Talk:Subhash Kak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Here's an interesting review of Kak's The Nature of Physical Reality by Stanley Krippner from [1]

The Nature of Physical Reality by Subhash Kak New York: Peter Lang, 1986; 153 pp.
This engaging book is part of the American University Studies series. As such, it attempts to present a summary of sciences current understanding of the physical world, and to point out that humankind’s questioning across the ages has had a continuity, especially concerning the problem of paradox and reality. The author, a professor of information theory at Louisiana State University, finds these same questions articulated in the Rig Veda, the Upanishads, and in Greek literature. He also observes at least two types of answers: the atomists’ belief that all knowledge can be reduced to a set of concepts and particles, and the intuitionists’ belief that reduction is impossible. The intuitionists hold that our understanding of the universe reflects the nature of our minds; hence the best approach is one that seeks ways to describe complex systems behavior.
Kak identifies two basic assumptions -- causality and determinism -- that have helped scientists discover order in nature. But some scientists take the position that, if carried too far, these assumptions can undercut the attempts to study human consciousness and volition. Another potential conflict is between analytic (i.e., logical, mathematical) and synthetic (i.e., observational, empirical) knowledge. Kak works through these paradoxes, taking the position that a ‘science of consciousness” can assist the resolution of these purported contradictions.
Kak emphasizes the importance of falsifiability in science. A theory should be expressed in a converse as well as positive manner; as a result, it should be possible to falsify the theory. If this requirement were not insisted upon, there would be no way to evaluate a theory’s worth or validity. Kak then presents his notion of the “world-image” -- the embodiment of the experience of reality in a culture. These world-images are difficult to falsify, but may determine the direction that science takes in a given society.
Kak cites some elements of the Western world-image common to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Marxism. They are: time is uniform and absolute; space is absolute; humankind has a unique and a central position in the world; human beings alone have “minds.” On the other hand, the Eastern world-image sees time and space as relative; humankind is not assigned a central position, and lower animals also have “minds.” It might be added that the American Indian world-image was in basic agreement with the Eastern image. Joseph Campbell would have used the term “cultural myth” to describe these world-images, observing that understanding the nature of physical reality is a common task of cultural myths throughout the world.
Kak sketches the basic findings of contemporary physics regarding space and time, pointing out puzzles and paradoxes especially when discussing relativity theory and quantum mechanics. He then moves to astronomy, paying special attention to such puzzling phenomena as black holes and the red shift. He is fond of bringing up paradoxes (e.g.. the wave and particle theories of light), then telling the reader how the paradox was resolved.
When he deals with biology, he observes serious problems for those trying to apply physics to a study of life forms. How does one reconcile the stability of biological structures with the increase of the complexity and organization of living organisms? Which came first in the origin of genetic information -- the proteins or the nucleic acids?
Kak sees the phenomenon of sell-awareness as one of the most baffling puzzles of science. Computers lack self-awareness, at least at this point in time, so can be of limited assistance in studying this enigma. Kak suggests that mathematics, language and information theory can play a role in this investigation, and cites some remarkable insights for Gargya, Shakatayana and Panini, three ancient Indian phi1osophers who debated the origins and rules of grammar and word-meanings
From the beginning to the end of the book, Kak has come full circle. Although Western science has learned a great deal about the workings of the physical universe, many of the mysteries of human consciousness are as baffling as they were during ancient times. In 153 pages, the author has given his readers a concise picture of some of what is known about physical reality, and has provided them with questions that will leave them both wiser and more modest.

RashmiPatel 02:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This article lacks any discussion of contributions to the synthesis of ancient Indian science. The list of contributions to Stanley Wolpert's "Encyclopedia of India"

has numerous articles by Kak, and this is a place where one may find the latest viewss on this matter. I have not seen the Encyclopedia yet, but this might be well worth checking out as a source to enhance this article.

This article needs NPOVing. I've read some of this guy's papers on Indian topics, and I think its pseudo-science with religious/nationalistic motivation (typical RSS). It looks like he wrote this article himself! -- Arvindn 13:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mr Arvind Narayanan: Your opinion is not shared by professional historians such as Stanley Wolpert, as in the link above! -- 6 Jan 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I agree. He is a crackpot (I bought his book in the 'rigvedic code' for comical value). The article was written from Louisiana State University computers, and Kak himself is based in Louisiana! Chances are indeed he wrote a blurb on himself. I will remove the most glaring POV bits. 16:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've probably ruined the article, but I couldn't be bothered to rephrase his blurb, or to start a war over this. I have simply added "among Kak's claims:" and left his text as it was. Probably the whole article should be removed, or reduced to 2 sentences; Mr. Kak, I think it is bad style to write an enthusiastic article about your own person! Dbachmann 16:50, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mr Bachmann: Very amusing! What is the 'crackpot' stuff? I believe he is a Science Academy Medal winner and editor of several scholarly journals. He must have everyone fooled! -- 6 Jan 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

This article is very unbalanced in that it provides no information on his scientific contributions, which one presumes is where he has made the greatest mark. [Comment left by on 16 Dec 2004.]

This article was proposed for deletion January 2005. The discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Subhash Kak. Joyous 01:59, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think this article is quite deficient. I think it should be compared against other biographical notices available on the Web. In particular,

that is posted at the Lifeboat Foundation touches upon analysis that is absent in this article. --JA

Contextless claim.[edit]

"He is best known for his contributions to history and philosophy of science and also for his Indian studies."

