the chapter's intentions of describing Arya samaj is quite different from what elst praises it for. the chapter doesn't criticise Arya samaj for AIT, islam, christianity oppositions. Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens But lets quote K. Elst and his books reviews. (By the way, I also modified the title you gave here: the name of the organisation was "Arya Samaj", and not "Aryan Samaj" as you wrote it):

Consider this crassly false statement by a leading Marxist historian about the reform movement Arya Samaj, founded in 1875 and well-known for its anti-untouchability campaigns: “The Arya Samaj was described by its followers as ‘the society of the Aryan race’. The Aryas were the upper castes and the untouchables were excluded.” The second sentence is precisely the Western indologist reading of the term Arya which the Arya Samaj sought to counter: The Samaj restored the original meaning of the term, viz. “civilized”, in particular “belonging to or expressive of the Vedic civilization”. While the Samaj was not slow in acknowledging that in its own day, the untouchables were being excluded from learning the Vedic rituals and philosophies, it worked hard to undo this exclusions.

(K. Elst, Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate, chapter 1). There Elst was attempting to counter negative appreciation on Arya Samaj. AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan How that says anything about his connection as the same stream of thinking? He has criticised the arya samaj just for the deformations and lauded for other things(not mentioned in "vedanta westernised") like AIT scepticism and polemic against christian/islam. Let me also ask, what deformations you consider of Arya samaj and what were the factors influencing them(the chapter doesn't describe anything about that)? Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens The "stream of thinking" does not refer to Arya Samaj in particular, but to the general limiting boundaries of reforming movements that make the basis of Elst interests (sorry for other readers to be obliged to repeat the same sentence once again...). Elst did criticise A. Samaj, but this is not the point: the point is to show that reformers (A. Samaj and others) just take the major part of Elst considerations. The quotation is also there to show that, in that occurence, Elst takes the defence of A. Samaj, but it is of minor interest. The other quotations serve the same objective (and I include mines and yours in that respect by the way): in some of them Elst is departing from AS, in others he agrees, but that of secundary importance: what is demonstrated is that Elst is concerned by that. AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan I have replied about stream of thinking and how that is unrelated to elst's stance.

AlexOriens I go forward with other quotations.

The solution is obvious: remove the intrinsically communal and separatist doctrine of Islam from the minds of its misguided followers. Educate them so that they can laugh at the primitive beliefs which have held them captive for so long, just as adults can take a laugh at their own childhood illusions. Sounds radical? This was the solution offered by the Arya Samaj, a progressive Hindu reform movement, which put the large-scale reconversion of Muslims to the Vedic tradition high on Hindu society's agenda. Its central doctrinal book, Swami Dayananda Saraswati's Satyartha Prakash (1875), contained the first Hindu vivisection of Islamic doctrine, still a bit clumsy but on the right track. The movement had its martyrs, several authors of publications on Islam and leaders of the reconversion movement killed by Muslim activists; but it never indulged in any similar forms of violence.

(K. Elst, "BJP vis a vis Hindu resurgence", chapter 20: "How to deal with Islam). In that excerpt, Elst enlightens us on a "solution" of his own, and gives some indications about its origin as well: A. Samaj. AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan and how does that prove the solution has been taken from arya samaj? I have the same solution to which I came separately from elst. In fact, the solution is very simple to know after reading over quran and hadis. Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens We are not talking on Elst's intentions, nor of anyone's ! The quotation is there to show the same ground of ideological interests. AlexOriens

It is true that some Hindu revivalist movements have tried to redefine Hinduism in terms borrowed from monotheism, with rudiments of notions like an infallible Scripture (back to the Vedas: the Arya Samaj), iconoclastic monotheism (Arya Samaj, Akali neo-Sikhs), or a monolithic hierarchic organization (the RSS)...

(K. Elst, "Negationism in India, chapter 2). In that excerpt, Elst means that Arya Samaj was a starting point, but not strong enough in what he calls "Hindu revivalism". AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan Some similar things are said by rene guenon. Redefining Hinduism in influence from christian missionaries and trying to draw parallel between protestants and These revivalists. So in fact, elst conquers with Rene. And hence , elst actually looks like a third party onlooker instead of being influenced just like Rene. Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens If Guenon does write that reforming movements in India where influenced by protestantism and other currents coming from anglo-saxon neo-spiritualism, he goes in a direction that is at the extreme opposite of Elst's. You can't draw comparisons between Elst and Guenon: their perspectives are of completely different nature. Elst indulges in insisting that Hinduism is polytheistic: Guenon on the contrary demonstrates that Advaita Vedanta or Shankara's doctrine of non-duality are identical, but of different formal expression, to Ibn_Arabi's metaphysics (for instance). Quite a difference in perspective, won't you think ? But this is another debate. Anyway, these preceding considerations put at their right place your above accusation about my ignorance of Islam. The knowledge of Islam your are referring to (through present time of political pressure) would be similar to that of Hinduism gotten from Elst... AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan As far as Hinduism is concerned, I have quite distince views than any of the intellectual I have read. Its a very broad issue, and saying it as polytheistic or monotheistic would be quite over-simplification. For all of my views on hinduism, I never rely anything other than Primary sources.Also, if you are here to assert that in hinduism Vedas are non-humane or it is polytheistic , you would have quite tough time for that. I know the reasons behind all of those assertions and I can guide you towards various different things too. Hinduism is quite large and has been explained by different sages as different. As far as westernization of arya samaj's view is concerned, elst's stance is not to support them for philosophical reason(hence no real support) as far as that whole paragraphi is concerned. Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens 16:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC) I did say that Vedas have non-humane origin, I never said Hinduism is polytheistic.

Bipan Chandra's chronology of communalism as a 20th century phenomenon cannot explain the communal polarization of which Sikhism and the Arya Samaj were manifestations [...]

(K. Elst, "Negationism in India, chapter 2). Same idea: Arya Samaj was an originator, and Elst dives in that current. So connection, do you think ? AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan connection? How? Sikhism came much before arya samaj. Why? the root of sikhism lies in the iconoclast emperors of Mughals. And arya samaj did the same thing at intellectual and pratical level. So if you are trying to counter "20th century communalism", what else can there be? Sikhism and Arya samaj are one of the two best examples! Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens I was interested in the Samaj citation here, not on Sikhism (I couldn't cut the sentence for sake of clarity), for the same purposes than said above: reforming entities are interesting Elst. AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan But Here by no means citation of Arya samaj is because of any kind of influence at all. If he doesn't cite, then that would be big mistake. Vinay Khaitan

To quote Hindus as speaking of the “Aryan race” without explaining the semantic itinerary of the expression is tantamount to manipulating the readership into reading something into the phrase which Arya Samaj spokesmen and Aurobindo never intended.

(K. Elst, Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate, chapter 1.1). In other words: enemies of Hindu revivalism don't understand the A. Samaj. AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan those enemies understand or not, that is different matter. What he is saying is that it is wrong to blame "Aryan race" term to A. samaj as defining race. Their meaning of Race was not what is usually said. Again, Rene Guenon has nothing to do with this issue. Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens It does, if you read the whole book, you'd be interested in a chapter where the question of origins is mentionned. But again, that is another debate. In the quotation Elst explains that, on a problem that interests him, A. Samaj has been misunderstood. So, for what reason ? AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan Reason can be only known after reading those historians like Romila Thapar.

For a first acquaintance with the Arya Samaj and the causes it fought for, see J.T.F. Jordens: Swami Shraddhananda, His Life and Causes, CUP, Delhi 1981

(K. Elst, Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate, chapter 1.1, note 9). Still no need to refer to A. Samaj to get acquainted with Elst ? AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan To understand any writing of an author, you will always need to look into the sources cited. It doesn't mean that the person is talking because of influence of the citation. Elst has monstly enaluated works and wrote according to his own understanding. Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens This is exactly what I am trying to explain: I don't say that Elst is influenced by A. Samaj only, I say it comes high on his agenda exactly in the same proportions as many other things, all of which are related to "Vedanta westernised": reforming entities in modern India. AlexOriens

Vinay KhaitanAgain, elst's interest in Arya samaj is mostly different that why Rene has interest. Vinay Khaitan

It is in this (by that time definitely the usual) sense that the Buddha used the term Arya, as in the catvAri-Arya-satyAni, “the four noble truths”, and the Arya-ashtANgika-mArga, “the noble eightfold path”, meaning that his way (more than the petty magic with which many Veda-reciting priests made a living) fulfilled the old ideals of Vedic civilization. It is with a similar intention that the modern Veda revivalists of the Arya Samaj chose the name of their organization.

