Talk:Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

AmritasyaPutra's edits

@AmritasyaPutra: This morning, I found a bunch of edits you did to the text Vanamonde93 and I contributed. I have problems with them.

1. My text said: The organisation also aims to "brainwash" the Indian historians... Your text says: Balmukund Pandey, organising secretary of ABISY, in an interview in 2014 claimed that the first element was to get historians change their worldview, and "brainwash them" to think about history through an Indian lens. First of all, your text is more verbose, without adding any information. That is ok. We can live with that. But you are also distorting the meaning. The source says: Explaining their mode of functioning, Pandey said that the first element .... Your text is a distortion, because it makes it appear that it was Balmukund Pandey's private view. But the source says clearly that he was explaining [the organisation's] mode of functioning. So, I don't agree with this change of wording. Moreover, this wasn't an "interview". He was just speaking to a reporter. He didn't "claim". He explained. And, why is 2014 important? Did he imply that their methods will be different in 2015? After all said and done, why change anything at all? What was wrong with my text?
2. You also merged the two paragraphs. I don't see why. The two paragraphs were dealing with entirely different aspects of the ideology.
3. You had another edit where you added to Vanamonde93's text the words "in Kullu". Once again this is a distortion because it implies that whatever she is reporting is only valid for Kullu. But, you know, from Berti (2007) that she has study ABISY's methods in general and related it to what she observed in Kullu. So, this specificity is uncalled for.

On the whole, I find that your edits this morning to our text are entirely counterproductive. I am minded to revert all of them. Uday Reddy (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I have carried out a partial revert. The edits that I have examined since my last revert add a lot of material that is redundant, or irrelevant. Also, (and this is a more serious problem) they show an inability to understand any but a most literal understanding of the source material. This is a competence issue at best, and a tendentiousness/neutrality issue at worst. The author of the text, in this case Berti, uses specific instances to illustrate general points; AmritasyaPutra cannot seem to understand this point, and instead flings around accusations of OR. It wouldn't hurt to note that after bringing up this, and related, issues at various other places, they have been told that they are in the wrong multiple times, but still persist in identical arguments elsewhere. this, this, and this are illustrative, although Uday Reddy already knows that, having been involved in several of those discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

All 6-7 edits of mine were blindly reverted which were spread across 4 days with descriptive edit summary and discussion on talk page. Much beyond what is pointed out here. I assume it was by mistake. I will undo it and edit as per the suggestions made by Uday here. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have addressed the first two concerns by making it a separate paragraph and removing '2014' and 'interview' and using 'explained' instead of 'claimed'.
• The 'Kulu' thing is specific to that context, I read the entire article and she makes that particular study explicitly in the context of Kullu. I have not qualified all her works in the context of Kullu as you suggest. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It was most certainly not an error, or a "blind" revert; all you have done is to insist that what I wrote was OR, even after ORN proved you wrong on one point. You added redundant material, and you keep insisting that no explanation was provided, even though the same text has been explained to you since a week ago or more. If this is not tendentiousness, I do not know what is; if you think it is OR, take it to the noticeboard, my explanations evidently do not seem to do you any good. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you have got different sections mixed up. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 07:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: I don't understand what that response means. And, I would like to formally state that you are starting another edit war.

1. If we contribute some text and you would like to change it, then the onus is on you to explain why the change is needed and how your text improves the matters. You are doing no such thing. You are simply changing the text to suit your tastes, and maintaining that your taste is better than ours. When we raise issues, you don't respond or respond only partially, and go back and undo the reverts to reinstate your preferred text before a consensus is reached. You claimed above that you have taken care of my objections. But the references to Balmukund Pandey and Kullu are still there, which I said were distortions of the sources.
2. You are not reading the sources. You have admitted yesterday after several weeks of edit warring, that you have just managed to read one source out of the two that Vanamonde93 has cited. You haven't yet read the other source. Yet you consider yourself qualified to change Vanamonde93's text. A wikipedia editor is expected to read several sources and develop a thorough understanding of the subject before summarizing it in a Wikipedia article. Your strategy is merely to pick up random sentences from various sources and reproduce them in Wikipedia without any understanding. This makes for poor quality articles and, when you edit our text, seriously degrades its quality.