He certainly isn't best known as such by philosophers, and thus I will be removing him from the list of philosophers. Perhaps he is best known for this amongst some other group of people, in the same way that Roger Penrose is known by physicists for trying to do philosophy. Neither of these men is successful at so doing. KSchutte 20:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I realize while there is difference between academic philosophy and philosophy done by scientists, there are much similarity and relationship between the two. Often academic philosophy takes off from the mathematical philosophy of the physicist, as we seen in Whitehead's process philosophy springing out of quantum theory and relativity. ThusRoger Penrose's books Emperor's New Mind, Shadows of Mind, and Road to Reality have influenced philosopher's of science. User:MarcAurel 1 February 2006.

so what does it take to be described as a "philosopher" on Wikipedia? He seems to self-describe as a philosopher (and generally as a genius), and I suspect the statement above is Kak's own. "He is best known" is misleading, since it makes no claim about how well you are known. Kak is certainly better known as a philosopher than as a basketball player. I suggest we rephrase the statement informed by whether Kak is indeed a well known historian or philosopher or Indologist. Being an electrical engineer, he qualifies as an autodidact in all these fields, and we should say as much. I suppose he is best known as a self-made pundit dabbling in the "Aryan Invasion" debate, but maybe that's just my perspective; his poetry may be brilliant, I wouldn't know. The ToC ("Accomplishments") also looks a little bit like self-promotion. dab () 12:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that someone who's a professor of electrical engineering, even if he's also professor in Asian Studies and Cognitive Science, is best known for his work in philosophy. He's not referred to in any of my books on Indian philosophy. That's not to say anything about his philosophical abilities, but the claim in the article does seem a bit of an exaggeration. He must be better known as an electrical engineer, surely.
I came here because User:Jagged 85 (who might be Kak) has been using a non-peer-reviewed on-line paper of Kak's as his sole authority (aside from a couple of generalist encyclopædias) to claim that some modern authorities still assign Gotama dates between the 6th and 2nd centuries BCE. I've e-mailed him to ask how old the paper is, and whether he stands by the dates in it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
hm, Mel, it is not conceivable that Jagged 85 is Kak. Jagged is far too active on Wikipedia and clearly a bona fide Wikipedian. Kak does visit Wikipedia in spells, but never does a lot of editing outside touting his own person. As for Kal's "fame", it's just that Kak has apparently figured out the weakness of contemporary academia. You just keep bombarding journals with your articles, and after a while, people will accept you as an authority just because your name keeps coming up with google. After this, your "fame" is self-perpetuating, you don't even need to build a coherent case on anything. He may be a decent cryptographer, but seeing his tactics in fields were he is an amateur, I begin to doubt even that. dab (𒁳) 13:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Cryptography etc[edit]

Kak was keynote speaker at the RSA 2006 Conference (the world's largest cryptography and security conference) in San Jose in February 2006, where the other keynote speakers included John Chambers of Cisco, Bill Gates of Microsoft, and Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems. Here is a link:

Cryptonaut 04:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This is really really funny. Thanks for pointing it out. Arvindn 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Bachmann's Revisions[edit]

Mr Bachmann has done much good work for Wikipedia, but he is way out of line on the insistence that his view should prevail. Here's why:

  • 1 Witzel's essay appeared in EJVS, which is not a peer-reviewed journal; it is list serve that is controlled by him. This article is a rant, and not a scholarly assessment of the evidence. Further, Mr Witzel is not an expert on astronomy.
  • 2 Kim Plofker was a post-doc (not a professor) when she wrote her review; she is still a post-doc (hardly an authority). Also, her review was on the first edition, and the second edition appeared 5 years after this review.
  • 3 Assuming these opinions to be sound in themselves, we must realize that there are other scholars both in the West and India who don't agree with them, and Mr Bachmann should have the courtesy to let their views also be represented.
  • 4 Mr Kak's work in the book appeared first in peer-reviewed journal in the West and in India. Checking his chapter in Selin's book (that in on, I see papers that appeared in Vistas in Astronomy (UK), Mankind Quarterly (USA), Proc. of the Royal Astronomical Society (UK), Indian J. of History of Science, Puratattva (Indological j. from India0, and the many favourable reviews in journals.
  • 5 His analysis has been incorporated in essays in the Kluwer Encylopedia of Non-Western Science, Kluwer Encyclopedia of Non-Western Astronomy, and Stanley Wolpert's Encyclpedia of India (2006). The implication of this is that Western scholars generally support Kak's work on Rig Vedic astronomy.
  • 6This work forms several chapters in the 85 volume History of Science and Civilization in India that is being currently edited by Professor D.P. Chattopadhyaya.

It appears to me that the previous edits that let the Witzel reference (Plofker's should not even be there since it concerns an older, obsolete edition) in together with a couple of representative pro-Kak references is a more reasonable thing.

Also Bachmann is wrong in claiming that Kak supports the influx of Aryans into India in 7000 BC or pre-3000 BC. He is silent on this. His lone argument from his side is that the Rig Veda should be prior to 2000 BC or so.

DaveBorman 01:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

some of your points are reasonable. I have two points:

  • you need to accept up front that Kak is an amateur in any field except electrical engineering, cryptography and information theory. This doesn't mean that his work is automatically worthless, but that its notability is entirely dependent on reviews by authorities in the respective fields. Witzel, on the other hand, is professor of Indology, that is, his publications on Vedic topics may of course be questioned, but they are by default publications by an expert in the field. The inverse would apply if Witzel published stuff on cryptography and was denounced as a kook by Kak.
  • I would like to know if you have edited Wikipedia under another account before, as I am not keen on having the same discussion with the same person several times. Especially, seeing how perfectly informed you are on all things Kak, I put it to you, are you, in fact, Subhash Kak or an associate of his?