(K. Elst, Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate, chapter 1.4). Elst still not sympathetic of A. Samaj ? AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan Sympathetic word is wrong here. Where Arya samaj has done their mistake, he criticised consistently. Where they are good(according to elst's evaluation) and incorrectly being criticised by others, he defends. That is quite a normal huma behaviour. Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens Of course, it is possible to find some Elst's quotations that depart from Arya Samaj, but, like in the excerpt you show above, it is intended to mean that Arya Samaj was a good reformer, but not enough, like in Elst's "BJP vis a vis Hindu resurgence", "What is wrong with Hindu". The following excerpt is particularly enlightening:

In fact some narrow minded RSS leaders from Pune had tempered with the chapter in Babarao’s contribution (written by P. N. Gokhale) that deals with Babarao’s contribution to the growth of the RSS. Similarly, no acknowledgement is made of the help which the RSS received from the Arya Samaj and the Hindu Mahasabha everywhere.

(K. Elst, "BJP vis a vis Hindu resurgence", chapter 6). If RSS has to acknowledge A. Samaj, then what about Elst, do you think ? AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan elst is not revivalist like RSS and Arya Samaj. He is doing his intellectual task and fairly criticising and applauding both, RSS and Arya Samaj. Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriensYes, he interested in the same problematics, but brings in propositions and "solutions" (see above) of his own. AlexOriens

As labels go, it would not be unfair to describe the Arya Samaj as "Veda fundamentalists", or Swami Karpatri and the Puri Shankaracharya as "Manuwadi fundamentalists", so India-watchers may have a point when they do conceive of the notion of "Hindu fundamentalism".

(K. Elst, "BJP vis a vis Hindu resurgence", chapter 8). AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan So you can yourself see another criticism of Arya Samaj over the same issue(for which Rene is criticising). Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens A critical view yes, but for an opposite reason. However, once again, this is not the point: I am just replacing his works inside the proper context, and showing what are Elst's preocupations. By the way (but it is unrelated to our debate): Elst could have used a more accurate expression than "Veda fundamentalists". AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan surely!

The first detailed criticism of Islam, and in particular of the Quran, was written by Swami Dayananda Saraswati, founder of the Vedic reform movement Arya Samaj in 1875. He mainly lambasted the contradictions, irrational beliefs and inhumane injunctions in Islamic scripture. Later Arya Samaj criticism of the Prophet typically focused on [...], not on the source of his “revelations”

(K. Elst, "Wahi: the Supernatural Basis of Islam"). That later criticism would be, among others, Elst's (as criticising Islam was 1/2 of his job at that time). So, no connection ? In the same vein (I mean about Islam):

Indians may recall that such death sentences [...] have been carried out earlier this century: against Arya Samaj propagandists Swami Shraddhananda and Pandit Lekh Ram, and against Rajpal [...] These murders had the desired effect, for the Arya Samaj became less straightforward in its criticism of the Prophet.

(K. Elst, Ayodhya And After , chapter 12). AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan I have already explained. And I have no connection of Arya samaj, But I do exactly same thing. In fact, any unbiased scholar would do the same thing when read the Original source(not secodary sources). Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens Again , this is not the debate. The quotation is repeated here to notice the following: Islam bashing was, at that time he wrote the book, one of his major occupations. He shared ideological currents with one of the reformers mentionned in the "Vedanta westernised" quotation. (Being A. Samaj or other is of least importance). You are trying to explain me that Elst is right in doing so, just because you have read Quran and arrived at the same conclusion. The fact that you think like Elst does not substantiate him, and it is unrelated to the questions we are adressing. AlexOriens

However, even in its most inclusive reading, Tilak’s definition excludes important groups which many Hindu Revivalists insist on including in the Hindu fold: Buddhists, Jains, Brahmo Samajists, etc. Savarkar, before developing his own alternative, rejects Tilak’s definition precisely because it is not sufficiently inclusive.

(K. Elst, "Who is Hindu ?", chapter 1). Elst is interested in what he falsely calls "Hindu Revivalism". So according to him, A. Samaj is one of them. "Falsely" because Hinduism has never died and is still represented by its true elite. "Who is Hindu" contains many elements of Elt's PhD thesis, BTW. AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan He never meant by Revivalism that Hinduism died, hence needed to be revived. He means the downfall of hinduism because of so many agression over centuries. Hence he is not wrong here. As far as inclusiveness is concerned, it is debatable. Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens Others quotations:

Though trying to discover a basis in Hindu tradition for casteless equality (as the Arya Samaj claims to have found in the Vedas) is a good thing, it should not keep us from understanding why Hinduism could accommodate the caste system so well.

(K. Elst, "Who is Hindu ?", chapter 1).

In most of these communities, the Arya Samaj with its anti-caste stance has played a major role. The Arya Samaj is also a factor in the much lower intensity of caste inequality in the Arya heartland, Panjab.

(K. Elst, "Who is Hindu ?", chapter 1). Lastly, another Elst's book I haven't read but having the following review:

Throughout the book, whether he is exposing the untruth of Romila Thapar’s contentions on the ideology of Arya Samaj [...]

(From TM. Menon, http://www.asianetglobal.com:8080/asianet/2004/news/detailedstory.jsp?catId=10&newsId=2). AlexOriens A general remark: these quotations place Elst in a rather particular view on Hinduism: he is always paying attention on "reforming chools", like the Arya Samaj, Hindutva or other political movements, but he seems reluctant to deserve any importance to traditionnal (not reformist) Hindus which form the vast majority. In that respect, his stance on Hinduism is very "westernised" and politically oriented, should we say at the very least. AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan your interpretation of reformist and traditional is quite problematic. RSS is not the reformist ones, but they came because of ongoing agression on hinduism. The same like sikhism/arya samaj. It doesn't mean that they were there for purely a sort of revival, although arya samaj etc had their own intellectual tradition(which form the backbone of reforms) to counter those agression. Vinay Khaitan

AlexOriens Even if we don't agree, I hope having pointed you to Guenon's work, which you will find of great value, if you like Hinduism like I do. You haven't brought to me anything new however: I've read almost all of Elst. AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan I tell you one very important thing. All of the smritis, puruans, vedas are written in cryptic nature(and has been said within those books itself). It would be very very unfair to Hinduism if you rely on any of those writers. Knowledge of Hindu traditions are quite necessary to understand the contexts of those books. Purunas's story are written in such a cryptic way that most of the people would confuse.--Vinay Khaitan 15:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

AlexOriens Thank you for the debate, anyway. I hope it will serve to others interested in the subject. I am specially thinking to those Indians who have read Elst's books: Indians deserve much better than Elst's poisonous and suspect writings. AlexOriens

The word poisonous and suspect are too much about elst. IMO, Indians deserve the writings of elst for the sake of good understandings. It is definite that any polemic article/book would be severely criticised by some group.-Vinay Khaitan 15:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

AlexOriens After your change in the "article" section about Rene Guenon and "Vedanta westernized", and since I primarily wrote that passage, I changed it to make it unbalanced, simply by refering to the "discussion" section. I think it is better like that, readers will just read our discussion and decide by themselves. Writing, as you did, that Elst and Guenon agree on that subject is impossible to admit for anyone knowing Guenon's work. AlexOriens

Vinay Khaitan I am very happy to see the change you did. In fact, now it looks very NPOV. That's exactly I wanted to see that readers should themselve judge. Finally, I think the issue is resolved between us. --Vinay Khaitan

Also, I am not saying that A. Samaj is the only one influence in Elst. But the most important point is that it is one of them, and they belong to a stream described in "Vedanta westernised". Note also that R. Guenon's "Theosophism: history of a pseudo-religion" is also related to our discussion. AlexOriens

[edit] Citation

I see that the following passage has been causing much debate. As it stands it is certainly wholly inappropriate. We do not refer to the talk page in articles, and the idea that Guenon (who died before Elst was born) provides some explanation of his motives seems to be the opinion of one editor, and is therefore OR. Indeed the passage as it stands does not even explain how Guenon is relevant or helpful.

René Guénon has described the origin of some reformist movements in India in his book "Introduction Générale à l'Etude des Doctrines Hindoues" (english translation: "Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines", and notably in the chapter "Vedanta westernized"); he also established their heterodoxy w.r.t. orthodox Hinduism. The reader is referred to the "discussion" section of this Wikipedia article, in which a debate has been raised to decide if Elst's books and articles belong or not to the stream of reformist ideologies described in René Guénon's book on Hindu doctrines.

