Talk:P. N. Oak

reverts

I reverted dab's "deeper rv" for a number of reasons, which will be discussed here:

1. Dab removed a source (Garg 226) that sourced the assertion that Oak's theories were largely dismissed in academic circles.
2. Dab reinstated the falsehood that Oak was referenced in "passing as an eccentric in academic literature on the Hindutva wing of Hindu Nationalism"Bryant does not call him Hindutva per se, but Indocentric. Aravamudan makes a small link to Hindutva, but more prominently links him to a strand of non-Indians who did the exact same "punning".
3. Dab removed a link to criticism from Giles Tillotson, who is an expert on the Taj Mahal and South Asian archaeology and replaced it with an art historian. On this I will reinstate the opinion of Dr. Brown, as it is a quite clever characterization of Oak's "work".
4. Faisal Kutty has absolutely no credentials academically. Nor is there really even a cite for his trash.
5. He removed a link to the Supreme Court case.
6. He also added some random non-wikilink, non-external link names to the "see also" section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pectore (talk • contribs)

please sign your posts. I reverted to what I considered the last reasonable version before the introduction of various weasling and hand-waving passages. Your "Garg 226" is a gratuitous reference placed in mid sentence. It is undisputed that nobody takes PNO's "theories" seriously, as is made amply clear in the article, there is no need for such random footnotes.

The passages I removed appeared to suggest tht PNO's theories are taken seriously by anyone sane. The paragraph introduction of "Oak's theories continue to be ridiculed by some on the left" alone is unacceptable, suggesting that rejection of this sort of nonsense is in any way depending on political orientation. We can certainly re-introduce the Tillotson quote. Just avoid the blanket reverts. The article deteriorated and I reset it to the version of 1 May. If there are bits and pieces you argue do have merit, try to insert these instead of blanket reverting. If Oak has any notability at all, it is because he was taken seriously in at least part of the Hindu nationalist movement. Apart from that, it would be difficult to explain why we even carry an article about him. I included Kutty as commenting on the political side, not as a "scholar". No further "scholars" are needed to establish that these "theories" are bunk. What we need instead is commentary on the role of Oak in revisionist Hindutva propaganda during the early 2000s. --dab (𒁳) 13:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not lecture me on "reverting". As soon as I reverted I posted (as I usually do) on the talk page a full justification of the revert (as opposed to your detailed "deeper rv" and later the " " revert).

The "random footnote" of sorts was only a mechanism to prevent Indocentric trolls from coming in and asking for sources of that statement. As such, we might as well prevent them from asking the question in the first place, if they aren't willing to think logically. As you put it: "have fun with the patriots trying to shoot down every word that is not taken verbatim from the source quoted". I am merely preemptively striking against "patriots" of sorts.

Also, Oak's theories are notable as Indocentric theories, not necessarily as "Hindutva theories". Logically, if "Krishnaneeti" (this one makes me chuckle) and "Ishalayam" were truly what Oak says they were, then the Hindutva movement would lose much of its ideological lustre.

Kutty, has absolutely no place in the article. Adding an Islamist to comment (that too from a blog) on an Indocentrist is not the NPOV we wikipedians strive for.

Oak in the "Hindutva" sense is marginally tied to Frawley, but his notability nearly only comes from Hindutva and Islamist blogs (which unfortunately do not measure up to reliable sources). The BJP may have "rewrote history", but even they used people with actual qualifications rather than conspiracy theorists.

I believe we are on the same page about Oak for the most part, just a few discrepancies here and there.Pectore^talk 20:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

POV and what is his - Also!

This sentence is not only poorly written, it also has what seems to be someone's POV - (but it was truly wrong)? is this a quote from a ref listed only as - Gopal 195 ?

sentence as written:

His also claims Muhammad was born to a hindu family but it was truly wrong, among other largely rejected claims

suggest:

He also claimed Muhammad was born to a hindu family.

This portion:

but it was truly wrong, among other largely rejected claims

The above part of the sentence is missing a comma before - but- and seems to be a POV - and -Gopal - what?

suggest:

He also claimed Muhammad was born to a hindu family, but both claims are largely rejected. - adding a complete understandable ref. - i.e. - Gopal (the name of Gopal's work/what he says on page 195 - Atmamatma (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

of course. Please just fix it, there is hardly need to seek consensus for things as obvious as this. --dab (𒁳) 11:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sayar ul-Okul

I have been trying to pinpoint the origin of this "Sayar ul-Okul" once again. The story given by Oak is, of course, pure bs. But it is rather better constructed bs than usual, and I do think there could be a real work behind this, with its title garbled. Some places on the web[1] have surprising detail, as in