So I would like to ask you to stop editing our text. If you continue in this fashion, I am minded to go the Administrators and ask that you be debarred from editing this page. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You had clearly said you can live with Balmukund Pandey, no? I addressed each objection and responded for Kullu too! I have read both source, please desist. See this to understand why I said Vanamonde93 mixed up sections. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I have only said that I can live with certain amount of verbosity. But any mention of Balmukund Pandey by name in the Wikipedia article implies that you are describing a private view rather than the organisation view. And any mention of Kullu by name implies that the statements only apply to Kullu. So, these are both still distortions. You haven't said till now that you have read Berti (2007). I don't believe you have. If you did, you would know that she has written about the general methods of ABISY and used Kullu for an in-depth study. So, mentioning Kullu is a distortion. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, what exactly were you agreeing on -- Only thing that is retained is Balmukund Pandey! Why so particular about removing the name? Did he not say it? Every interview of every official of ABISY is not ABISY's official statement. If you are so particular about removing it, fine, I don't want to argue over it! I have read both reference, please desist. I explained my edit in specific detail and responded on Kullu also in detail. Please check WP:AOTE. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is very straightforward; that by attributing the statement to a single individual, you are implying that it had nothing to do with the organisation, which is misrepresenting the source, because the source uses a specific statement to illustrate a general point. A summary should therefore contain the general point, and your edits are completely obscuring this. Your statement that " Every interview of every official of ABISY is not ABISY's official statement." would be true, if we were using the interview as a source. We are not; we are using a secondary source of impeccable reliability, which uses the statement as an example of the official view. Therefore, pretending it is not is very much source misrepresentation, and as I said above, a competence issue at best. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

And I merely mimicked the source of impeccable reliability! Anyways, Like we discussed above about the 'stated' objectives of an organization in the opening statement, do you hold the same standard about the 'stated' objectives here? I will updateBalmukund Pandey, organising secretary of ABISY, explained that the first element... myself after getting your views on usage of 'stated'. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You're still not getting the point; if you wish to summarize the source (and you do, because otherwise you would have to paraphrase all of the relevant material from Berti) then you cannot mimic any old part of it; academic writing does not work that way. You have to understand and shorten entire paragraphs of text; not doing so is a misrepresentation.

The example you have given is utterly irrelevant; the source was already summarised there, the question was about attribution. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Balmukund Pandey, organising secretary of ABISY, explained that the first element... is from HT not Berti. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 04:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Makes no difference; the same concept applies, albeit at a slightly lower level. Also, for a person who got remarkably annoyed when I moved your talk page comments, you shift mine around very easily. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you clearly give me your views on usage of 'stated' please? Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 06:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You can't just copy words from a news article to Wikipedia and expect them to mean the same thing. A news article is expected to be as specific as possible and attribute views to sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We are expected to be as general possible and avoid unnecessary detail. So, if you mention any piece of detail such as "Balmukund Pandey" claimed/explained/stated or whatever, you are raising an alarm. You are implying that this may not actually be a fact, it is somebody's private view. Note that you also copied "first element", as if you are listing a bunch of elements. This kind of a cut-and-paste job is no good for Wikipedia. Vanamonde93 and I don't have any choice but to junk everything you did and go back to the old version. If you want to be productive, you better tell us what your concerns are and allow us to take them into account. Uday Reddy (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I am saying of 'stated' as used in the opening statement which was discussed in great length in this talk page and you and Vanamonde93 said that 'stated' is the only acceptable word. Shall we not apply same standards at both place? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 07:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Your failure to understand this is rather worrying. "Stated" in that case was necessary, because it was from a primary source, ABISY itself. In this case, it is a statement use by a secondary source to illustrate a point. Because of the nature of the source, the situation is different. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite opposite. The Times of India is not a primary source and the reference is not from ABISY itself. HT, here, is quoting someone from ABISY itself. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If a quotation is used purely by itself, it is essentially a primary source. What does TOI have to do with anything? Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: I couldn't make head or tail of what you said. But User:Vanamonde93 is absolutely right this is not primary source speaking by itself, but filtered through a secondary source. So, these statements can be written in Wikipedia voice. Anyway, we have debated this long enough. I reworded the paragraph so that it doesn't have the distortions your text had.

And I have reverted to our version of the upper paragraph, because all AmritasyaPutra added was bad grammar and a rehashing of the next sentence (which they still do not seem to realise). Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Uday Reddy forgot to sign his comments. I appreciate his edits, I have no problems with them. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, good. I deliberatively took out the wikilink for Balmukund Pandy, who doesn't seem to be a notable person to have a WP page for himself. Daniela Berti also probably falls in the same category. I didn't touch the "Kullu" issue in my edits because I haven't had enough time to think about what is the right thing to do. Uday Reddy (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And I have removed Kullu, for essentially the same reason; it is a distortion, unless it is presented as "ABISY ideology, as exemplified in Kullu, ..." or something like that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Berti, Daniela