On the contrary, it does explain it as the appropriate chapter is mentionned and cited; reading both Elst and the "Vedanta westernized" makes the connection quite clear. Moreover, it is not said Guenon "provides some explanations of his motives"; it is said that the book mentionned herein makes understand the historical context of the ideologies that ground Elst's. Such explanations are widespread in many Wikipedia articles, I don't see any reason not to do it here. And if it "seems to be the opinion of one editor", this is for the simple reason that the discussion took places between two editors. So, balancing towards one or the other is quite natural... I put backwards the deleted citation, and change it in order that it does not refer to the talk page. TwoHorned 21:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Paul. "The idea that Guenon (who died before Elst was born) provides some explanation of his motives seems to be the opinion of one editor, and is therefore OR." --Rayfield 09:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you agree or not is irrelevant. Try to justify your point by citations, references, or by finding flaws in long discussion above. Moreover the sentence you changed is now grammatically incorrect. TwoHorned 10:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies about Elst's links with the neocons and the extreme right

Browsing the web, I see that K. Elst may be more closely related to the neocons than I thought in the first place: Daniel Pipes asked him to write a postcript in his book ("The Rushdie Affair: The Novel, the Ayatollah, and the West"). It should be quite interesting to investigate the real role of such political influences in the backing of some nationalist movements in India (as usual, this is always done using the mask of Hinduism, although orthodox Hinduism is completely foreign to such considerations of course). Also, Prof. R. Zydenbos has updated info on Elst's political connections (http://www.angelfire.com/in/zydenbos/z2elst.html, section "some more reading matter about Dr. K. Elst"). TwoHorned 10:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Zydenbos is a dubious source for Biographies. Furthermore, most of the links in that article point to homepages, blogs and forums that either don't mention Elst (even if you use the search function) or that are blogs (including Reader's response to another response in a blog).--Rayfield

Prof. R. Zydenbos a dubious source ? He is an acknowledged academic scholar on India, as opposed to Elst. Again, try to back and prove such a stupid assertion. And it seems you haven't read the links given by Zydenbos. Elst is mentionned in the links (e.g.: Nucleus). Since all your deletions are unjustified and unproved, I go back to the previous version. TwoHorned 10:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a dubious source. Again, please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If you want to find criticism, try a published book, like the Witzel paper in Bryant 2005, or any other published source. Some of the sites in Zydenbos page also mention a certain "Koen Elst". Who says that this is Koenraad Elst, and who says that there are not other Koenraad Elst's in Belgium? The site refers to many other blogs and forums, and even (I quote) to a "Reader's response to another response in the blog of a Dutch politician". At the very least, when you use non-reliable sources, make it an NPOV statement by attributing it to Zydenbos. he goal here is to attribute the opinion to somebody (even if it still might violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). Again, please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This policy is much more strict than the guidelines for normal articles. --Rayfield.

I've read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The main point here is verifiability. Verifying that the person that signs under the name Koen Elst in the mentionned journals is effectively the same person than Koenraad Elst is extremely easy. And to give you another example, it is under the name of Koenraad Elst (with his photo) that he collaborates to the Brussels Journal, a well known right-wing newspaper: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/koenraadelst. Moreover, using a web page written by an academic is a reliable source. Just like using web pages in the bibliography of research papers is a common practice. And, again, I repeat my question since you didn't answer it: please back your claim that Prof. R. Zydenbos is a "dubious source". I'll accept your changes only if you accept the roles of wikipedia: proving, citing, and referring your claims. In the meantime, I go back to the previous version. In particular, K. Elst is linked to the extreme right in a country called Belgium, as asserted by the preceding reference. I don't understand why you suppressed the term "Belgium", there is no evidence, at this moment, of connections between Elst and other right wing parties elsewhere, except perhaps with the neocons. TwoHorned 12:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The links in Zydenbos article are mostly to blogs and forums, and in some of these cases, who knows if is about Koenraad Elst the Indologist at all? Elst is quite a common name in that part of the world. Yes, "using a web page written by an academic is a reliable source." but only in normal articles. Remember, this is a biography, and they have much stricter rules thatn normal articles. Read again Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. And I'm afraid, the Zydenbos article doesn't meet these stricter rules. It is indeed a dubious source, how else would you call a source that uses references to blogs and forums, like for example (I quote) a "Reader's response to another response in the blog of a Dutch politician"?--Rayfield

So, according to you, it is not clear whether the person known under the name of Koen Elst:

1- 'Islam expert' of the Vlaams Blok,

2- who participated and spoke to a right-wing gathering according to Vrijbuiter,

3- who is (or was) a collaborator to "Nucleus",

4- who is cited in the mentionned web page of the Belgium Independent Media Centre reference,

5- who was responded to by author Freddy De Pauw about an article in defence of Hindutva,

6- who, according the report by Antifa, attented and spoke at a right-wing student organization, in which he was introduced as a "Louvain professor KE (residing around or in Antwerp)", "expert in Oriental languages", considered as "learned man in extreme right-wing circles by his firm distaste for Islam and love for Hinduism",

it is not clear, then, whether this person is identical to the Koenraad Elst of this article ? Well, in that case, better check that there is a one and unique Koenraad Elst at VOI ! And, you know what, O surprise, another collaborator of "Nucleus", Alexandra Colen, is a regular collaborator to "The Brussels Journal", the newspaper in which Elst (Koenraad of course) writes officially. Also, "The Brussels Journal" might be presented as "conservative-libertarian"; it is a notoriously ultra-conservative, right-wing newspaper. TwoHorned 15:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So lets look at the references of Some more reading matter about Dr. K. Elst

The first reference is a readers comment in a blog/forum. Everyone, including you, can write there. Is this a reliable source for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons?

Yes, but the main point in this forum is: Elst is (or was) considered as a "specialist of Islam" for the Vlaams Blok. This should be easy to verify. TwoHorned 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The second mentions a certain Koen Elst. Lets assume that this is indeed this Elst. According to Wiki, Nucleus is a conservative magazine.

You will mention that this second page is not a blog/forum, but a regular web page with verifiable facts. What "Wiki" are you talking about ? TwoHorned 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The third is again a blog/forum. Everyone, including you, can write there.

Indymedia.be is not a blog, it is a place where articles are proposed and posted by people, as far I can read. If something false is asserted there, it should be rectified by the offended people. I think that referring to such sources should not be a problem. At least, if something wrong is said, counter-balancing replies can be done. TwoHorned 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The fourth link is a blog.

Correct. TwoHorned 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally the fifth link is about this Elst. It is debate between Elst and someone else, in which Zydendos only cites Elst's opponent, but not Elst himself. But is it notable? It is about Godhra, Gujarat, propaganda and some claims that turned out to be false about Hindus vs Christians. "....Furthermore is there steevast a total lack of perspective, e.g. in this case nevertheless the important context fact that all Islamic terreurdaden have remained against Hindus since January 1993, well for several hundreds of deads, all unanswered; just the mass assassination in Godhra in February 2002 was the drop which did the bucket overflowing overlopen and the Hindus did lose their patience. And when two Moslem terrorists in September 2002 assaulted the akshardham temple in Gandhinagar and more than thirty Hindus assassinated, there was again no response: the Hindus had retrieved their normal itself control......"

Here I firmly disagree with your assertions. The mentionned link is not active at present: launching the DNS search nslookup www.uitpers.be produces the following answer: ** server can't find www.uitpers.be: SERVFAIL. So I don't understand from where comes your explanation of this article (and you write here sentences in an almost incomprehensible english). Do you mean you have access to the new link, although it is not mentionned in Zydenbos's page ? This is extremely surprising, and to say the least, quite suspect. Moreover, what Zydenbos takes as an excerpt here, is Freddy De Pauw's answer describing the reactions he received past to articles in De Standaard and backing his assumptions about somes links between Elst and the VB. Your diatribe, in addition to being incomprehensible, rises quite astonishing questions about the source you mention here. You should try to find out something much more convincing in that precise case, where all your previous objections fall apart.TwoHorned 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The sixth link is about Elst. It claims that Elst is interested in Hinduism because he thinks the Aryans came from India. I never heard a more ridiculous allegation.

The link does not assert, as you say it, that Elst is interested in Hinduism because "he thinks the Aryans came from India". I am really wondering if you know how to read. The link says that Elst is appreciated in right-wing circles because Elst hates Islam. And "the theory about Aryan people coming from within India" is a clear reference of the refutal of AIT, which was at heart of Elst's, in the time where Elst was writing about AIT. I am really wondering if you know your subject. TwoHorned 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The seventh link is a "Reader's response to another response in the blog of a Dutch politician." Need i say more?

The eight is about Elst complaining that The University of Wisconsin Memorial library carries four of his publications, as do many other university libraries in this country. Is this notable?

Yes it is notable, as a particular fact giving an example about the offences and rejections that Elst represent. TwoHorned 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The ninth is about Elst, written by two "students".