I have not read Kak's Historical analysis. My "7th millennium" date is due to the review of [KIM PLOFKER, Brown U., in: Centaurus 38 (1996)]:

This discrepancy is circumvented by pushing back the time of the Aryans' arrival to the seventh millennium B.C. (pp. 20--22), and identifying the early Indus Valley civilizations as ethnically Aryan (p. 39) [2]

If we agree that the merit of Kak's non-information-theory work is entirely dependent on academic reviews, here's a review on that book. I grant you that he at least does get such reviews, but I maintain I am well justified in describing them as 'scathing'. You are most welcome to add references to other such reviews. Especially, if you argue that Plofker's review concerns an obsolete edition (apparently, Kak has changed his mind concerning the 7th millennium, then??), feel free to add academic reviews of the current edition. To my mind, anyone capable of publishing with a straight face nonsense like 7th millennium Indo-Aryans, does not really require to be reviewed any further. This is my personal opinion of course, and if people have seen it fit to review the current edition, such reviews may of course be discussed. dab (𒁳) 13:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Twin paradox[edit]

It seems that some fellow wikipedians have immediately and uncritically copied some reports in some media that Mr Kak has "resolved" the twin paradox. All these reports are based on a rudimentary misunderstanding of high-school physics. There is nothing about the "twin paradox" to be resolved. The word "paradox" is a misnomer and physics has never thought that there was any paradox to solve. Kak's own statements that the "resolution" requires quantum mechanics or distant stars are completely flawed because the twin effect only depends on classical physics and both in the language of special relativity or general relativity, it is formulated locally without any reference to stars. [3] I am convinced that most Wikipedia users who edit physics-related pages know why what I say is true. The article can't create a false illusion that Kak's press release is serious physics. Best wishes, Lubos Motl, Harvard U. --Lumidek 19:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

indeed. For our purposes, I am still glad he published this thing, since of course we have more Wikipedia editors capable of recognizing BS in the field of physics than in the field of Vedic studies, so this is likely to add some context. Anyone who solves mysteries of ancient Vedic astronomy, and then goes on to "solve the twin paradox" will, I should think, be screaming "crank" at any editor with only the dimmest background knowledge in these fields :) dab (𒁳) 19:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
International Journal of Theoretical Science
What kind of journal is this? A google search on "International Journal of Theoretical Science" throws up ONLY Kak's 'research' on the twin paradox. Should that section even be there? Gobalan Achayan 02:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I got it! It was the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, a below average journal with an measly impact factor of 0.5 (anything below 1.0 is substandard).
Gobalan Achayan 05:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
are you sure? the journal seems to be published by Springer. Anyway, most journals have a crappy article now and again, just because Kak got to publish in IJTP doesn't automatically mean the journal is bad. dab (𒁳) 07:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The top journals in physics are here:
IJTP has an impact factor of 0.411 .
In other words, in the first two years of its publication, a paper in IJTF (on the average) will be cited 0.411 times. That is way below acceptable levels. Although a low IF does not automatically make IJTF bad, that is a strong possibility. This is a loophole in contemporary science that unsuccessful scientists exploit now and then. Everything gets published somewhere or the other. Two years ago someone even wrote a computer program to generate "papers" by assembling similar looking passages from other technical articles and mailed them off to several technical forums (that claimed to be peer reviewed). The outcome, which was then publicized by the author, had the entire scientific community shaking its head in disbelief! Gobalan Achayan 14:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
we should do an International Journal of Theoretical Physics then (and document that study you mention, too, under Peer review!) Any given paper still needs to be considered for its own merits of course. But this does of course streamline well with the rest of our "Kakiana" here. Kak must be something like unofficial world champion of said "loophole in contemporary science". dab (𒁳) 14:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

but I begin to wonder, what sort of joint is Louisiana State University if "one of our professors got an article published in some minor journal" prompts an enthusiastic press release(?!?) dab (𒁳)

This is most interesting..... That article about Kak was authored by "Ashley Bertholet", an instructor in English: Gobalan Achayan 17:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
hah, so the local English teacher was really impressed with the local Vedic -whiz-kid-slash-poet-prince's latest foray into theoretical physics. The "scientific community" will be eternally grateful for the Louisiana breakthrough in understanding Einstein, I am sure :) (in reality, the release was written by Kak himself, of course. The wording is exactly his style, I know, I've honed my skills with Wikipedia sockpuppetry :) Poor Mr. Bertholet's role was just to say "ok", that's journalism for you, I think we should categorize Kak above all as a public relations expert - he would have been a great success in that line of work (as opposed to a "potemkin" success) ) dab (𒁳) 19:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Mr. Kak engaging in self promotion?[edit]

The good professor Kak's contributions to cryptology and information theory are not at all noteworthy. I find it surprising to see how much of his unknown research enters wikipedia. Is it possible that a few wikipedians are none other than the good professor himself? Please observe:

  • Oddly the article on Decimal sequences for cryptography was created by Jose-Santana who is also interested in Panini. The paper lists a single paper in IEEE Transaction from 1985 that is more than 20 years old! As an academic Mr. Kak is expected to publish dozens in such volumes every year as his other colleagues do. It is surprising that the good professor has nothing more recent to show. IEEE publishes thousands of articles in hundreds of volumes every year. So does it mean wikipedians should open a encyclopedia chapter for each one of them?
  • The Kak neural network cites two papers one of which is Information Sciences 111. This little known volume enjoys a abysmally low readership and an impact factor of 0.3. Compare with better ones like ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (over 3.0). The IP does not have any other contribution to its credit.
  • Randomness tests wiki was created by Lotte Monz who has edited in a totally unrelated topic of Twin paradox and also edits Kak's three stage protocol. What an odd coincidence?
  • Lotte Monz just recently added Kak's name to Quantum_error_correction.
  • The unknown and insignificant Kak's three stage protocol was started by Roberto699 and happens to be Roberto's only contribution.
  • Kak's Limits to AI in this very page lists very obscure papers only pulled directly from his resume. Nobody in computer science recognizes any of those volumes. Good research gets printed in SIAM and ACM transactions.
  • There is an entry for an obscure book written by Mr. Kak: The Architecture of Knowledge. This was written by MarcAurel who also wrote Vararuchi cipher, Aryabhata cipher and Project of History of Indian Science, Philosophy and Culture.

