Talk:P. N. Oak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India / Maharashtra / Politics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 
WikiProject Hinduism / Swaminarayan / Shaktism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

reverts[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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.Pectoretalk 20:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

POV and what is his - Also![edit]

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[1]

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[edit]

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.Pectoretalk 15:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Re recent reverts[edit]

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.Pectoretalk 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.Pectoretalk 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

Oak's theories are considered baseless and offend the Abrahamic religion devotees, Oak himself was and will likely always be inseparable from the term crackpot. Oak's critics go out of their way to attacks his character. That's all a rational person needs to know... All the ingredients worthy of further pursuit. Radical theories, yes. Crackpot? Define crackpot. Oak's critics rarely - if ever - seriously investigated his evidence. Not saying he was right, and I personally don't know anything about his Vatican claims. But in regards to Taj Mahal, his evidence is real. It's real evidence that nobody seems to care about it. Instead, again, they get offended and attack his character. That's a clue. Because truth is not something that a concensus or majority opinion determines, no matter how well educated they may be. For example, a religious scholar is more than likely to be religious and therefore biased and confined to a box. They are unlikely to look outside this box and their research will suffer. The Taj Mahal is a refurbished and relocated likely Hindu structure. People can call Oak a crackpot all they want. It does not change the fact that Shah Jahan's surviving writing says this exact thing.
Jewish and Hindu/Vedic researchers have written much about the Kaaba for centuries. Even Islam itself admits the structure was pre-existing and full of idols. The black stone is said by some Jewish scholars to be the one mentioned in the Hebrew bible. It is too religiously sensitive for mainstream historians. So how can Oak be a crackpot when his theories have substance and are not baseless? Because the majority of the people on planet Earth see the world through a biased religious veil. Such perceptions are impossible to change. In other words, the crackpots are the ones calling Oak a crackpot. Again, not saying Oak was right but he did provide evidence, the evidence is worthy of further research, he was on to something, and nobody is researching it. If the majority of people, especially the more elite variety, are offended by a claim, that claim is likely closer to the truth. When they spend enormous amount of energy criticizing the person, their character, their credentials, their personal life, etc. without seriously examining the proof of their claims, again the claims are likely closer to the truth. This is common sense for anybody who is irreligious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.99.27 (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Oak was rejected by literally everyone (i.e. all real academics) other than his fellow wingnut travelers of the extreme far right Hindutva movement that is on par with comparative Eurocentric and Afrocentric wingnut claims. Much of this included Oak making up claims out of whole cloth, there is no definitive evidence this legendary Indian King Vikramaditya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram%C4%81ditya actually existed much less that he somehow unbeknownst to every historian (other than this widely termed crackpot Oak) allegedly somehow traveled from India to the Arabian Peninsula in the 1st century CE. Oak's outlandish claims often involved him promoting giant conspiracy theories claiming the reason his "theories" were rejected was because of a giant apparently Liberal-Marxist-Christian-Muslim conspiracy against him (and his supposedly "persecuted" extreme right wing, radical Indocentrist Hindutva followers). I mean Oak claimed all the completely documented evidence of Shah Jahan constructing the Taj Mahal was allegedly one huge, giantic hoax throughout the ages to claim the site was built by a Muslim ruler and not by Hindus. To make a claim of a conspiracy like this regarding the Taj Mahal (in addition to his others claim) is comparable in my mind to the ludicrousness of other extreme wingnut conspiracy theorists (like say the "no plane" nutters on 9/11).Historylover4 (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't proved wrong, not even once. Then second thing is that, taj mahal was itself re-discovered by the British, and those lawns are actually made by them.Capitals00 (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the current planting pattern in the gardens is essentially English in style. And this is relevant how? Paul B (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Add sources[edit]