Yes, and why should it be a problem ? TwoHorned 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

For the tenth, see [1]

The thing here is not the refutation of an article (Elst's answer is mentionned in the "Article" section of this wikipedia page), the thing is to display reliable examples of controversies generated by Elst's particular viewpoint. TwoHorned 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Again please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If you want to find criticism, try a published book. Zydenbos's aritcle is dubious because the site has as references other blogs and forums, and even a "Reader's response to another response in the blog of a Dutch politician". At the very least, when you use non-reliable sources, make it an NPOV statement by attributing it to Zydenbos. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to somebody (even if it still might violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). Again, please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This policy is much more strict than the guidelines for normal articles. Yes, "using a web page written by an academic is a reliable source." but only in normal articles. Remember, this is a biography, and they have much stricter rules than normal articles. Read again Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. And I'm afraid, the Zydenbos article doesn't meet these stricter rules. It is indeed a dubious source, how else would you call a source that uses references to blogs and forums, like for example (I quote) a "Reader's response to another response in the blog of a Dutch politician"? According to Paul Belien, the Brussels Journal is conservative-libertarian. If you think it should be called right-wing instead, please first change this in the Paul Belien article. I don't know if Brussels journal is rightwing or not, but if you claim it, please put a reliable source on the talk page that says it is rightwing, and then the paper must also thus be described in the Paul Belien article.

Repeating again and again the same sentence does not makes you right. First, I have read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I admit we can find even more reliable references, but your previous arguments are quite weak: first, some of the links do speak clearly about Koenraad Elst and second, if I admit that blogs should not be taken systematically into account, some of Zydenbos' links are not blogs anyway, and one of your previous answer is quite problematic. In addition, some of the links are reliable sources, or at least sources that can be checked. Now, about the Brussels Journal, you refer to the Wikipedia article which is considered, in its discussion section, as unbalanced, and, most importantly, suspected of having been written by Belien himself. I maintain that the Brussels Journal is right-wing and that the controversies described in the Wikipedia article on Vlaams Belang apply to Belien and to the Brussels Journal as well, for obvious reasons. I put back what you deleted here and also please note that it is not Prof. Zydenbos that asserts the connections with the extreme-right, but the quotations found in Prof. Zydenbos's web page instead. (By the way, try to sign with your login name your interventions, it makes things clearer). TwoHorned 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer to points above:

Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment.

Yes, but the discussion above shows that this is not the case of all the examples given. TwoHorned 22:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul Belien and http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleus_%28tijdschrift%29 and http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brussels_Journal

This particular site is a forum. There are posts by several people, and you can yourself post a message by clicking at the bottom of the page. Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment.

It was active when I accessed it. The translation is from a webtranslation page.

I strongly doubt it. This link is inactive since at least 2 days (I checked). But, admitting you are true, you don't answer my objections: you have misunderstood the passage in question. TwoHorned 22:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Webtranslation: ....his love for the hindoeïsme. Drang also its to knowledge concerning the hindoeïsme lies in the fact that according to a theory the Aryan people from India would come or there in any case for a long time housed would be been.

These are not reliable sources for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

What point are you answering here ? TwoHorned 22:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked you to go to Paul Belien and http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleus_%28tijdschrift%29 and http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brussels_Journal and make the same changes before making these changes here. If you're not going to make these changes in these articles soon, they cannot be made here. And remember that the Paul Belien article has mention of Brussels Journal and of Nucleus. Furthermore, a reliable source that says that these publications are extreme right/right-wing should be put on this talk page or in the article about Paul Belien.

Well, what is your exact responsability at Wikipedia that allow you to ask me that ? TwoHorned 22:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You are insisting on calling the Nucleus/Brusseljournal extreme right/rightwing. However, if they are described as "conservative" in their main articles, then they should also be described thus in this article. And the sources must be provided by the person who writes the criticism, not by somebody else.

This article should describe Nucleusa and brusselsjournal in the same way as their main wikipedia articles do. If you want them described otherwise, first change it in Paul Belien and http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleus_%28tijdschrift%29 and http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brussels_Journal. Furthermore, a reliable source that says that these publications are extreme right/right-wing should be put on this talk page or in the article about Paul Belien.

I repeat my question: what is your exact responsability level at Wikipedia that allow you to ask me that ? Morover, I disagree with your suppresion of the Zydenbos's link. TwoHorned 08:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The link is still in the external links section, and it was not needed anymore, because I included more reliable refernces about these magazines. It is YOUR responsibilty to fully and properly source any criticism that you make in wikipedia, especially in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. And this article should use the same description of the magazines, as the magazines have in their main articles, otherwise it is pov.

You didn't include more reliable references at all, you just used some of the links I provided by referring to R. Zydenbos's page. It is legitimate to re-link at a special anchor in an already mentionned page. But I repeat it, I hope for the last time, otherwise I feel obliged to enquire Wikipedia: what is your exact responsability level at Wikipedia that allow you to ask me doing these changes in other pages ? Thank you TwoHorned 08:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You are obligated to provide reliable sources for any criticism in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, otherwise it can be deleted. Please read again Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Because you didn't provide reliable sources, the magazines should have the same description as in their main articles.

I consider the page mentionned as reliable. It contains blogs, that is true, but others links that can be considered as reliable, as our discussion above demonstrate (that discussion also displays your misunderstandings). Now, since you don't want to answer my question, I consider your requirement as unjustified, and I deduce you are just a regular contributor to Wikipedia as I am. Consequently, I will put back my previous contribution to the article, and will repeatedly put it back if you delete it. If needed, arbitration from Wikipedia will be asked. And I also stop this discussion with you. TwoHorned 08:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 08:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the latest debate

I apologise for not explaining myself about the deletion, I hoped that my edit summary would be enough. The centrally disputed part of the article is a quote from Elst's work attacking a conference audience, and naming a particular individual. We should avoid that if at all possible. Further, I thought simply removing all reference to his being considered "controversial" was best, keeping a striclty neutral recitation of the facts presented by individuals. Also, there is no need to say that everyone who disagrees with Elst, or who considers him a peripheral scholar, is a Marxist. This is not true. Please respond. If we wish to include representative quotes from his work summarising his views on the AIT or anything else on which he is considered by some to be an expert, then we can do so. As I have said many times before, he is not banned. Please do not use that word again. Hornplease 17:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. In that case, I agree with the removal of the quote. Since you seem to know a lot about WP:BLP, you should have noticed that a newspaper article [2] should not be used in a BLP. --Bondego 09:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP I'm removing the claim that the Nucleus magazine is right-wing, and the accusations of Vlaams Blok. Per WP:BLP, better sources must be found to back such strong claims up. And one of the links is still in the External links section. --Bondego 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

From WP:BLP

"Information available solely ... in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. ..Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers which print gossip much of which is false."

This clearly does not refer to the Times of India, which is where the quote is from, and which is India's paper of record. I expect that you will reinstate the appropriate section, or I will do so. Nucleus is described as right wing in a stable article on the Dutch Wikipedia, so that isnt really controversial. Please reinstate your edits. Hornplease 22:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not. The Dutch wikipedia says "conservatief", which means conservative. This article also says conservative. --Bondego 11:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The quote is from an op/ed in Times of India, not from a news article.Bear in mind that the Times of India is so absurdly skewed towards the liberals that it might as well be called the New York Times of India ^_^.

Are we to list every left-wing journalist who attacks scholars? Pretty soon the Marxist propagandists will accuse Elst from everything from pedophilia and defenestration to being a "zionist" or something (that's what they usually wind up doing, everybody who points out their communist treachery is a "zionist"). That doesn't mean we need to put them here. There is no scholarly rebuttal of any of Elst's works, only politicized attacks from the communists (those lefties are becoming quite desperate since the total collapse of their "utopian" Soviet Union).Hkelkar 00:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sanjay Subramaniam isnt a leftwing journalist, he is a professor at UCLA. And your opinions about the TOI, while revealing, do not change the fact that, per WP:BLP, it is an acceptable source.Hornplease

Its merely some random person's opinion of Koenraad Elst. I guess B. Raman is a quotable on the 2006 Malegaon blasts now. This article op-ed column is merely apologizing for Islamic terrorism.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

On the Malegaon blasts page, I clearly said that we should avoid op-ed quotes because attempting to balance speculation would lead to bloat. In this case, his possible links to the Vlaams Blok are both relevant and come from a reliable source, and should be quoted. I never said that the Malegaon quote from Raman violated policy, merely that having that there alone would be unbalanced, and trying to balance it would lead to the sort of editwarring and bloat that we saw on the Gujarat riots page.