There are several other similar instances which I have found. Aren't all these wikipedians the same as you Mr. Kak? Is this all self promotion Mr. Kak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobalan Achayan (talkcontribs)

not unlikely. However, while we discourage self-citation, we have no way of enforcing this, and we have to judge content on its own merit, not based on who added it. I think there is no question that this article's existence is justified, if only because Kak is an all-time favourite source for Hindu reformist ideologists. The other articles you mention should indeed be merged here. And of course this article should be cleaned up for NPOV and notability. We will have an entire article all about Kak, but this article should not be used as a platform for self-promotion or one-sided hype. You are welcome to clean it up. dab (𒁳) 19:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that a neutrality tag had been placed on this page so I did a little copy editing on it to see if I could smooth out things that seemed to be POV. For the record, I am not Subhash Kak. In fact, I had never heard of Mr. Kak until very recently and have never read any of his books. My complete ignorance of the man is my main qualification as an editor here. Buddhipriya 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Buddhipriya, I noticed that you replaced 'meaningless' in the twin paradox section with 'unclear', asserting that 'meaningless' is harse (sic: harsh?), and that you are not qualified to assess the claim. I sincerely recommend that we discuss this, and that 'meaningless' be re-inserted into that section. Firstly, I am qualified to assess the claim, as special relativity (being part of any undergraduate level course on modern physics) was taught to me in college, and understanding it doesn't even require you to be a physics major. Moreover, the person who inserted the word 'meaningless' is Lumidek, a physics professor at Harvard. I hope this clarifies things a bit; if not, please discuss with me or other Wikipedians who can comment on this topic. Thanks and with best wishes, Gajamukhu 23:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I have self-reverted that edit. I was merely looking over the whole article for possible POV and as a non-scientist I merely reacted to the word in isolation. At the time I took physics I am not sure if all of Newton's shocking theories had been fully codified. Buddhipriya 00:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


ok, we seem to be getting the picture gradually. What remains undiscussed is the "poet" bit. Are there any reviews of Kak's poetry, at all? There appears to be at least one ISBN'd volume of poetry, published by "Vitasta". Is "Vitasta" a publisher known in any way, or is it just a label made up by Kak? dab (𒁳) 18:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

consistent with what we've come to expect, "The secrets of Ishbar" on amazon has two anonymous readers, coincidentially identified by the same handle "A reader", touting it unanimously as "a masterpiece". dab (𒁳) 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
One of the two Amazon reviewers points out that "This is an important book of poems by India's foremost poet."[4]
I had always assumed that honor went to Kalidasa, but perhaps they mean "foremost living poet." If you click on his name at Amazon the book The conductor of the dead and other poems is listed as out of print. Have we covered that item already or do we need to?
What looks like an online edition of Ishtar is here
That site lists the following contact information: Vitasta, B-36 DDA Flats, Saket, New Delhi 110 017, India. Tel.:11-696 7046
Examination of the his LSU book list shows two items published by Vitasta (Ishtar being one, the other being Patanjali and Cognitive Science 1987)

Buddhipriya 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks, as soon as we have any sort of bibliographic detail, it is of course fair game to add back the poetry books. Kalidasa indeed ... ;) dab (𒁳) 21:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not? His philosophy on recursionism can be compared to Aurobindo's ;). Gobalan Achayan 00:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Those mysterious "A readers" keep popping out of nowhere, gleefully handing out shining FIVE STARS each time Kak gifts the world with a new "masterpiece"... in case of "Astronomical Code of the RgVeda" as many as NINE times. Gobalan Achayan 04:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we've pretty much solved this now. This isn't publishing, it's guerilla warfare. dab (𒁳) 15:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
ok, I've done a few merges. We'll need to look out for future creation of Kakiana-cruft, Kak appears to have made a habit letting Wikipedia know of pretty much every new paper he puts out... dab (𒁳) 12:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

IN case it matters, B-36, DDA Flats, Saket is a residential location. I can say this with complete certainty, and can produce references if necessary to the Delhi zoning code. It follows that Vitasta is less a world-spanning poetic monolith and more a chap with a laser printer. Hornplease 17:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Repost of comments from personal talk page[edit]

Can you please explain why you have accused me of a POV statement here [5]? Please look at the Sokal article referenced, it is available online. Kak is clearly accused of practicing pseudo-science by the world's foremost expert on identifying and classifying PS. Please explain yourself. Hornplease 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for getting in touch. I see that I am the second editor who felt that your change to existing sourced material was inappropriate. prior revert for "poisoning the well" The effect of your edit is to put a 180-degree change on the comment being cited. Since no direct source text is provided in the article, if you feel the statement is a misquote please provide a link to the source materials on the talk page for the article. Please build more consensus before re-reverting the edit as you did with the other editor. Buddhipriya 00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
A direct source link is available here [6]. I see you did not bother to so much as google the reference at the end of the article. . Please consider reading the article or trying to look for it before making an accusation. I am returning it to the more accurate version. Hornplease 00:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Please direct further discussion related to the article contents to the talk page for that article so other other editors will have the benefit of your thinking. I voluntarily follow a one-revert rule for situations like this, so will not re-revert your edit. I encourage you to use the talk page for the article to build consensus when disagreements take place rather than simply continue to revert changes you do not like. Buddhipriya 01:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Since this exchange pertains to an edit of content on this article, I am copying the comments here so other editors may review the issue. Buddhipriya 01:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't find any mention of Subhash Kak or the quoted text in the PDF document] (using acrobat search). Can you please point out the page on which the quote occurs or Kak is discussed ? Abecedare 01:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (

