Talk:Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Ideology
They've got an interesting website. According to the section MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ARYANS, "Indians have immigrated to the entire world and spread their knowledge, culture and contributed for their growth. This has been proved by our team of experts lead by Prof B.B. Lal in the 1977 UNESCO conference held in Dushanbe, Kazakhstan." Where's the conference report? The Aryan invasion theory is also refuted in the book "Aryan invasion a myth", by Dr. N.R. Wahapande. Unfortunately, there's no mention at all at the web of this book, except at this page. A lot of subpages are under construction, and no list of publications can be found, despite the claim that "We have published 350 books, 2000 plus research papers" [1]. Conclusion: local amateur-"historians" who don't have a clue about scientific research and contemporary insights on the history of India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- You may add that conclusion with reliable reference. The head Yellapragada Sudershan Rao is a retired professor of History in a reputed university with several published research papers. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi JJ, I saw that you added category "Fringe theories". Just wanted to check with you that it looks odd one out in that category, while there are 'theories' there, this is an organization and it is not limited to study of out-of-India" theory. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed like 3 categories, having some inappropriate theories doesn't make you fringe. They haven't reached to that level yet. Also per Wikipedia:Fringe theories, aim should be limited with the promotion of fringe. Another category I removed was "Hindu culture", already included in "Hindutva", and because this organization is not confirmed research institute, any category related with that would be inaccurate. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- And now you are reverting your mentor. Wonderful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- There was nothing wrong with that. You reverted his edit by inserting back same content to lead that had been removed by him. We are basically done with that sentence. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- What? First, I did not revert him, unless it was in error. Second, he is not my mentor; he is yours. He saved you from a site ban, after all. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- When I said that? You must be mixing up many things without focusing on the main content. I wasn't 'saved from siteban' from anyone, it could be no one else other than me. It was 74.(who's gone now) was main mentor. Joshua has helped a big time too. Also if you had looked at [2], so you can remove that undue from lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Like I stated above,(2nd last section) "believes in the (largely discredited) theory that the Aryans originated in India, and spread from there to the rest of Asia" is original research because Berti has not mentioned the word 'asia' just anywhere. "(largely discredited)" is not the appropriate tag either. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Why you are removing "Other aims of organization included the research projects, recording, publication and lastly the writing of syllabus that harmonizes Indian view."? If you are going to state first aim of the organization per a secretary, you have to state rest of the other 3 too. I mostly did it because previous version was copyvio, but it cannot be denied that it can be important to add. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Social anthropologist Daniela Berti states .." on lead is also undue because according to the organization itself they started organization "with the stated objective of writing Indian history from a national perspective"(see first line) there would be need of Berti's statement on lead if they had ever tried to divert from the original objective. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Like I stated above,(2nd last section) "believes in the (largely discredited) theory that the Aryans originated in India, and spread from there to the rest of Asia" is original research because Berti has not mentioned the word 'asia' just anywhere. "(largely discredited)" is not the appropriate tag either. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- When I said that? You must be mixing up many things without focusing on the main content. I wasn't 'saved from siteban' from anyone, it could be no one else other than me. It was 74.(who's gone now) was main mentor. Joshua has helped a big time too. Also if you had looked at [2], so you can remove that undue from lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- What? First, I did not revert him, unless it was in error. Second, he is not my mentor; he is yours. He saved you from a site ban, after all. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- There was nothing wrong with that. You reverted his edit by inserting back same content to lead that had been removed by him. We are basically done with that sentence. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- And now you are reverting your mentor. Wonderful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed like 3 categories, having some inappropriate theories doesn't make you fringe. They haven't reached to that level yet. Also per Wikipedia:Fringe theories, aim should be limited with the promotion of fringe. Another category I removed was "Hindu culture", already included in "Hindutva", and because this organization is not confirmed research institute, any category related with that would be inaccurate. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi JJ, I saw that you added category "Fringe theories". Just wanted to check with you that it looks odd one out in that category, while there are 'theories' there, this is an organization and it is not limited to study of out-of-India" theory. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I can easily debate this with JJ. The point is not to get Berti into the lead; the point is that the organisation says "national" perspective, while the only scholarly source on the topic says "Hindu nationalist" perspective. I would be fine with a first sentence that simply said the latter, and then dropping the last sentence altogether.
"Largely discredited" is a two word summary of both Berti's and the generic view on that theory. If need be, sources from that page are easily copied over.