Once again, you mischaracaterise the article linked to. It does not apologise for terrorism, as far as I can see. It is, however a relevant source, and should be included. Hornplease 01:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The newspaper article is an op-ed, not even a news article. The journalist does not cite any references for this claim. This is only "speculative" information. Read WP:BLP, it says that Information found in newspapers should never be used, unless written by the subject. You're a member of Wikipedia:Living People Patrol, so you should be extra cautious about which sources you use in biographies of living persons. Unlike WP:RS, WP:BLP IS an official policy on the English Wikipedia. If there is really a connection to the Vlaams Blok, there must be a better source than an op-ed in an Indian newspaper (like a reputable Belgian newspaper or book). The Indian journalist doesn't give any references, he could just as well made it up, or written about a false rumour. I will not reinstate the edit, so I don't violate WP:BLP myself. If you think you can add something that suffices for WP:BLP, put it in the article. --Bondego 11:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that the person that you keep on referring to as "an Indian journalist" is a former Chair of Indian History at Oxford, and Director of Studies at France's apex social studies institute. There is no possibility he "made it up". This is one of India's leading academics' view, expressed in India's historical paper of record. That is sufficient to meet wp:rs, and wp:blp. It is also enough to indicate it is a notable facet of Elst's bio, and worthy of encylclopaedic inclusion.

You are wrong about wp:blp in your above note. Please read the policy again. Reputable newspapers are acceptable. It specifically says that derogatory information from obscure newpapers should not be used. The TOI is not, by any means, obscure, and the writer in question is not, by any means obscure. Further, there is a specific example on the page discussing the policy which uses the New York Times. Try not to make assertions so easily disproved. I hope you will read wp:blp again and reinstate the edit yourself. Hornplease 21:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

About all the deletions: come on, Daniel Pipes a "Middle East Scholar" ? You gonna stirr quite some laughs from real Middle East scholars... Anyway, Pipes is described in Wikipedia as a neoconservative, so I don't understand all the deletions here. Same goes for deletions about Zydenbos, which have been put back. Moreover, the section "Controversies" is not meant to be a blind apology of Elst, but rather an exposition of the... controversies. I am quite surprised about all the deletions committed by some people here. If you want to write an apology of Elst, then put in an appropriate section (although an apology would violate Wikipedia principles) instead of cancelling sentences you don't like; the deleted sentences are quotations, so there was no reason for these deletions.TwoHorned 21:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank Bondego dor reinstating the quote. Note, however, that I do not quite agree with the 'context' in which he has placed it; however, future editing will, I am sure, take care of that. Hornplease 23:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, apparently, everone is all-set for another round in this discussion page. I completely disagree with the deletions made on the article, in the "Controversies" section: there is absolutely no reason to delete the Zydenbos link, nor the information linked to it. Some people here are making partial and biased deletions and comments supposed to wash out Elst from his well established links with some milieux. So, the the right way to do is the following: you keep the "Controversies" section as it was before the deletions (that section is not defamatory, does not violate WBLP, and is properly referenced), and you write another section with the quotations you want to be substantiated. Also, please take into account that the "Controversies" section is not at all intended to display alleged and stupid accusations of links between hindus and fascism, but is devoted to display the controversies about Elst himself, and Elst only. Lastly, a kind note addressed at the person called Hkelkar: you'd better refrain yourself from deleting users' additions in the discussion page; you see, Wikipedia's article on Daniel Pipes put the word "neoconservative" in the first place, far before "Middle-East Scholar"... TwoHorned 07:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

By mentioning "neoconservative", his political leanings, instead of the details of his qualifications, you are making a false characterization of Pipes. His political beliefs are separate from his scholastic abilities.If you continue to violate WP:BLP in this manner and make the "neocon" anti-semitic canard (you actually mean "Jew", right?) against Pipes then it is grounds for reporting in BLP noticebaard.Hkelkar 12:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about ? Where did I link neo-cons to "anti-semitic" or "jew" in this discussion or article ? What kind of joke are you playing here ? Besides, Pipes is foremost a journalist, a lobbyist and political activist. He might be called as a "scholar" by some people, but this is debated and quite unrelated to this discussion on Elst. If you disagree with Wikepedia's article on Pipes, then go on there and propose your changes. TwoHorned 13:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The implicit characterization of Neoconservatives as "Jews" has anti-semitic connotations (see neoconservatism).Plus, do not make personal attacks in edit summaries or I will report you.Hkelkar 13:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Great. So please give any quotation of mine that substantiates your pathetic accusation: where did I say that neo-cons are jews ? I never talked about that. I'm not sure you are the one that is going to be reporting the first, given the stupid accusations you level in this page against me. TwoHorned 13:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Researcher'

Summary: One set of people want 'researcher', the other dont. Pro 'researcher': Dr. Elst has a PhD in Oriental studies, and self-identifies as a researcher. Anti 'researcher': Dr. Elst is not part of any professional research centre, and has no current affiliations with a university or other professional body.

Attempted solution: I tried "amateur researcher", which seemed to me to be acompromise, and that was struck down. Another suggestion, of 'journal contributor' was also struck down.

Current suggestion: The first para says "orientalist" with a link to that article, clearly suggesting that that his area of expertise. Does that suggest 'researcher' too much for some people? Not enough for others? Lets please discuss this without revert-warring. I've taken all mentions out of the paragraph for now.Hornplease 08:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Pls see Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. The meaning of research as per M-W is 1)careful or diligent search ;2) studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws ;3)3 : the collecting of information about a particular subject

And As per this link Elst : "His research on the ideological development of Hindu revivalism earned him his Ph.D. in Leuven in 1998."

SO this proves the word "researcher" is correct in this context. So user :Hornplease ,Pls undo your revert to include that reference.-Bharatveer 10:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is not the french wikipedia. In the English language, a researcher must not even have a Ph.D. One can be a researcher at a company, or an author who writes a novel about something can be a researcher. And this site by someone critical of Elst and opposed to his pov calls Elst a professional researcher [3]. Many wikipedia articles call people who don't even have a Ph.D. a researcher (like the articles on Robert Spencer, Ravi Baichwal, Bahram Bayzai, Bat Ye'or...) --Bondego 10:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, remember I dont really have an opinion on this one. However, since the people who were objecting to the word 'researcher' havent signed in since I put up that notice a few hours ago, let me play their advocate.

1. Bharatveer, the Brussels Journal link that you provided is not useful, because that is of a magazine to which he contributes, and insuch situations the little bio they put up is typically written by the author. So it does not add anything to our information, as we already know that Dr. Elst self-identifies as a researcher.
2. Bondego, I dont understand the point about the FRench WP. I do agree that research can be conducted by anyone. I do think, however, that the claim being made by most of those removing that description from the first paragraph was that although Dr Elst conducts research, the word 'researcher' in the public mind is typically associated with someone who is attached to a university or runs his own research group. Perhaps Spencer qualifies, in their mind, as a researcher because of the size of Jihadwatch. I personally believe that is incorrect, and I would like to see the 'researcher' tag removed there too if it is removed here. However, that is irrelevant, because on WP we must ignore precedents. If we decide here that 'researcher' is in appropriate, it is the work of a moment to remove it from the other pages. More to the point, is there an acceptable word that suggests simultaneously (1) Dr. Elst conducts research (2) it is not sponsored by a university or approved by a research group? Because that is what we need. Hornplease 22:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hornplease , why play an advocate when you are one of the interested parties here?You are assuming things of your own when you say that brussels website quotes Elst's word.

I suggest that we should go by the word meaning of the "researcher" rather than trying to bring each other's POV into this -Regards.-Bharatveer 04:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer, as I said above, I dont care what word is used in this context. Other parts of this article I may have an opinion about. I am not assuming anything about the Brussels Journal, merely noting that contributors to such things submit their own little writeups about themselves.

Please try and make a good-faith effort to reconcile your desires with the doubts raised by twohorned. Hornplease 07:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for answering late: the reason is that I've been war blocked by Hkelkar. Reading all the points here, I see the following possible answers:

1- Elst is of Belgium nationality. So why not stick to the use of the word "researcher" in that country, which is exactly the same as in France ?

2- If the word "researcher" has another, less rigorous, meaning in English, then may be we can use it. But I think that this point has to be substantiated by a professional researcher in the US. This shoudn't be hard to check.

3- I agree with Hornplease about the Brussels Journal bio; this is not very convincing, and, anyway, this is an electronic newspaper, not a research institution.

4- The link provided by Bondego does not describe Elst as a researcher... as opposed to Bondego 's claims... (just make a search on the mentionned page with the word "researcher" and you'll get nothing...

5- I still don't understand the reference to the "Angelfire" annotation in the description of R. Zydenbos' home page. The important matter here is the content of that page, not the host provider...

6- I would like to mention the rather singular (and quite pathological) behaviour of user Hkelkar against me in this discussion: I will put it in a separate pragraph in that discussion page, as it is quite interesting in itself, and I am preparing to ask Wikipedia mediation about it. TwoHorned 09:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, levelling baseless accusations against me is a great start to the dispute relolution process /sarcasm.