I realized that somehow acrobat search doesn't work on the document, at least on my computer. Would still appreciate the page number if somebody has it handy. Abecedare 01:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare, I just did a search for the string "Kak" or the string "Subhash" in the PDF file and was not able to get any hits. Perhaps it is there but Adobe Acrobat reader does not find it on my system either. However I just tested to see if it can find any string, and it can't find even common words, so search may simply not work as you point out. Eyeball scan method finds Kak on p. 36. While we are on this question, where's the reference for the original version of the laudatory statement by Sokal? Buddhipriya 01:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The quote is on page 36 of the document (phew!). In the adjoining pages he quotes and discusses content from the Kak's writings with Frawley et al.
By the way, Sokal's quote is far from laudatory, as he essentially is calling Kak (to simplify a bit lot) the "worst of a bad group". Surely it needs to be presented in context, as currently it comes across as faint praise since the reader will perhaps focus on the "intellectual luminaries". Perhaps editors here can decide on a good way to present the context, or perhaps simply remove the quote from the intro and leave the discussion to later section where the details can be discussed. Abecedare 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC) oops, relized that you already had found the page and my message was redundant! Abecedare 02:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
In comparing this text with the quote in the current article I am reminded of seeing an advertisement for a movie in the newspaper that excitedly quotes a movie review as saying that the movie was "breathtaking!", but when you read the full review it describes the movie as "a breathtaking failure." Buddhipriya 01:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly the analogy that had occured to me. :-) Abecedare 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I would support moving the entire sentence pertaining to Sokol to the talk page pending rework. I personally follow a 1R rule for situations like this, so I will not move it myself. If you concur, feel free to move it or otherwise edit to give context if you wish (you are good at this sort of thing). Buddhipriya 02:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
A mathematician and physicist is now the world's biggest expert on pseudoscience? Unless sokal is criticizing Kak's work on mathematics (which does not seem to be the case), his work is hardly representative of any "body of opinion" on his work.Bakaman 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You are unfamiliar with the Sokal affair? Never mind; what you need to know is that Sokal is not just a random mathematician, but is known primarily as an expert debunker of failed attempts at academic authority. Hence his opinion is encyclopaedic and useful, particularly as so few other experts spend time analysing the work of Kak and his ilk. Hornplease 07:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It hardly matters. Sokal's work only mentions Nanda a couple times and her tirade against Kak. Hardly "Academic criticism", and that too by a person notable for mathematics, incase you were too busy to read Sokal's article.Bakaman 04:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
As has been eminently spelled out here and elsewhere, including the Sokal article, which prominently mentions his authorship of 'Fashionable Nonsense', Sokal is notable as a pseudoscience-sniffer. The referenced article indicates clearly his opinion of Kak's work in certain fields. As such, a mention of it is eminently encyclopaedic. All this has been said earlier, in case you were too busy to read the rest of this talkpage. Hornplease 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The present sentence, 'Kak has been called "one of the leading intellectual luminaries of the Hindu-nationalist diaspora" by Alan Sokal', seems to me to be a serious misrepresentation by omission of what Sokal had to say. Sokal draws a loose parallel between aspects of Hindu-nationalism and national socialism in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s and covers in some detail the ways in which nibbles of science are being incorporated into a pseudo-scientific mash-up with religion with the apparent aim of furthering various socio-political agendas.
Alan Sokal isn't "the world's biggest expert" on anything. No one is. He is nevertheless academically acknowledged for his work on pseudo-science. (Oh, and his paper is worth a read, but requires a bit of time and concentration.) Davy p 18:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
um, yes, Sokal uses "luminary" ironically. I thought this was obvious. Sokal is saying that Kak is a brilliant nationalist crank. dab (𒁳) 19:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it isn't obvious. It reads more like the "breathtaking [failure]" example above. The full context of Sokal's "encomium" is his quote of Nanda (See Fagan 2006:316) regarding the "intellectual method" of Hindutva ideologues: [A]ny traditional Hindu idea or practice, however obscure and irrational it might have been through its history, gets the honorific of "science" if it bears any resemblance at all, however remote, to an idea that is valued (even for the wrong reasons) in the West. Thus, obscure references in the Vedas get reinterpreted as refering to nuclear physics. By staking a phony priority, modern science gets domesticated; it was always contained in India's "wisdom" anyway. Sokal quote some passages from Vivekananda as examples, and then continues: Contemporary Hindu-nationalist intellectuals, many of whom are trained scientists and engineers, have brought this art to an even higher level of refinement. For instance, Subhash Kak, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Louisiana State University and one of the leading intellectual luminaries of the Hindu-nationalist diaspora, claims to find "astronomical codes" in the Rigveda's descriptions of ritual fire altars, using a method that, as Nanda wryly observes, "is breathtakingly ad hoc and reads like numerology 101". (Alan D. Sokal, Pseudoscience and postmodernism: antagonists or fellow travellers? in Garrett G Fagan (ed) Archaeological Fantasies: How pseudoarchaeology misrepresents the past and misleads the public Routledge 2006 ISBN 0-415-30592-6, p.316-17) rudra 20:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
please fix it then... we do have enough material for an independent Hindutva pseudoscience by now, and should discuss this topic in context there. dab (𒁳) 20:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, someone above mentioned, "Kak's work on mathematics." Let me assure you Kak hasn't done any work on mathematics. Applied computer science, maybe—depending on who you talk to—but not mathematics. As for his poetry, I'm reminded of a story from the 1980s of some Argentine journalist asking Argentine author and poet Jorge Luis Borges about (fellow Argentine) then-in-his-heyday-tennis-player-and-sometime-poet, Guillermo Vilas's poetry. Borges, who was in his eighties and blind, simply said, "Imagine me playing tennis." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Blasphemer! Kak is a fount of couplets immortal, like The sparrow that built its nest / feeds the chicks without rest, putting Kalidasa himself to shame. (oh dear, I will always think of Borges in tennis skirts now when I hear Kak's name...) dab (𒁳) 22:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Many apologies! Thanks for the poetry link. Priceless. Maybe we should have a section on his poetry. Definitely Oxford Professor of Poetry material. BTW, I made a profound discovery. If you replace the words by their antonyms, the meaning is unchanged, but the poetry is vastly improved. We could put this in too, but it might violate WP:NOR. Example:

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe, since Professor Kak so delights in having things named after him, he'd be pleased if we should coin a new term for his lyrical work, which clearly stands as a class of its own, Kakopoeia. dab (𒁳) 10:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

 :) I believe it is already there in Estonian: kaka + -poeia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Estonian? Dear sir, it is pure Greek. Seeing the prodigious talents of the professor, I assume it is only a matter of time before he takes up the musical arts? It is an astounding feat that a single man should be able to tackle so many diverse subjects, and yet not rise above mediocrity in a single one! dab (𒁳) 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup request[edit]