Just sharing some statements I found quite amusing:

• Thakur Ram Singh is a 92-year-old man who has dedicated his life to instigating and propagating nationalistic feelings.
• Another centralising element of the abisy is also the copyright name used in most publications (books, reviews or booklets). Some of these publications are dedicated to exposing the ideology which is behind abisy, its purposes, its methodology and its main projects. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot more, but in the end of whole journal. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93's edits

a What is your objection to this edit? It is from a secondary reliable source, namely Times of India. See these articles for example which follows similar style UNICEF, AIDA International, ActionAid. Objectives are implicitly 'stated'. Do you have objection to the source or the grammar or style? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This issue was debated for days on this talk page, at the end of which the "stated" qualification was inserted. If you are still going to debate that, take it to the appropriate forum. TOI attributes the objective; so should we. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

So your objection is with the source.

It is in TOI voice. The earlier debate was around "Organiser", that and the website of the organization has been removed, although they noted the same objective. And I gave example of three other articles that follow similar style. You may take it to whichever appropriate forum you so desire if you do not wish to discuss here. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As clear a case of canvassing as there ever was. What is more ridiculous, is that after an enormous discussion where the need for the word "stated" was established, you simply waited for that discussion to get old and then removed it again. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 you say I am canvassing by this? Please explain. The discussion was continued in recent previous section too(diff). --AmritasyaPutra✍ 07:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, @AmritasyaPutra: Since comment has been invited from WP:IN, it would help if the two of you state your respective positions clearly so that others can comment. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Uday Reddy. My view: this edit is backed by secondary reliable source and not against any policy. It is same as what is followed in UNICEF, AIDA International, ActionAid articles. Also, Objectives are implicitly 'stated'. The edit removed one word stated from "...founded in 1978-79 with the stated objective..." sentence. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Stating my views for the record, per Uday Reddy's suggestion.

1) The Reliability of Berti is not in question, and so this blanking is unacceptable.

2) this version, which Uday Reddy and myself support, has no OR whatsoever. Specifically, the "Ideology" section is an accurate paraphrasing of the source, and the relevant discussion demonstrates this. AmritasyaPutra has been insisting that anything short of lifting the source text is OR, which is not a policy based position. I would also point out that they took an earlier debate was taken to ORN by AmritasyaPutra, where they were told it was not OR.

3) Amritasya's version of the "ideology" section gave the impression that the items mentioned there were isolated incidents and not part of a general philosophy. This had actually been sorted out (more or less) prior to Bladesmulti's blanking.

4) This discussion more or less established the need for the qualifier "stated" before mentioning the objective of the organisation. A couple of weeks later, Amritasya removes it again, in an apparent case of tit-for-tat removal.

5) Finally, this was a typical example of canvassing. Blades was uninvolved prior to that, but has been involved in a similarly heated discussion along with User:Kautilya3, Amritasya, and myself as a peripheral party at Talk:Praveen Togadia, where Blades and Amritasya were agreeing. The POV issue there is identical as well. All in all, Blades is not a neutral party. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Finally, I posted at INB before Blades made his wholesale removal; until that point, the use of the source, at least, was not questioned. So, if there is no response at INB within the next 24 hours, I will be posting to DRN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This sections is specifically for this. Nevertheless my concise response:

2) The relevant discussion is still open. It was never taken to ORN. If you want to drag every other discussion here, check this.

4) Grossly misleading summary. The discussion is here for everyone to see.

5) Just reminding that you leveled accusations of canvassing for a different reason immediately above too! --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You posted at INB after Blade's edits. 1, follwed by 2. One source of Berti was explicitly questions on this talk page here. You are clearly misleading. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the editor that first contributes the text has priority. An editor that comes afterwards can raise issues/objections, but cannot have his preferred text replace the original just as a matter of will. He/she can edit the text, but if the original editor reverts it, he/she has to come back to discussion and try to generate a consensus. In this case, User:Vanamonde93 wrote the original text on 15 August. By then, he had read the 2 academic articles cited here and formed an educated opinion. User:AmritasyaPutra wanted to replace it by his own text, but never articulated clear objections to the original text. He simply replaced the text and expected Vanamonde93 to discuss and compromise.