I removed that last sentence because it belongs in a different section. It is a statement about activities. The other statement is essentially an ideological one. Also, it was terrible english. I paraphrased the rest, so copyvio should not be an issue. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Blades is perfectly free to revert me, when he's got good reasons. Adding the "Fringe"-category was provocative, of course. but also a pointer about tha value of the ideas of this organisation. And no, I won't add my conclusion tot he article; it's my personal conclusion. But my conclusion stands. An organisation that beliefs in the Indian origins of the Aryans is completely at odds with mainstream scholarly research. What's worse, an organisation that tries to rewrite Indian history, disregarding local histories and customs is objectionable, to put it mildly. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for joining, as usual you made things cool ;) Bladesmulti (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::I do not mean to imply that he cannot ever ever revert you; I was merely making the point that if he accepted you as a mentor (though perhaps he did not have too much choice there) he should maybe treat your edits with some respect, which was more than he was giving me or Uday Reddy. That's all. Your relationship with your mentees is (obviously) entirely your prerogative. What do you feel about the issue raised here with the lead? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Generic view? No I don't see Berti's examination being that way, can you confirm this through the actual quote? Also she hasn't mentioned the word "asia" anywhere, so it is obviously original research. "Largely discredited" is an inappropriate tag, the original article Out of India theory lends same weight to every notable researcher. If you know enough English, you should also know that ideology, aim, goal, can be tracked with the same sentence, but you are highlighting like organization has only one aim. If it belongs to other section, which one it is? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- You and Amritasya have the same rather annoying habit of replying in the middle of a thread; it would be really pleasant if you would stop. I still believe it is an accurate summary, and JJ appears to agree with me. He has my sincere thanks, too, because he seems to be able to get you to stop POV pushing in a way that nobody else is. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- When did JJ said that Daniela talks about "Asia" or even mention it, and regard OIT to be "largely discredited"? So far it is just you, who is claiming that she established such synthesis, but she hasn't. So your gossips are not any helpful, just because you "believe" something to be true, doesn't means that we can misrepresent an author. Now you can quit getting into I don't hear approach and address the actual concern with your last edit. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- JJ said above that the theory had been refuted. The lead of OIT says most scholars disagree with it. The specifics of whether JJ said that Berti said...etc are rather irrelevant. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not really. It has been disregarded by mainstream scholars because there is not a single present day country or even continent that is origin of all Indo-European linguistics. Recent genetic evidences have been supportive to some elements of OIT, it is not established whether OIT and AMT(Aryan migration theories) are creation of one person, group. Some of the parts are accepted by scholars(few like Anthony, Samuel, are reliable, not all) as they can be proved. In short words, it can be questioned that which part 'discredited' theory this article is talking about. Discredited, by who? Scientists or scholars. You have to explain, but it was undue to add from first. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Even if all that were completely true, all it would prove is that the theory is not completely discredited. That is not what we are saying; we are saying "largely discredited." Rather different. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not really. It has been disregarded by mainstream scholars because there is not a single present day country or even continent that is origin of all Indo-European linguistics. Recent genetic evidences have been supportive to some elements of OIT, it is not established whether OIT and AMT(Aryan migration theories) are creation of one person, group. Some of the parts are accepted by scholars(few like Anthony, Samuel, are reliable, not all) as they can be proved. In short words, it can be questioned that which part 'discredited' theory this article is talking about. Discredited, by who? Scientists or scholars. You have to explain, but it was undue to add from first. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- JJ said above that the theory had been refuted. The lead of OIT says most scholars disagree with it. The specifics of whether JJ said that Berti said...etc are rather irrelevant. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- When did JJ said that Daniela talks about "Asia" or even mention it, and regard OIT to be "largely discredited"? So far it is just you, who is claiming that she established such synthesis, but she hasn't. So your gossips are not any helpful, just because you "believe" something to be true, doesn't means that we can misrepresent an author. Now you can quit getting into I don't hear approach and address the actual concern with your last edit. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- You and Amritasya have the same rather annoying habit of replying in the middle of a thread; it would be really pleasant if you would stop. I still believe it is an accurate summary, and JJ appears to agree with me. He has my sincere thanks, too, because he seems to be able to get you to stop POV pushing in a way that nobody else is. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Generic view? No I don't see Berti's examination being that way, can you confirm this through the actual quote? Also she hasn't mentioned the word "asia" anywhere, so it is obviously original research. "Largely discredited" is an inappropriate tag, the original article Out of India theory lends same weight to every notable researcher. If you know enough English, you should also know that ideology, aim, goal, can be tracked with the same sentence, but you are highlighting like organization has only one aim. If it belongs to other section, which one it is? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Knock it off, both of you! Or I'll call the headmaster to have you both stand in the corner!