In Istanbul in Turkey, there is a famous library called Makteb-e-Sultania which is reputed to have the largest collection of ancient West Asian literature. In the Arabic Section of that library is an anthology of ancient Arabic poetry. That anthology was compiled from an earlier work in A.D. 1742 under the orders of the Turkish ruler Sultan Salim. The 'pages' of that volume are made of HAREER - a kind of silk used for writing on. Each page has a decorative gilded border. ... The anthology itself is known as SAYAR-UL-OKUL. It is divided into three parts, the first part contains biographic details and the poetic compositions of pre-Islamic Arabian poets. The second part embodies accounts and verses of poets of the period beginning just after Prophet Mohammad up to the end of Banee- Ummayya dynasty. The third part deals with later poets up to the end of Khalifa Harun-al-Rashid's times. ... Abu Amir Abdul Asamai, a distinguished Arabian bard who was the Poet Laureate of Harun-al-Rashid's court has compiled and edited the anthology. The first modern edition of Sayar-ul-Okul anthology was printed and published in Berlin in A.D. 1864. A subsequent edition was published in Beirut in A.D. 1932. This work is regarded as the most important and authoritative anthology of ancient Arabic poetry. It throws considerable light on the social life, customs, manners and entertainment forms in ancient Arabia. The book also contains an elaborate description of the ancient Mecca shrine, the town and the annual fair known as OKAJ which used to be held there every year.

how can a work of such tremendous importance have sunk without a trace, remembered only in the Hindutva/anti-Islamic blogosphere? The only historical person here is Harun al-Rashid (d. 809). The "distinguished Arabian bard" Asamai is apparently also known to Hindutvavadis exclusively. The "Sultan Salim" may of course be any of the three Sultans who went by that name, but none of them was alive in 1742. The title 'Sayar ul-Okul' may be genuine, perhaps sayr al-`aqūl, which would mean something like "beginning of reason", which sounds more like a scientific primer than a poetic anthology. I do find similar titles, such as madārik al-`aqūl [2] "results of the utmost effort of human reason", or Sirag al-Aqul[3], a commentary on the Pentateuch. The mysterious Sayar ul-Okul is also suspiciously similar to Dayr al-`Aqul, the site of an Abbasid battle, but it is unclear why Oak would pick this. Perhaps he just dreamed it up and there is no explanation, but I am intrigued how this is "good fantasy" quite in contrast with most of the other stuff from this corner of ideological revisionism (good fantasy has depth. I especially love the "Berlin 1864" and "Beirut 1932" references). --dab (𒁳) 11:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The explanation for how it is in present in more detail on some websites is simply that they are quoting Oak's original in more detail. :-) Most of Oak's writing is similarly detailed and full of "facts". Other websites quote from news reports or recycle the same hearsay, it's not "remembered in the Hindutva/anti-Islamic blogosphere" as you say. P N Oak was not a "Sangh historian", despite N Ram's and the rest of the Indian Left's practice of branding everyone they're suspicious of as "Hindutva". He was dubbed by the Sangh as an "elitist" (and possibly worse, an "intellectual") and roundly ignored (see e.g. "An Indian Muslim", or "The lone fighter" by an admirer), except in recent years with the rise of the internet, where random bloggers keep rediscovering him. Shreevatsa (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, I should have said he is being "rediscovered" by the Bharat-pride, down-with-Islam blogger crowd. If this is an example of the density of his invented history, his books must be an entertaining read. "edited in Berlin 1864, then in Beirut 1932" sounds exactly right for a classic Arabic text, and I took this at face value at first and spent some time looking for these editions before I realized it was simply made up. This guy should have written novels of historical fiction. But I still wonder whether there is an actual text known as sayr al-`aqūl. --dab (𒁳) 14:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually dab Mahamadda Payagambhira spent time learning Krishnaneeti from Ishwaralaya (Israel). That is quite obviously where the script came from.Pectore^talk 15:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Re recent reverts

This isn't really up for discussion. Oak's theories are so full of crackpottery that any attempts to push them will, per WP:REDFLAG, need some truly exceptional sources. Moreschi (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This article basically only needs to discuss two things. a) The content of Oak's more famous theories, and b) Its wide acclaim and unanimous acceptance within the scholarly community.Pectore^talk 16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And again. Could we please have some attempt at neutrality, not hagiography. Moreschi (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I was being facetious. I'm well aware of Oak's work, and the reviews of it. Lighten up a bit, we are only dealing with trolls here.Pectore^talk 18:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I know! That comment was towards the most recent Oak fanboy, lest anyone accuse me in the future of "using rollback in a content dispute without using the talkpage, yada yada yada"...Moreschi (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The article shouldn't dwell on debunking the content of Oak's stuff. That would be like emphasizing that "Krusty is not taken seriously as a historical character in mainstream academic circles" in the lead to the Krusty the Clown article. Oak is taken seriously as an ideological force among the Indian religious right. Just like "Intelligent Design" in the USA isn't taken seriously as a scholarly hypothesis, but is taken very seriously as a political issue demonstrating the power of the religious right. --dab (𒁳) 08:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Kaba

Maybe what its been said here is right...but the fact is that the Kaba still hasa a Sun Sign inside the temple.Meaning a temple belonging to the Suryavansha or people of the sun clan. So PN OAKS claim can certainly cannot be ignored. It is very true that Vikramaditya ruled from Meera Ahuwalia to Balkan regions for 10000 years, until the Shaka king Shalivahana killed him at the age of 3 as per the prophecy of Shiva(Voice from the skies). After years of pious rule over that region, the people of arabic region sunk into terror as Persians from Iran and Turkey formed sultanic tribes and attacked arabic regions, south east asia regions. And if you see PN Oaks intentions are only to show that KABA was a place celebrated for spiritual discussion from all regions, initiated by Vikramaditya to unite all mankind under one roof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.164.219.100 (talk • contribs)