I stumbled on to this article and found it very confusing. I am cleaning the contents a bit without changing meaning. It needs more mop-up. Disagreement is fine and to and fro is to be expected but please be careful that this should read like an encyclopaedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gongcha (talkcontribs)

you stumbled? Might that be due to wearing too many socks? dab (𒁳) 10:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Socks are for wusses. This article needs more mop-up - poorly written and confusing. "XYZ hails Subhash Kak as ABC" is not appropriate language, especially when they're all still alive - "XYZ has supported Subhash Kak's view" is. Right now it reads like 5-10 totally unimportant people squabbling with each other. Gongcha 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Gongcha

I have put in a cleanup tag. Take a bit of the time you guys are spending bickering, and clean the language and flow in this article. Right now, it is substandard. Maybe working together will teach you something in the bargain. Gongcha 16:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Gongcha

That's pretty definite views on how things should be done for a Wikipedian with one single article edit to his name, I must say. Nobody claims this (or any) article cannot be improved, but it is definitely cleaned up compared to the glowing self-promotion it used to be. dab (𒁳) 16:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not clean. Under "Vedic studies and Indian politics" there is all of a sudden a list of books, when there is a separate books section. Some of the language is almost adulatory for Kak - "The book seeks to find a consistent framework for knowledge in logic, purpose, and awareness," when it is in fact advancing a controversial theory that many physicists would doubt. Quotes start abruptly in smaller case - "machines fall short on two counts as compared to brains. Firstly, unlike brains, machines do not ...." This doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. It reads like schizophrenic scribbling. Back goes the quality tag. Leave it there or fix the QUALITY of the article. Just for the record - I personally think Kak is mostly wrong. But if there's going to be an article on him it should QUALITATIVELY match that for, say, the Flat Earth Society —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gongcha (talkcontribs) 03:47, 14 Mar 2007 (UTC)

First of all, about the quotes: blockquotes are a standard approach in many WP articles. Second, 'seeks to find' is not particularly adulatory. We can hardly replace it with 'seeks and fails' unless someone provides a reference from a RS pointing that out. Hornplease 03:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
some of your concerns are valid, but they are minor enough to be uncontroversial, and to not warrant a giant cleanup warning. Most of it you can just fix. I must say I find your addition of the Urdu spelling of Kak's name very funny, that's a bit like giving the name of Dimosthenis Liakopoulos in Turkish spelling :) I take back the sock allegation at this point, but ask you to {{sofixit}} instead. dab (𒁳) 09:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Negative/Biased Journalism[edit]

This article is a very typical case of biased journalism. I will quote specific examples within this article that try to show Dr Kak in a negative light (and attempt to subtly ridicule his scholarly positions vis-a-vis the conformed norm of established academic autocracy).

For instance, the section under "Political Background" (which incidentally is the first section ascribed in this biographic entry, although his field of expertise is Science) --

Political background Kak takes a staunchly conservative stance politically, supporting Indian "nuclear deterrance" against China, opposing (what he terms as) "socialist ideas" in the Indian constitution, the "Soviet-style ideas of the Congress party" and "terrorists from across the [Pakistani] border".[1] He has (sarcastically) been called "one of the leading intellectual luminaries of the Hindu-nationalist diaspora" by Alan Sokal (2006), in the course of a discussion in which Sokal discusses pseudoscientific aspects of Hindutva ideology, under which he includes of some of Kak's work.

See the usage of quotes and paraphrasing from others, and how this entire paragraph drips of negatives and bias.

Again, under the section "The Astronomical Code of the Rig Veda", we see judgements being made --

Kak's archaeoastronomical claims have the effect of significantly extending the Vedic period, postulating the arrival of ethnic Indo-Aryans to the 7th millennium BC. This claim is in blatant contradiction with mainstream Indology and historical linguistics[7] and science historians[8]

The usage of the sentence, "This claim is in blatant contradition with mainstream Indology" effects a sense of incredulity. This article is obviously a politically inspired hatchet job, not an unbiased biography of a highly talented and intellectually honest scholar (of both Computer Science, as well as Indology).

Let us look at similar biographies of other eminent personalities and see if this mode of negative journalism is repeated --

I give you the page of Michael Witzel for instance. Notice how his page starts --

Contents [hide] * 1 Biographical information * 2 Research * 3 Criticism * 4 California textbook controversy over Hindu history * 5 References * 6 Publications o 6.1 Vedic Texts and Early Indian History o 6.2 Later Indian History o 6.3 Linguistic Studies, Substrates o 6.4 Textual Studies, Religion o 6.5 Comparative mythology o 6.6 Hindutva & Indus Inscriptions

The first item after his biographical information is the Research he has done, not the author's opinion of his Political persuasion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlahiri (talkcontribs)

as it happens, Kak isn't notable as a scholar (although the article does have an "Information theory" section), but as the author of pseudo-scholarly pamphlets with a political bent. The article should of course reflect this. Kak isn't an Indologist (hence it is rather pointless to compare this article with the Michael Witzel article). He is a computer scientist dabbling in Voice of India type propaganda literature in his free time. --dab (𒁳) 21:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Pray share your definition of reputed scholar with us! I can tell you -- Necessarily white or Eurocentric ideas, nauseatingly toes and repeats the "party line" and bows to the powers that be in the echelons of Western Academia. Never mind...If you don't correct your politically motivated diatribe against Kak (and make it more of a biography than it really is right now), I will take it upon myself to petition the Wikipedia editorial and make sure either this gets corrected or WIkipedia accepts in public that they are about perpetrating biases and prejudices against native scholars who don't toe the Western line! [Dwai Lahiri] 17:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlahiri (talkcontribs)

you are most welcome to "petition the Wikipedia editorial". I assure you that my respect for reputed scholars with nauseating toes is comparatively limited. --dab (𒁳) 16:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Proper Language, Neutrality, Quality[edit]