I've only read 'diagonally' through Berti-2006; I also noticed that she didn't seem to say "British" or "Asia" or so. But I'm not sure; I'll have to read it again. Anyway, her article seemed to be rather neutral; she just poinys out how the ABISY works, and how that differs from more, let's say, 'standard' anthropological field work. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- JJ, fyi, you had deleted my comment, and the word was immediately re-inserted against talk page discussion. I have undone and updated relevant talk page section. I see above that Vanamonde93 deliberately brings discussion not related to content in a derogatory tone about other editors in article talk page. See also. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I see! Now I understand the inline note. Regarding the tone: please all of you cool down. Let's just notice that the discussion tends to get heated, and leave it there. don't heat it up further, just leave it. Let's concentrate on the content. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, can you please respond to this question (quoting from above) about content removal:
- Why you are removing "Other aims of organization included the research projects, recording, publication and lastly the writing of syllabus that harmonizes Indian view."? If you are going to state first aim of the organization per a secretary, you have to state rest of the other 3 too.
- What is the reason for removing it? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- JJ, I humbly beg to differ from your observation of "discussion tends to heat up". You may not find a single derogatory comment or even edit summary from me. Vanamonde93 has called me names, suggested that I am unfit to edit and alleged canvassing. All this multiple times. Encouraged Reddyuday when he repeatedly threatened to get me blocked by replaying his edits. I repeatedly urged both of them to goto ANI and not spoil article talk page. Did you See this and this? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your cleanup JJ, you cleaned up most of the POV. If the Organization has questionable methods and beliefs it is captured there now in a dispassionate neutral tone now. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- JJ, is there a reason you removed the reference to the OIT, after drawing attention to it yourself? Also, I don't need to tell you that "rewrite history from a national perspective" is bad english, as well as rather POV. Are you opposed to attributing the objective to them? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Further note; your cleanup of the ideology section is appreciated, but you use the phrase "berti notes that [this kind of historiography] is not unique to Hindutva writers." True enough; but that is the first time ABISY has itself been referred to as a Hindutva based organisation in the article, which is a bit inconsistant, no? If you wish to keep that sentence (and I believe it is a good one) then prior explanation of the organisation's nature is needed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- V, could you please respond to my question? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I see! Now I understand the inline note. Regarding the tone: please all of you cool down. Let's just notice that the discussion tends to get heated, and leave it there. don't heat it up further, just leave it. Let's concentrate on the content. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
"Hindutva" has been introduced: "The main leaders of the organisation have been described as having a Hindutva ideology". Did I remove a TOI-reference? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- A, you have asked approximately 25, which one are you referring to now? JJ, yes (I missed it), but that is a very watery reference, with a qualifier attached. The previous version, which described OIT, talks about perhaps the biggest way that that Hindutva plays out. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- V, Only one, the most recent one addressed directly to you immediately above. link. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also, you didn't discuss attributing their ojective. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- And I replied. As with my explanations, you chose to ignore it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, got it, thanks. I see your objection is only that it does not belong to that section and the English grammar was poor but it wasn't unreferenced or undue as such -- is my understanding correct? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also, I see you have made few edits, thanks for those. I have one question about this. What is the meaning of "mainstream Hindu gods", IMHO, it was better/clearer before. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- According to ABISY and their ilk, all folk gods are Hindu gods. What they are trying to demonstrate is that those gods are identified with "mainstream" gods, like Skanda (who is mentioned in Berti). Yes, that was my main objection, but I would also say that in the actitivities section, those concepts have essentially been covered. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am afraid this does not help me understand what you mean by "mainstream Hindu gods"? Does Berti use that wording? Is Skanda a "mainstream" god, I have not heard of it, I thought Brahma, Vishu, Mahesh were the "main" gods among Hindus. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Main" and "mainstream" mean entirely different things. "Mainstream gods" are all Hindu gods widely acknowledged to be in the Pantheon; virtually every one from the Puranas, for instance. On the other hand, local deities not known outside a small area, would be non-mainstream. Berti does not say mainstream, but she does say "Pan-Indian." Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Pantheon: (Theology) all the gods collectively of a religion. I think Saraswati is a "main"/"mainstream" god but is she mentioned in Purana? I see that JJ has updated it to "Pan-Indian". That is simple and unambiguous IMO and stickstosource. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Main" and "mainstream" mean entirely different things. "Mainstream gods" are all Hindu gods widely acknowledged to be in the Pantheon; virtually every one from the Puranas, for instance. On the other hand, local deities not known outside a small area, would be non-mainstream. Berti does not say mainstream, but she does say "Pan-Indian." Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am afraid this does not help me understand what you mean by "mainstream Hindu gods"? Does Berti use that wording? Is Skanda a "mainstream" god, I have not heard of it, I thought Brahma, Vishu, Mahesh were the "main" gods among Hindus. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- According to ABISY and their ilk, all folk gods are Hindu gods. What they are trying to demonstrate is that those gods are identified with "mainstream" gods, like Skanda (who is mentioned in Berti). Yes, that was my main objection, but I would also say that in the actitivities section, those concepts have essentially been covered. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- And I replied. As with my explanations, you chose to ignore it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Berti 2007
This source is really interesting. And quite more nuanced than some expect it to be. Berti notes that this kind of "new local historiograhy" is not unique to Hindutva-writers, but has also appeared in African nationalistic discourse, and that "the political construction and utilisation of folklore was at the very heart of the XIX century’s European nationalisms." Great irony; I love it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi JJ, I have two questions: 1, You have added Berti 2008 as reference, is that by mistake or are you intending to add a different source (different from 2006, 2007)? 2. Could you copy edit the Publications section once again, quotation from the source:
The emphasis on what is “true” or “scientifically proven” also characterises Thakur Ram Singh’s discourse on local history — the main domain of abisy’s research activity. In his declarations, in fact, Thakur Ram Singh is explicit about the fact that not every local history is worth studying and documenting, but only those facts which have a “historical basis” and which are in accordance with abisy’s ideology.