As for the isse mentioned at the top of this section, the word "stated" was inserted after prior discussion because AmritasyaPutra forced Vanamonde93 to use the organisation's own words. Those words are misleading because "national perspective" simply means something pertaining to the whole country, as opposed to a "local" or "regional" perspective. (The organisation is not good at English. It writes its documents in Hindi and translates them into English. We can't reproduce those words on Wikipedia without proper sifting.) The correct terminology is "nationalist perspective", which are the words used in the newspapers. "Nationalist" requires qualification because there isn't simply one form of "nationalism." So, Vanamonde93 used "Hindu nationalist" and credited Berti for the terminology. Nobody in their right mind would argue that the organisation is not Hindu nationalist. But AmritasyaPutra did. He also did not want Berti mentioned, at least not in the lead. So, a compromise was agreed. Now AmritasyaPutra wants to remove the organisation as the source of the words, even though it is their words.

This page is in a logjam. Millions of bytes of discussion need to take place to agree on a single word! This is not productive. I have advised Vanamonde93 to go for arbitration, which I hope he will do. Uday Reddy (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

1. "the editor that first contributes the text has priority": NO.

2. This section is for this edit. Where does the poor English and translation from Hindi come into picture? Really, from where? Edit is backed by secondary reliable source and not against any policy. It is same as what is followed in UNICEF, AIDA International, ActionAid articles. Objectives are implicitly 'stated'. The discussion was continued in recent previous section too(diff). There is a deliberate attempt to derail discussion.

3. Fourth time a mention of going to Arbitration as a threat on this talk. And two accusation of canvassing. And several name calling. Suit yourself.--AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It was inserted yet again without a response here. I have reverted. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on source Daniela Berti

I actually had PDF of this journal, I must say that the journal is completely senseless and Daniela Berti fails to provide references for the opinions she was making. Her new story starts with Kullu like everytime, but she seems to have been distorted from the number of events or perspectives that the organization has notably acknowledged, you cannot tell who she is actually talking about. We cannot use this author as source who is far away from any scholarly publication or even JSTOR. In fact, it is not even important to add any section about their ideas or aims. The remaining refs that are pointing to Daniela will be probably replaced. If you want to contribute, write about the organization and notable views. Nothing like we have to professionalize some organization. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as raised in this, and this section and uday reddy himself also casts doubt on the notability of the author. Vanamonde93 said her views must be included, and indeed must form the basis for our reading. Amyways, I am afraid they will first revert and then discuss (and in that process deliberately re-introduce other disputed content). --AmritasyaPutra✍ 04:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, are you kidding me? Did you really completely blank an academic source? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: Your editing is completely improper. A source is required to be "reliable" as per WP:RS, not "notable." Academic writing which goes through a rigorous reviewing process is the highest quality source for Wikipedia. Please read WP:RS. You should self-revert whatever material you have removed. This is extremely important. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, "The Memory of Gods..." is questionable source (earlier discussion). --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have disagreed then that it was questionable. So, there is no point raising the issue again unless you have some new evidence to raise questions. Uday Reddy (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing academic about a self publisher who never had never had any publication from reliable publishers. It is more like promotion. And her information are doubtful for anyone. Everytime she starts with 'kullu' and ends up with a contentious subject.

What can be developed from this source other than the fact that this organization wants to present the nationalist perspective? It has been added with other source. I am not getting why there is any need to give extra push. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have asked you to read WP:RS, but you haven't. Here is the relevant line: Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. These are the rules by which this Wikipedia runs. When you set up your own Wikipedia, feel free to make your own rules. Your mindless deletions will be reverted. Uday Reddy (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You have reverted. If any other disputed content is re-inserted imagining consensus on this pretext (like what was done earlier) it will be reverted. I would suggest going to arbitration like you have repeatedly said earlier in a disruptive tone in this talk page discussions. And also pursuing the canvassing accusations what has been repeatedly leveled instead of continuing to derail discussions on article talk page with such things repeatedly. Article talk page is specifically for discussion on content dispute. Period. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Uday Reddy you can stop giving mindless weight to a SPS. It has still not been addressed that how there was any need to mention this unreliable author who fails to provide reference for own material. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I am only watching from afar, but I have a simple-minded suggestion. For deciding whether Berti is WP:RS, use WP:RSN. Kingsindian (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Daniela Berti is a scholar. But "Indian Folklife" is published by India's National Folklore Support Centre, which is apparently a political activist organisation which uses scholarly research to promote the interests of minority groups in India. The removal of text sourced by Berti's publications seems to be selective: "The headquarters of the ABISY is at Keshav Kunj, the Delhi office of the RSS. (Berti 2007)" remains, while "These centres are responsible for connecting ABISY ideology to local cultural lore and tradition.(Berti 2007)" was removed. Likewise, info sourced with the Hindustan Times was removed, while info sourced with Samvada remains. So, is the problem with the sources, or with the choice and representation of info? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

About "Indian Folklife": the said author is in editorial board itself. No information about this journal, appears to be questionable. It had factual discrepancy and poor grammar too. (Earlier discussion links: this, and this) The said author is not historian. She talks only about her experience in Kullu. The article is about an organization working on History. There is no indication that she is the subject expert on history of India on which this organization works. It would be undue to hail her as the ultimate authority and give half of the article to her views. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 07:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

JJ, there seems to be some confusion here; there were two articles by the same author used in the text, one published in 2006 by Indian Folklife, the other published in 2007 by the University of Florence. here is the link to the journal website, and here is the link for obtaining the original article (since Blades and Amritasya between them have obliterated it). The two articles cover slightly different aspects of the organisation, which is why they were both used.