Hmmmm, based on the aggressive and rather repellent tone of this editor, I wonder if he isn;t the resurrected ghost of User:Robert Lindsay. He certainly seems to make the same kinds of accusations. The pot calls the kettle black, indeed. Hkelkar 11:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Baseless accusations ? Just let people read your contributions above and in my user talk page. I contest the removal of my edits in this discussion page, which contain no personnal attacks, but just facts. We are in the process of resolving this, and I put my paragraph backTwoHorned 11:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Angelfire is not a reliable source. Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Angelfire is not a source. It is a host provider. TwoHorned 16:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A public host provider. Not a reliable source as they will provide bandwidth to anyone with money.Not a university, journalistic or academic source.Hkelkar 17:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

And where on reliable source is written that a web page hosted by a public host provider is not an acceptable source ? That would remove quite a bunch of sources and links in Wikipedia pages... TwoHorned 17:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Read this carefully: WP:RS#Using_online_and_self-published_sources

1. Sources where there are multiple steps to publication, such as fact checking and editorial oversight, are generally more credible, all other things being equal, than those which are not.
2. Reliable sources have reproducible or verifiable means of gathering information. A fact which could be checked, even if it has not been, is generally more reliable than one which cannot be checked.
3. [Exceptions to this may be] when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously.

Regarding point #3, you have to provide peer-reviewed publis by the chap to verify that the angelfire statement is backed up.Hkelkar 17:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Point #3 applies quite well here, in Zydenbos case. He is a well acknowledged and recognized scholar in his field, with quite a bunch of accepted publications. He is a professor at the Institute for Indology at Munchen, Germany. He did not put his notes on Elst on his homepage probably, I presume, because everything about Elst is more related to politics than to science. TwoHorned 17:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Indology was never a science anyway. It's just a bunch of pseudo-scholastic mumbo-jumbo meant to provide a veneer of academic integrity but essentially a podium for racists to bash India and Indians.It's s sick disgusting abuse of academia and I am glad that people like Elst expose it for twhaat it is.Hkelkar 17:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

regarding Zydenbos, you have to cite his journals in order to establish his POV, putting a link to a dubious webpage doesn;t count. Don;t worry, I will check every citation you provide using my university library access :).Hkelkar 17:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Very impressive. That Indology is not a science (and) just just a bunch of pseudo-scholastic mumbo-jumbo is quite a revelation. Well, now it's time to check this brave statement by official specialists, as it is usually required by Wikipedia. That would also serve as a global evaluation of your other statements here and there... I am eagearly waiting the answers. TwoHorned 17:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Who decides that they are "official specialists"? Other Indologists. That's a classic chicken-and-egg argument.Indologists have all the dimensions and attributes of a cult.Hkelkar 17:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In this case, as in other sciences like physics or mathematics, official specialists are just academic researchers that have been recognized by other researchers and peers, as based by their accepted publications and works. They are appointed in academic or public research centres under a strict evaluation and concourse process. Yes it's like that in Indology and archeology, as it is in physics, a discipline in which official specialists are other physicists. TwoHorned 17:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "quackery" comes to mind when talking about Indology.They have no real fact-checking system other than citing each other. They do not follow the scientific method of inquiry. They do not base their assertions on observations but on armchair reasoning. Michael Witzel the grant poobah of the Indology field has not even set foot in India!If they are scientists then so is the janitor at Walmart.Hkelkar 17:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tell you, I'm not going to follow such a discussion. But you should enlight other people with your acute and quite novel perspectives on the subject to the Wikipedia article on Indology. TwoHorned 17:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, sir! There is a significant difference between Indology and Physics. In Physics, we have the scientific method of inquiry where we conduct experiments and base our theory on them. Our results are backed up by observable facts and phenomena. You don't need our word to know that Quantum Mechanics works, just see a supermarket laser, or your digital pocket watch, or the fact that bulk matter is impenetrable, or the fact that there are ferromagnets.You don't need our word to be assured that Classical Mechanics works, just see a rocket in flight, or try to stop a moving object.In Indology we have no objective way to verify the research of an Indologist other than the word of other Indologists. It is self-consistently fallcious.

Indology is just vague inferences and cultural buzzwords slapped together with a university stamp. It is junk science.Hkelkar 17:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Our results... Our word... Gosh ! I didn't expect such a confession so quickly... TwoHorned 18:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a physicist. What's to confess?Hkelkar 18:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, look at this: Indology#Criticisms_of_Indology_and_South_Asian_Studies. This would never happen in a hard science.Hkelkar 18:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That may be. I'm not here to make a defense of Indology. But please consider this: it is possible that Elst (and more generally modern reformist ideologies) views on India and Hinduism may be even more biased, false and "westernized" than "classical" Indology's standpoint. Examples abund to back that claim. TwoHorned 20:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? More "westernized" than claims made by Michael Witzel that Hindus are inferior (his own words) people and Muslim terrorists are within their rights to massacre them (paraphrasing his own words)? More westernized than that? I doubt it very much. Examples abund to back the claim that most "mainstream" indologists are little more than mini-Macauleys and latter-day Klansmen with the white robes replaced with professorial ones.Hkelkar 23:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

About the reversion made by user Bharatveer: as opposed to what is written in the edit summary, you did not edit any reason for your reversion, and in fact the only diff comes from Hkelkar ([4]) who is another user, supposedly. Moreover, in your rv, you suppressed stuff unrelated to the discussion about the use of the word researcher (see the diff: [5]).

The word "researcher" is supposed to mean a person who does "research" .It is already well explained and the reference cited. There was no suppression of facts in my edit summary.-Bharatveer 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there was the suppression of a fact unrelated to the discussion on researcher: the A. De Danaan reference in [6]. At least you could apologize. Moreover, the discussion on researcher in still going on and is not settled. TwoHorned 10:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are you deleting the reference then??-Bharatveer 11:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are you deleting it please ? I did not delete a reference I put myself... Please put it back. Thank you.TwoHorned 12:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please put it back dear Bharatveer. What you've done there can be considered as vandalism. Thanks. TwoHorned 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear user Bondego: of course the word researcher is not controversial. But the problem here is not about controversiality but about accuracy. TwoHorned 16:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert Spencer, Ravi Baichwal, Bahram Bayzai, Chip Berlet and Bat Ye'or are just some articles where the word researcher is used for people without even a Ph.D. Please realize that the word has a different meaning in English. See the definition from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary above. Researcher is no big deal. Almost any author can be called one. --Bondego 20:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but we go round a circle here: please refer to the point 1 above, and to the objections raised by Hornplease. You know, in Europe (and Elst is Belgian) researcher is a title: nobody would call the Walmart's janitor a researcher here. Well, we're happy enough Wallmart is not here yet. TwoHorned 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the European Union. Koenraad Elst is much too educated to be a janitor at Walmart, the arguments you bring up are irrelevant.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is not. But it is'nt the US neither, nor any particular country. Asserting that people like Elst are researchers appears to be a fallacy in whole Europe. This is why I proposed point 1 above. Science is universal you see, this is why it needs precise and accurate terminology. The janitor metaphor is here to paraphrase Hkelkar own words a few lines above (I personnally have nothing against janitors). Please consider the benefits of such attitude: you wouldn't accept a Walmart janitor be called a specialist in Hinduism, would you ? You wouldn't accept a Walmart janitor be called a specialist of cold atoms would you ? (unless he discovered something important in that domain and published it). But the important point is that your agument is missing the whole discussion here, which is revolving about the points numbered above and Hornplease edits. Please stick to the subject, and take into consideration all the benefits for Wikipedia to follow scientific consensus. TwoHorned 07:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Doublehorned, We all know that Science is universal.The word "Researcher" is used here as per the reference cited earlier and also as per the Dictionary meaning of the word. If you still insist it is a fallacy, then its your problem.Bharatveer 08:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Bharatveer 08:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not my problem at all. But the origin of all this discussion is precisely about a semantic discrepancy and the warranty of being protected against fallacies. What references are you talking about ? TwoHorned 08:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added the reference and dont delete it again .-Bharatveer 08:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That reference is precisely the one that has been contested not only by me, but by a third party. TwoHorned 08:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is as far as I know the English language wikipedia. So we write the article in English, with English words, and with English meanings. If you want to use Belgian words and Belgian meanings, than edit that wikipedia. You could as well say that the entire article should be written in French. There's a special language wikipedia for this, where French words and French language conventions can, no must be used. --Bondego 10:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Twohorned, Hornplease is NOT a third party. On another note "horn" seems to be a connection between the violators of BLP. There are no third parties on the page, theres only a first and a second.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean: "connection between the violators..." What is this ? What note are you talking about ? TwoHorned 16:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Nvm. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Try to avoid unsubstantiated allegations please. Or try to be brave. Your choice. TwoHorned 10:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying a user is not a third party is not an allegation. Even Hornplease would not say he is a 3rd party (though he doesnt seem so eager to discuss/argue).Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De Danaan ref