--AmritasyaPutra✍ 13:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Good to see the things are going so nicely. Finally! Bladesmulti (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- 2008 is a typo, of course. What's the source of this statement? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks JJ. The source of that content is the given quotation from page 14 of Berti, 2007. The background: the source does not have "However, ..." inference which is present in the article. V maintains that this is the accurate summary of the source. This was discussed earlier in this section. Two editors, me and sarvajna strongly believe it is OR. The discussion got derailed repeatedly and I moved it to orn in frustration, only one editor who has frequently edited in same topic space and commented on a discussion in rsn for this article said both version (this one and the alternate one I had proposed) are not OR. I believe sticking to source would be simple and acceptable to all but V holds a contrary opinion. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I see. I'm going to take a look at Berti-2007 p.12. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- JJ, Thanks for making it closure to source and removing the disputed inference. I have made one minor copyedit to change 'focalising' to 'focusing' on top of your edits. diff link. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- And am glad you provided page numbers for all references. I was getting stonewalled with "it is ## page article only go read entire article yourself" Appreciate that! --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- JJ, Thanks for making it closure to source and removing the disputed inference. I have made one minor copyedit to change 'focalising' to 'focusing' on top of your edits. diff link. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I see. I'm going to take a look at Berti-2007 p.12. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks JJ. The source of that content is the given quotation from page 14 of Berti, 2007. The background: the source does not have "However, ..." inference which is present in the article. V maintains that this is the accurate summary of the source. This was discussed earlier in this section. Two editors, me and sarvajna strongly believe it is OR. The discussion got derailed repeatedly and I moved it to orn in frustration, only one editor who has frequently edited in same topic space and commented on a discussion in rsn for this article said both version (this one and the alternate one I had proposed) are not OR. I believe sticking to source would be simple and acceptable to all but V holds a contrary opinion. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- 2008 is a typo, of course. What's the source of this statement? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Good to see the things are going so nicely. Finally! Bladesmulti (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
News-sources
I've changed the news-papers to "news", to distinguish then from the one other website which is being used as asource, and to make clear that those are also some kind of "published" source, thoigh different from Berti's articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks JJ. I have this thought: there is only one web source and the content that it backs up is already backed up by other published sources. We can get rid of that one web source altogether and imporve the readability of the article with lesser ref superscripts. What is your observation on this? Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 08:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think that the ABISY website is an interesting read, which tells us more about ABISY. The fact alone yet that ABISY says "write history", whereas Betti says "rewrite", provides an informative insight. Actually, I'd like to go through their website, and see if there's more interesting stuff there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem JJ! Making an observation alound: The link is present in External Links too, so it won't be lost even if the redundant reference is removed. I think the TOI referece also uses 'write' and there is this reference too (not used in the article). Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 08:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- You mean "The Organiser"? "TOI" is "Times of India", isn't it? And yes, the ABISY-link is also in the "External links"-section; I don't mind keeping it there; easy to find there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, "The Organiser", it is a weekly these days I think, and has an independent editorial team. They perhaps have RSS leaning because of close association with RSS. Yes, TOI is Times of India. --AmritasyaPutraT 08:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- You mean "The Organiser"? "TOI" is "Times of India", isn't it? And yes, the ABISY-link is also in the "External links"-section; I don't mind keeping it there; easy to find there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem JJ! Making an observation alound: The link is present in External Links too, so it won't be lost even if the redundant reference is removed. I think the TOI referece also uses 'write' and there is this reference too (not used in the article). Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 08:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think that the ABISY website is an interesting read, which tells us more about ABISY. The fact alone yet that ABISY says "write history", whereas Betti says "rewrite", provides an informative insight. Actually, I'd like to go through their website, and see if there's more interesting stuff there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Barbarians
Quote from teir website:
- "The British written Indian history tells that – “the people of India were neither civilized nor had any culture of their own. The Aryans occupied India in 1500 BC, followed by the invasions of the Muslims and the British.”"[3]
Brilliant! Make your distorted description of your opponent so gross, that you become a persiflage of yourself. ~I've Googled the first sentence; it gives only one hit... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- This one is nice too:
- "OFFICE BEARERS (All India & Kshetra) Under Construction..."[4]
- Maybe this explains the previous quote. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, the objectives and views are not as simplistic as they may seem. This quote is very interesting:
- "There is a close link between Vedic traditions and janjati/adivasis traditions – of worshipping river, trees, and nature. They are the ancestors of the ‘civilized people’."