Until Amritasya brought Blades into the discussion with this, (which is a clear cut case of canvassing, IMO) the Florence University source had not been questioned. Blades dropped by, deleted it, and now Amritasya agrees with him. Regardless, it would be too much to expect you to get into the content debate; all I am asking is that you verify the publisher, and tell Blades what you find. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If this journal was favorable to Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana and published by University of Florence, you would be probably discarding it as a non notable university. A polemic cannot be a source. Just like Richard Dawkins cannot be used as source for Islam, and here problems are much bigger because you are wanting to use this non notable polemic as source for just everything about this organization, although the author provides no reference for particular information. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't speculate. Where have I ever done that? Where has anybody used Dawkins as a source on Islam? When has Dawkins published an academic paper on Islam? Florence University is well known university, and the journals it publishes satisfy every criterion for a reliable source, so I don't give a damn if you call it polemic. I guess I should be happy that you've stopped calling it an SPS. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Vanamonde93, goto ANI with accusations of canvassing. This is the third time on this page you have made such accusations. And for two different reasons, please take both. And you have also said I am unfit to edit please take that also to ANI.
2. Vanamonde93, Can you present a diff where I "obliterated" a reference to Berti? See previous section, you conveniently misrepresented things there too.
3. Vanamonde93, in the above context, do you want to reply on your nonsensical comment about Nazi's objective of world peace here, where you called me 'dense'. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 18:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC

So, the 2006-publication is being questioned, the 2007-publication is not? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way: leave out the Nazis from the discussion; I've forgotten the term for this, but the use of the Nazis in a discussion = end of the discussion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are some more sources, all referring to a conference in 2009 [1][2][[3]. A fine line: "Dr BB Lal, former Director General of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), said in a paper presented at the conference on first day that there is absolutely no proof that the Vedas were written in around 1200 BC and that the invading Aryans massacred the people of the Indus Valley. [4]" Note the "and", as if the date of 1200 BCE and a supposed massacre have the same status of "trueness". 1200 BCE is hardly disputed, though the Vedas were not written then, but collected; "massacre" is an outdated theory, which is being used here as a "strawman".

By the way: this edit also removed info which is not based (solely) on Berti 2006. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Some further note on the reliability of Berti: this is Blades' opinion:

"Nothing academic about a self publisher who never had never had any publication from reliable publishers. It is more like promotion. And her information are doubtful for anyone."

"Self-publisher" - nonsense;

"never had never had any publication from reliable publishers" - also nonsense;

"It is more like promotion" - how?

"her information are doubtful for anyone" - not for me. And apparently also not for several respectable publishers. So, what is wrong with Berti? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1. JJ, No, the 2007 publication is better than 2006, it appeared in a university Journal. But it definitely reads like polemic. And please see few quotes provided from that article here.
2. Repeatedly suggesting I am incompetent to edit by Vanamonde93 and repeated accusations of canvassing is also counter-productive. Article talk page is not for that. S/he should take it to ANI.
3. That diff is not mine.
4. I have never raised any concern over adding further references. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You heard of these publishers anywhere else? And even if that is not a point anymore, there is no other way to confirm if her theories about Kullu have the reference, lets leave that too. I just read the whole PDF once again, here the theories were kept one sided, misrepresented, and adding to both lead and subsection apparently made it look like Berti is representing this organization than anyone else. "and spread from there to the rest of Asia" is not supported by any of her publication. Also the source on lead is being misrepresented, it needs to be changed, source is not supporting the last line as Berti never talked about British. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I had removed it from lead before, because I couldn't find 'british' word in any of the Berti's book.(I had the mediocre french translation too, original one is not even available in snippet) It maybe notable, just replaced with correct source. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I have not heard of these publishers before. I think the article is polemic. Referring to this one article like the ultimate reference is, imo, undue. Does she have any paper published on Indian History on which this organization works, I think no. Even more OR was inserted attributing to this article. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)