Who is Alexandre de Danaan? Searching for his name turns up new-age related stuff about Graals and Templars. Maybe we can just say that Elst is disliked by New Age writers like Danaan and posthumously by Guenon?--Bondego 15:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all: Danaan never wrote he disliked Elst. The quoted reference is about some facts related to the emergence of Indian nationalism. Danaan is not a new ager either. Please take note that a Google search may not give you all existing documentary information. If it was so, research work would be quite simplificated. As you see, not everyone can apply to the title researcher. TwoHorned 16:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, user Bondego still has not answered my interrogation on the above discussion about "researcher". User Bondego provided us with a link which was supposed to be seriously enough and to qualify Elst as a researcher. But the mentionned page does not mention Elst as a researcher: just make a search on the mentionned page with the word "researcher" and you'll get nothing... TwoHorned 16:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against New Agers, but it might not be a reliable source?. Why don't you write an article on Mr. Danaan? Yes, I made a mistake there, the website calls him a professionally-trained scholar, not a researcher, on one of the sites. --Bondego 20:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm pretty sure you have nothing against new agers, Elst himself has declared his interest into new age and neo-paganism (see [7], we have so beautiful forests in Europe, if only you could see what's happening in there...). But, once again, you miss the point: De Danaan has nothing to do with new age stuff. And also, there is another problem with your website: the page you gave above never calls Elst a professionally-trained scholar. But may be this title is conferred to him inside one of the many pages of that site. In that case, I'm sure you will quickly give us the correct link. Dear Bondego, I'd be pleased you'd accept my best wishes. TwoHorned 21:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP and the related pages. These are important pages. And look at the website on the page where they list the books of the AMT debate (not the links). It is there. (Or ask Google.) --Bondego 11:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link that backs up my claim dear user Bondego (I graciously repost it here: [8]). Thanks to your requests, I am providing more and more elements that impartially help understand Elst in his very own framework. I appreciate very much your efforts in helping us describing Elst as really as he is. Best wishes. TwoHorned 12:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About above issues

Since it is time now to calm down this war-editing and war-blocking arena, I agree to leave the word "researcher" in the article, although the "consensus" referred to by Hkelkar is quite debatable, for obvious reasons pretty well visible for anyone who reads carefully the preceding paragraphs. After all, if the word "researcher" has no definite meaning in English, we can keep it. And the link provided in the article to assess such status speaks by itself. I've also replaced the De Danaan reference by a more accessible one. TwoHorned 09:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer please watch your reversions: the new age item is given a reference and you deleted an updated reference on Coomaraswamy. Thanks. TwoHorned 17:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No I think myself, Bondego, Hkelkar, and Bharatveer are more than enough against only you and Hornplease (who is inactive).Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't go into personnal attacks. Just stick to facts and references. Wikipedia is not a forum nor propaganda. TwoHorned 18:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

how are these personal attacks? Hornplease is inactive and you are totally outnumbered (even though you're trying to mob it with the Muslim Guild). Go ahead and actually read WP:NPA and stop fantasizing about socks and "personal attacks". Also you may check Aesop's take on this.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Calm down Bakaman. A barking wolf does not impress me, believe me. I'm not related to the Muslim Guild. I'm just speaking of this article and the Coomaraswamy reference you deleted. You know, Ananda Coomaraswamy... You should read him. He is Hindu. I mean, a real Hindu. He will make you more relaxed and more... learned. TwoHorned 21:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Coomaraswamy died 12 years before Elst was born, there's no point to his work. I never deleted any reference unless you think I am related to Bharatveer. But that wouldn't be the first spurious accusation you made about sockpuppetry would it? Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you guys refer through a common voice ? I don't care about you making sockpuppetry or not. Of course Coomaraswamy died 12 years before Elst but the reference is not about Elst but about Indian nationalism notions. Hatred makes you blind, buddy. TwoHorned 21:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Cswamy died before India became independent. What does he know about Hindu nationalism? And its also not up to some European in front of a computer to decide who is a Hindu or not.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Waow. My tonite jewel kept for the record. TwoHorned 21:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's two things misdefined by you. Hindu and researcher. You seem to care very much about Hkelkar though [9] , [10]. I'm sorry that I <sarcasm> "obviously have no idea what Hinduism is "</sarcasm>. I'm guessing the "right kind of Hindu orthodoxy" is Prithviraj Chauhan rather than Shivaji, Guru Gobind Singh, or Lachit Borphukan.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's my right and freedom of speech to talk to user BhaiSaab or to anyone else. It's just about freedom. TwoHorned 22:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And about Coomaraswamy, now you delete it, as opposed to your dithyrambic denegation a few lines above. And yes, Coomaraswamy died before India became independent. In 1947. That's fore sure, before 1948 there was no nationalist movement in India... Try to keep on Hindutva. Hinduism, history and mere logic are not your cup of tea. TwoHorned 23:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not up to some random person in front of a computer to decide what my cup of tea is. Especially from users that have not made substantial contributions to the encyclopedia and are trigger happy with wiki-lawyering terms. You're right about logic though, because Wikipedia is not about logic its about verifiability, else User:Shiva's Trident with his venn diagrams would rule wiki. There is absolutely no connection between ACoom. and Elst.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is no connection between Coom. and Elst, for the least should we say. Again: try to calm down and read. We are speaking about the context of the rise of nationalism in India. Coomaraswamy. has written about a quite different notion of nationalism as yours. Not the way you like it, of course, but who cares ? Also, you should not overload Wikipedia with your hatred here and there. Just take a cup of tea and relax. Buddy. Relax. Calm down now. TwoHorned 00:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hear that echo? You obviously copied the same cookie-cutter message and para because you were too lazy to contradict my response.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coom

Ananda Coomaraswamy (known as "Coom") has absolutely no relation to Elst. Coom died in 47, Elst was born in 59, and India gained independence in 47. At best he was a great philosopher at worst a historian. He wrote on the beginnings of Buddhism, not the goings on of India. Linking to his works makes absolutely no sense.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course he has no relation with Elst. Elst speaks of him though and about what ? About nationalism in India buddy ! You should note expose your ignorance so openly. However the quotation is not meant a connection between Elst and Coomaraswamy, see above: try to calm down and read. We are speaking about the context of the rise of nationalism in India. Coomaraswamy. has written about a quite different notion of nationalism as yours. Not the way you like it, of course, but who cares ? Also, you should not overload Wikipedia with your hatred here and there. Just take a cup of tea and relax. Buddy. Relax. Calm down now. TwoHorned 00:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm...Coom hasn't been a great influence on Elst. He's somewhere between Gandhi and Sita Ram (Goel). You're starting to sound more and more like Hornplease, who always had the tendency of talking down at users. Cite actual works by Coom that deal with nationalism. Coom is recognized for his writings on Hindu philosophy, the Vedas, and Eastern Philosophy, not nationalism (he didnt even live in India). Overload wiki with my hatred? What are you insinuating? Btw, I have a policy of removing vandalism from my talk page, so dont paste cookie cutter warnings there, take your time to write one or two sentences about your concerns. I'm assuming good faith that you can express yourself in a normal manner instead of brainlessly copying warnings you know I will never read or care about. Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The cutting occured when you put that stuff in another paragraph. Cut and paste is not forbidden in the standard process of editing in computer science. Since you're suspecting sockpuppetry just write an RfC about it instead of growning about it in each and every talk page. As per your talk page, I'm just using the normal process. And per your request on the references, you should note that I put even the page number in the last one. As opposed to you, you never give any reference for backing your reversions. Anyway we are gearing towards arbitration given your last ... bright interventions. TwoHorned 01:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont suspect any sockpuppetry. I know that Hornplease is inactive, and I know perfectly well why he is inactive. I also know he played by the rules, and wasnt out to get people. Generally socks dont sound anything like their parent account, (see User:JBakaka, User:Ashibaka, etc.). I know you're not a sock, I find the mannerisms and content views of yours to be similar.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Reply - De Naan is not a reference? The reference in question is not even a reference, its more fit to be in the se also or "related pages" section.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's a reference, it was put by me in the first place, not by you ! TwoHorned 09:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I never removed it did IBakaman _Bakatalk 15:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

Personal attack removed per WP:NPA. See earlier version (here) for the text.Hkelkar 11:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

I'm trying again to make that the article here respects WP:BLP, and have made these changes:

• The Angelfire homepage, even if written by an academic, is not a published source, and is a clear violation of WP:BLP. It must be checked if Zydenbos has published the same allegations somewhere. Until then it has to be removed.
• Forum posts cannot be used as sources in WP:BLP articles. The forum source was replaced with a better and equivalent source.
• Further on the New Age theme, he also has stated that the pagans of Europe look to Hinduism for guidance.^[1] This is just not notable for a biography.
• On the ideological side, K. Elst's interest into modern Indian nationalism make his works, referred authors and developments take place in the general framework of nationalist and reformist ideologies that appeared in India in the late 19th century and in the beginning of the 20th century.^[2][3]
  • This paragraph is also problematic. I leave it in the article for the moment.