- Although the ABISY tries to link the janjati/adivasis traditions to the Vedic culture, and believes in an undelrying Aryan or Hindu-uniformity, the fact that they are showing interest in those (non-Hindu!!!) cultures is insteresting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I also checked it now, interesting! And, on a lighter note, so is this section heading ;-). The Out-Of-India theory was researched by B. B. Lal too. I would jut say he is free to present his research and he is indeed a notable and renowned archaelogist.. and I guess ABISY is trying to bank on that! --AmritasyaPutraT 10:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, the objectives and views are not as simplistic as they may seem. This quote is very interesting:
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140911002441/http://www.niticentral.com/2014/08/24/rss-and-a-new-indian-historical-perspective-236502.html to http://www.niticentral.com/2014/08/24/rss-and-a-new-indian-historical-perspective-236502.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Proposed rewrite
@Joshua Jonathan and Kautilya3: This page came to my notice again after more than 4(!) years when looking through some stuff at SPI. I realized that the page as it stands was a result of a compromise with AP and Blades, both now indeffed for socking; as such, I think it's due for a rewrite, and in particular it needs to give less weight to sources within the organization itself. I would also like to change the citation formatting while I'm at it, but per CITEVAR I won't do that without your explicit consent. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93 go ahead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, fine by me too. You might also think about whether we have enough material to develop a more general page on Hindutva history or Hindutva views on history, which will be more visible than this obscure organisation. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: It's funny you mention that, because I've been thinking along the same lines for a few weeks; there's bits of this material in a number of articles, including this one, the Aryan migration theory articles, the Ayodhya articles, the NCERT controversy, and other places; but it's certainly received enough coverage for a standalone article. I was thinking of Hindutva historiography as a tentative title. I don't have the time for it at the moment, but I would welcome a collaboration on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, I was thinking along the same lines too and suddenly saw this thread! Start a draft in someone's user-space? ∯WBGconverse 09:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Also, AP?? ∯WBGconverse 09:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric: It's funny that you mention this now; it so happens that I rewrote most of the substance a few hours ago. @Kautilya3 and Joshua Jonathan: you may wish to take a look, too. It's quite nice to have a new scholarly source, but the source material is still extremely limited; I think the largest changes I made were to base the text on paraphrased scholarly sources, rather than on the extreme quotation that AP, BM, and their ilk forced on us nearly five years ago now. Godric, "AP" is the honorable AmritasyaPutra; BM is Bladesmulti. The two of them combined to cause much grief back in the day; be thankful that it was before your time! If you're interested, read through the associated ARBCOM case (OccultsZone) and the relevant SPI case pages (Under Occultzone and AmritasyaPutra). They are quite edifying. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Also, AP?? ∯WBGconverse 09:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, I was thinking along the same lines too and suddenly saw this thread! Start a draft in someone's user-space? ∯WBGconverse 09:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: It's funny you mention that, because I've been thinking along the same lines for a few weeks; there's bits of this material in a number of articles, including this one, the Aryan migration theory articles, the Ayodhya articles, the NCERT controversy, and other places; but it's certainly received enough coverage for a standalone article. I was thinking of Hindutva historiography as a tentative title. I don't have the time for it at the moment, but I would welcome a collaboration on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, fine by me too. You might also think about whether we have enough material to develop a more general page on Hindutva history or Hindutva views on history, which will be more visible than this obscure organisation. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)