I also think Kak's ideas might be a bit far-fetched, but please do not compromise the quality of Wikipedia by adding your opinions, POV, and using improper language, like "way flawed from the outset". This is really embarassing, and undermines wikipedia and any contribution one makes. People should remain respectful to Wikipedia and its users. The information is mostly cited, and there has been a good job from that end, but in general this article is highly incomplete, and has so many errors, ranging from basic improper citation and grammatical errors to having a non-Neutral POV. As for content, there needs to be more information about his literary works and giving analyses from multiple angles, not just one. NittyG (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your edits, except for the ToC bit: as the section on Cradle of Civilization makes clear ("participating in the controversy in Indian politics surrounding Indigenous Aryans and the Out of India theory"), for this author, right-wing chauvinism in current-day India and "Indological" writings on fantastic achievements in remote Indian anqituity are inseparable. Or where would you list "participating in the controversy in Indian politics surrounding Indigenous Aryans", under "Indian politics" or under "Indology"? Note that the scope of Indology isn't restricted to antiquity but also includes the modern period, so the division is artificial either way. --dab (𒁳) 16:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I find your insinuations extremely offensive. Why do you consider Dr Kak's theories Right-wing chauvinism? What do you know about the Left-Right chasm in terms of Indian Politics beyond mere heresay? I gather you are an European.

Like I pointed out, your article on Subhash Kak is a sign of your biases at best and pure and simple slander at worst! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Witzel is a professor of Sanskrit, not a professor of Indology. If you can take his credentials as bonafide, why not Kak? Indians don't need to have degrees from Western Institutions to be considered learned in Sanskrit (if that is one of your qualifying criterion). Sanskrit is a historical and national language of India and traditional learning methods (such as passed down from Father to Son in a family of Pandits) would be as valid a credential such as say one from Harvard. In my humble opinion, we have hit upon a classic etic/emic chasm with this article. Bachmann is not an insider, so he considers everything that Kak says suspect and tainted (since it threatens his world view or disrupts the order of his internally constructed idea of how things should be). It is not unusual, but it is strange that he insists that only his opinion gets credence and perseveres, without proper debate. If you so choose, you can debate me here on this, or respond to my article on The Medha Journal. [Dwai Lahiri] 17:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlahiri (talkcontribs)

Indians don't need to have degrees from Western Institutions to be considered learned in Sanskrit. No, but they need degrees from academic institutions, never mind if they are "Western". Are you saying being born in India makes you a Sanskrit scholar automatically? Wow, I am sure this will please the Italians, because this probably means being born in Italy makes you a scholar of classical Latin.
I am afraid you have no idea what you are talking about. There is no "chasm". Kak has shown he is a crank time and time again, and finally topped it all by "solving" the "twin paradox". Oh, wait, being the son of a pandit perhaps also makes you an expert in quantum physics without the bother of any "western" degrees?
there is quite a different "chasm" here, Dlahiri: this is an encyclopedia. You are not trying to contribute to an encyclopedia, you are just being argumentative for the sake of it. Please do that elsewhere, e.g. on your own blog. You are free to denounce Wikipedia's bias against "native scholars" (lol) to your heart's content, over there. Not here, we have rules. I hope this concludes this debate. --dab (𒁳) 19:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Bachmann...agreed this is an encyclopaedia. That doesn't give you (an editor) free-reign to opine your hearts content here about a living person with borderline libellous conjecture and opinions. It is about time some one called you out on this matter. I am glad this article has at least some other editors introspect it and deem it suspect (as I had pointed out some time ago). (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

    Indians don't need to have degrees from Western Institutions to be considered learned in Sanskrit. No, but they need degrees from academic institutions, never mind if they are "Western". Are you saying being born in India makes you a Sanskrit scholar automatically? Wow, I am sure this will please the Italians, because this probably means being born in Italy makes you a scholar of classical Latin.
    I am afraid you have no idea what you are talking about. There is no "chasm". Kak has shown he is a crank time and time again, and finally topped it all by "solving" the "twin paradox". Oh, wait, being the son of a pandit perhaps also makes you an expert in quantum physics without the bother of any "western" degrees?
    there is quite a different "chasm" here, Dlahiri: this is an encyclopedia. You are not trying to contribute to an encyclopedia, you are just being argumentative for the sake of it. Please do that elsewhere, e.g. on your own blog. You are free to denounce Wikipedia's bias against "native scholars" (lol) to your heart's content, over there. Not here, we have rules. I hope this concludes this debate. --dab (𒁳) 19:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 

Bachmann, if you know anything about traditional indian learning systems, it is not unusual for Brahmins (and no caste aspersions here please) to learn Sanskrit the traditional way (sometimes from Father to son, sometimes from a Guru in a traditional indian school -- Gurukulam). —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

yes? your point being? I repeat that this is an encyclopedia (if you are unfamiliar with the concept, read the article). If you think that the concept of an "encyclopedia" is distastefully western-centric, you are on the wrong site. If you decide to contribute to this project, you are expected to endorse its aims. If you have a case to make, please make it now. If not, please honour WP:TALK and stop posting here. Especially since you have your own blog, where you can disseminate your opinion unchallenged. You have a right to your opinion, regardless of whether it is coherent or consistent. On Wikipedia, you need to cite quotable sources, or you have no point. I fail to see the relevance of the traditional guru-shishya tradition to this article. Is Subhash Kak a religious author in the tradition of some guru? No, he pretends to write academic literature, and will be judge by academic standards. Are you saying he is excused for writing bad scholarship because he is Indian? This is ludicrous. There are, of course, brilliant Indian scholars. Kak isn't one of them. Or if he is, the burden is on you to establish as much. --dab (𒁳) 20:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Bachmann: I disagree with your claim that I don't know what an encyclopaedia is. And yes, that is another way to spell it too. Also, your statements clearly demonstrate your limited knowledge of how traditional Indian learning systems work. A Gurukulam isn't/wasn't only for religious training. In any case, since Sanskrit is predominantly a language that is used to practice the Indic Native Religions (and are still learnt and transmitted orally, following a very profound system in traditional learning systems in India), I would have to venture to state that it does make sense to introduce it here (traditional methods of learning). I don't find Wikipedia a Euro-centric entity. I do find your pronouncements and conjecture on this particular essay extremely biased. The last I heard, Wikipedia is no one person's personal fief. Therefore, I will continue to write here and encourage my readers to come here and make sure that justice is served. [Dwai Lahiri] 20:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I missed this --

Are you saying he is excused for writing bad scholarship because he is Indian? This is ludicrous. There are, of course, brilliant Indian scholars. Kak isn't one of them. Or if he is, the burden is on you to establish as much

All I'm trying to establish here is that your "judgement" of Dr Kak as an inept scholar of Indology is based on heresay, and verdicts passed down by those who's established norm is being challenged by traditional native scholars of Indology (those who didn't have to go to Harvard or Univ of Chicago, etc to qualify them capable enough to study their own native history/prehistory and culture).