--Bondego 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

TwoHorned, you are really testing the limits of the Section 230 of the United States Communications Decency Act? I've seen other BLP articles on wikipedia, where even critical external links were removed, but I won't go so far.

Editors who are members of the BLP project, and regularly and often clean up other BLP articles for pov, should also treat articles about people they don't like the same way. --Bondego 19:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note WP:LEGAL. Also note that self-published sources are valid as sources of information that "X said this." It is unlikely that Zydenbos will bother to actually publish anything about Elst because Elst is negligible academically. Hornplease 00:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That policy does not apply here. Merely crying wolf (or in your case WP:LEGAL) without an intelligent reason for doing so indicates a fair bit of wikilawyering. The fact that TwoHorned was trying to defame Elst has seemed to have slipped past your eyes. A lot of the fluff and nonsense was finally removed by Bondego.Bakaman 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a clear implication of legal process, which is strongly discouraged. Please read the policy; this was not a 'polite complaint', but a clear suggestion that the law was being 'tested'.

That TwoHorned was trying to defame Elst is arguable. The link to a well-known professor's self-published homepage is not obviously defamatory. Hornplease 09:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Response - Using unreliable sources (ex. an angelfire site, I can make one and call myself "eminent scholar") violates WP:BLP#Reliable_sources. The argument I make is the same argument you used at YS Reddy. Refrain from blatant hypocrisy, do pick a standard and stay with it.Bakaman 17:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Try to be mature in a discussion, please. If the parallel escapes you, try harder to understand it. Zydenbos is an acknowledged authority in Indology, a tenured academic who specialises in Indic studies, which neither you (nor indeed Elst) are. You could claim that there is no way of knowing whether the webpage is indeed his, which would be a laughable yet at least consistent reply. I do not need you to explain reliability to me.

If the difference between a discussion of foreign-language sources on a notable academic's homepage and an attack piece from an extremist website is not clearly visible to you, then the least you can do is to not call those who can discern the difference, hypocritical. Hornplease 10:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The site is still unreliable. It seems the point may have escaped you while you were busy belittling me (a practice that proved unfruitful at arbcom). Seems you do need me to explain it to you, since you love to violate WP:BLP with persons you show obvious disdain for. Perhaps the time you take to engage in harrassment, vandalism, and insulting may be better spent reading up on WP:BLP, WP:LEGAL and WP:RS as it seems your interpretations of poicy are blatantly incorrect.Bakaman 17:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You have not made a single positive contribution to this page. If you do not intend to, I am sure Hindutva is being attacked by dastardly Muslims or Marxists somewhere else. Bakaman is needed elsewhere! If you do have something to contribute, I suggest you do so, instead of making assertions of the puerile nature of the above. Positive contributions is why we most of us are here.Hornplease 08:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I could say the same thing about your work on Hinduism related articles, and about your actions on arbcom. Anybody that attacks people having a positive relationship with Hinduism/Hindus seems to become a respected scholar/academic/eminent historian in your books. Coming from a user adept at pov-pushing, I find your definition (as opposed to those of real contributors) of edits to be clouded. Perhaps your inability to respond to these factual assertions gives you reason to fret? Please do tell what you have added to this page? Your presence has had a minimal effect on the quality of this article, rather Bondego, Shiva's Trident, Bharatveer, and even TwoHorned seem to be the major contributors. The pot shouldn't be calling the kettle black.Bakaman 01:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In no way was my comment intented to be wikilawerying. It was meant ironically, and was a reference to WP:BLP. I copied the sentence from the BLP warning to TwoHorned. I apologize if it was misrepresented. Editors who are members of the BLP project, and regularly and often clean up other BLP articles for pov, should also treat articles about people they don't like the same way. There were published negative critiques about Elst, and these should be used, not the unpublished ones. --Bondego 09:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hornplease, I'm not opposed to use the word in the introduction. It does however not belong to the first sentence.Look at Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, Oriana Fallaci and others. --Bondego 10:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to move on from the lega stuff to the specific suggestion. The number of published critiques of Elst is minimal, as he is something of a marginal figure. The article thus has an unbalanced tone given that it relies too heavily on his own pronouncements about his work. Can you point me to other critiques? Hornplease 09:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Some critiques I found are:

• Meera Nanda: "Dharmic ecology and the neo-Pagan international: the dangers of religious environmentalism in India", presented at panel no. 15 at the 18th European Conference on Modern South Asian Studies, 6-9 July 2004 in Lund, Sweden.
• Savitri Devi Mukherji: Le National-Socialisme et la Tradition Indienne, with contributions by Vittorio de Cecco, Claudio Mutti and Christian Bouchet, published in the series Cahiers de la Radicalité by Avatar-éditions, Paris/Dublin 2004.
• The papers by Michael Witzel and Hans Hock in Edwin Bryant and Laurie L. Patton (editors) (2005). Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History.
• Review by S.W. Jamison of Bryant, Edward F. & Laurie L. Patton (2006). The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History (2005), JIES Vol. 34: 255-261.
• The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture By Edwin Bryant. Oxford University Press
• The Indo-Aryan Languages By Dhanesh Jain, George Cardona. Routledge
• T. Hansen and A. Nandy: Some scholars like Thomas Blom Hansen and Ashis Nandy have been dismissive of your work. They would, wouldn’t they? If I am right then they are wrong, so their prestige may stand or fall with the elimination of my position from the debate. [11]
• Sita's Kitchen: A Testimony of Faith and Inquiry By Ramchandra Gandhi
• Alexandre's "Bo Yin Ra, de la Taychou Marou au Grand Orient de Patmos"

Elst has replied to some of these critiques here: [12], [13], [14] But all of these are better than TwoHorned's link. --Bondego 13:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your link. TwoHorned's link, while problematic, serves the important function of placing Elst within the context of the neo-paganist extreme right in Belgium. None of the above discuss that aspect of Elst's career, which is largely in languages we don't know, but Zydenbos does.

In general, your suggestions are useful; however, unsurprisingly, Savitri Devi is not really an academic source. Meera Nanda, while sensible, is relatively new to the field; I have not seen her new book. (Elst's 'reply', which consists mainly of a polemic accusing Nanda of Marxism and denying any links between neopaganism and Hinduism, is to an unpublished paper, not a book.)

Ashis Nandy: I would love to see something actually by him about Elst, as Nandy is far from being a hardline secularist; but Nandy has not, as far as I know, actually written anything about him, merely been dismissive about Elst in discussions, which is what the interviewer referred to. I fancy the same applies to Tom Hansen.

The remaining books, mostly on the Migration theory vs OIT, have been discussed on the OIT page; I do not think they discuss Elst specifically enough to be quoted. Is there any record of that?

There's always our Michael, but I hope we can find an alternative to Witzel. He's a magnet for angry POV-pushers. Hornplease 10:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant of course they are better sources because they are published, a requirement for BLP (with the exceptions of Nandy and Thomas that you have shown). All of these sources include a critique of a part of Elst's work, which an Internet search will show. The Savitri Devi book was not written by Savitri Devi, it is not a well known source, like TwoHorned's "Bo Yin Ra" book by Alexandre, but could maybe be used. --Bondego 14:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zydenbos' link

Finally, I've been told that referring to the personnal homepage of an academic about a subject he knows is not a problem at all. Consequently, Zydenbos link is put back and I hope the discussion will be closed on this. TwoHorned 18:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, about Bondego's insertions in the last paragraph, I think there is a misunderstanding here: by mentionning Zydenbos page, I do not mean to back any claim about alleged links between Hinduism and the far-right; such claims are completely ridiculous, false, and inconsistent. I was just mentionning something about Elst himself, with no intention to make any connection with Hinduism. As a matter of fact, I never considered Elst to be an authority on Hinduism (and the same for Savitri Devi: this woman is absolutely not an authority on Hinduism either, so using her or Elst in trying to establish such connections denotes a malevolent intention ). So Bondego list above is, to my opinion, not related to the discussion we may have about Elst. Thank you. TwoHorned 21:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What you didn't reveal to Raul is that the whole thing is taking place on a WP:BLP article. Raul doesn't know that. Even if you would find a dozen admins that would agree with you, it does not matter as long as the WP:BLP official policy stays the same. --Bondego 13:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

“

Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject

”

. If Zydenbos didnt publish it, it doesnt belong in the article. What one wikipedian says about it is irrelevant when policy is stringent on it. Infact Raul did not seem amazingly confident it would be "ok". Also judging by the polemical hatred zydenbos showed toward Rajaram, it seems he's not as "great" as some people make him out to be. It seems he's displayed some indophobia before.Bakaman 01:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Zydenbos Indophobic ? Really, Baka, are you feeling well ? TwoHorned 11:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)