While this person seems to be a crackpot, will somebody source links where factual counterpoints to his arguments are there? In academic response section, e.g "Aravamudan (2005) calls him a "mythistorian"", "Edwin Bryant writes that most academics would consider him a 'crackpot'.[3] Giles Tillotson describes his work as a "startling piece of pseudo-scholarship".[10] While Oak's theories have been summarily rejected in academia" tell us the "opinion" of academics but there needs to be discussion of actual merit of "evidence" of both P.N oak and other academics for this article to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.246.230 (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Academics don't comment on things without proof - they've read his works and all the evidence seems to be against Oak. I mean all he does is make a claim based on the name alone, and voila it's origins are Hindu. Maybe he should have been an etymologist. No. He would've been even more terrible. He most likely would have come up with something like "bottle" has the origin of "bot-tle" - therefore it refers to robots or some sort of networking. Thus it's origin lies in robot. This is literally all he does, it's so hilarious. He does the same thing with Christianity which is Chrisn-nity, Taj Mahal which is the Taj Mahalalo. This is so blindingly insulting to anyone who has one iota of a brain cell. His claims cannot be taken seriously as no evidence exists for them. Numpty9991 (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC) - block evading sock puppet of Dalai Lama Ding Dong Beta Jones Mercury (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Issues with this article: Edwin Bryant, unsupported claims, NPOV[edit]

Edwin Bryant is not a good source for wikipedia, because his theory and cited book is not widely accepted, and is fringe.

Bryant argues the case that there may not have been migration of human beings from outside India into India, in human history. See, for example, note 285 by Bryant, of his cited book (ISBN 9780195137774), which claims, "As, I hope, the arguments in the preceding chapters have demonstrated, [...] that the Aryan migration theory is not supported by the available data." This conjecture is equivalent to "earth is flat" like fringe theories.

Numerous data supports migration theories. For example, genetic analysis data, presented by Reich et al, in the world's most cited and respected journal Nature, suggests North Indian genome is related to Central Asians and Europeans; migration occurred into India from southeast Asia, Asia, Africa, and diverse populations; and vice versa. See: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/abs/nature08365.html

Vast majority of respected scholars accept data and facts suggesting India has been a melting pot of migrants from at least four, possibly five genome pools. Beyond genomic studies, there is abundance of data and scholarly articles that suggest India is a land of migrants.

Bryant should not be relied upon for this or any wiki article. If Bryant's work is relied upon, a more balanced presentation will improve this article. For example, Bryant writes at note 356, "Oak's insistence that all other cultures from all over the world in all historical epochs ultimately originated in Vedic India, however, does parallel some of the scholarship of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century in Europe."

This article will be better if it describe disputes, but does not engage in them (currently, it reads as bitter, biased and unprofessional). The article will be better if it simply presents the facts and lets the reader decide. The article should not include opinions and personal attacks (currently it presents the opinion that PN Oak was a 'crackpot' etc.). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.17.227.114 (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Those claims are detailed in "Revisionist theories" section, regarding the last revert, there's no need to mention it twice, and the Wikipedia:LEDE should present neutral point of view, thus you must discuss here. Capitals00 (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Other things that are already mentioned elsewhere in the article include the fact that he is Indian, that he is known for Hinducentric revisionism, the details of those claims, etc....oh wait, everything in the lede is in the body too because that's exactly how ledes are supposed to be written. Your version of the lede not only suppresses an important part of Oak's reception, but also reads nonsensically - "his claims have been noted," full stop? Well, that's helpful, because I had assumed that no one had noted them and that this article was just a feature on one's eccentric next-door neighbor. </sarcasm> You misunderstand our neutrality policy; neutrality doesn't mean suppressing information that is personally inconvenient to you or negative to the subject. Rather, it entails fairly representing reliable sources, such as the numerous scholarly works that have described Oak's theories. In removing this information because you personally like Oak, it is you who are violating NPOV. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Not that now, how about mention the information only at one place, whether at Wikipedia:LEDE or "revitionist theories".Capitals00 (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
No, read WP:LEDE. You linked it, so you can read it, yes? If you read it you will discover that the lede section is supposed to repeat what is in the article content. Paul B (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • ^ Gopal 195