Also, it has been clearly established that the content of this essay were biased (perhaps written from the Left, everything that doesn't match one's ideology automatically becomes right-wing chauvinism). In the present form, with semblance of balance returned to the depiction of a public figure, I will let this be for now. You have to understand that just because you can quote five peoples' opinions on Dr Kak (who are potentially in an exclusive/exclusivist "old boys club"), that doesn't mean it is truth. There are ethical questions that automatically come into existence under such circumstances.

Next time you decide to slander someone in an encyclopaedia (which is meant to be an unbiased repository of information for public good), think about this encounter you have had.

Warm Regards, [Dwai Lahiri] 20:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"heresay" indeed. You want to read WP:TRUTH, WP:ENC, and generally familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is, is not, and how it works. You may also consider investing a minute figuring out how to sign your posts. Or else you may come to the conclusion that your time is better invested in posting rants to your blog rather than to Wikipedia talkpages. --dab (𒁳) 12:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

tsk tsk! (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

These discussions are getting far off topic, and becoming personal. Rather than discussing peoples personal neutrality and beliefs here, please discuss them in your own personal discussion rooms. This is about Subhash Kak. NittyG (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Indian Politics and Indology[edit]

While people have conceded certain aspects brought up earlier on the quality and neutrality of the article, there is still disagreement on the subject of the Table of Contents (ToC) separation of Indian politics and Indology.

While the Republic of India and Indology are inseparable, they are mutually exclusive subjects, as Indology refers to the study of the Indian Subcontinent (defined geographically as south of the Himalayas as extenuated in the picture in the link). While Kak's political beliefs are integrated with his historical beliefs, they are still mutually exclusive. Writing about his stance on nuclear deterrence of Pakistan should be separated from his Out-of-India theory and beliefs about Harappan civilazation thousands of years ago. I feel that certain people want to show Kak's political or Hindu "chaivinism" by combining the two subjects. Separating the two would not erase any facts that were given in the article. I am inviting others for moderation or arbitration on this subject. NittyG (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, you are not making sense. How is any of this "mutually exclusive"? The connection is obvious. You want nucular deterrence of Pakistan because you believe in "Indigenous Aryans" threatened by Muslim invaders. The point is that Kak is not an Indologist. His "Indological writings" are suffused with his political agenda. Why would Wikipedia even bother to report the political views of a Louisiana computer scientist if it wasn't for his "Indological" publications? We do not have enough material to fill an entire "politics" section. All we have is that interview, which at present is cited in order to put his "Indological" views into perspective. We may consider renaming the section in question. --dab (𒁳) 10:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "Mutually exclusive" means that they are not completely one in the same. Please, just keep them separate, and if there is a clear political stance given in his "Indological" publications, then add that to either/both sections, and make it a clear, direct citation.
  • If the connection you are making is real, then it needs to be cited, otherwise it is your own POV.
  • If the notability of Kak is on his "indological publications", then that needs to be made clear in the article, and the first topics in the table of contents. I know that you have a certain opinion of Kak's work, but keep an objective mind, and don't compromise the verifiable, neutral quality of wikipedia articles.
  • If you wish to discuss this, please do it on the Neutral Point of View Notice Board, where I have made a posting [7] NittyG (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • If the separation is reverted, I will have to take more serious action on this.NittyG (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
"mutually exclusive" does not equal "they are not completely one in the same". Please consult a dictionary. You want to read the Voice of India article before alleging I am presenting my own research here. I will of course revert your edit since it is completely uncalled for. I do suggest you take "more serious action", such as honouring WP:CONSENSUS and doing your homework before editing a topic with a long history. --dab (𒁳) 15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I may have used the wrong term here. What I mean is that they are not completely one in the same. I'm sorry I did not come to consensus with you on this, I will gladly discuss it. The reason I did this was that the notion that Indian Politics and Indology are subjects that are not completely the same is a well-established notion.
(1) Refer to the article on Indology, which states:
Indology is the academic study of the languages, texts, history and cultures of the Indian subcontinent, and as such a subset of Asian studies.
(2) Next, refer to definition of Indian Subcontinent:
The Indian subcontinent is a large section of the Asian continent consisting of the land lying substantially on the Indian tectonic plate. The subcontinent includes parts of various countries in South Asia, including those on the continental crust (India, Pakistan,Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan), an island country on the continental shelf (Sri Lanka), and an island country rising above the oceanic crust (the Maldives). However, it must be noted that in all other countries of South Asia, except India, the terminology "Indian Subcontinent" is hardly ever used - "South Asia" or simply "The Subcontinent" are far more common in everyday usage.
(3) Visiting Indian Politics, which redirects to Politics of India, it is clear that it is discussing the Republic of India
(4) Scrolling down to the History section, it makes the distinction:
Main articles: History of India and History of the Republic of India
Clicking on the History of India link, it says:
This article is about the history of the Indian Subcontinent prior to the Partition of British India in 1947.
For the history of the modern Republic of India, see History of the Republic of India.
For the histories of Pakistan and Bangladesh see History of Pakistan and History of Bangladesh.
Also for South India see History of South India.
So, it is clear that they are subjects that are deeply intertwined, but separate academically.
With nationalists like Subhash Kak, the -ology becomes intertwined with a contemporary nation, as they associate a continuous identity, whether it be Egyptology, Iranology and so forth.
I understand that my reversion is frustrating, but understand that this is for me as well. We need to be patient and work this out. This is about the quality of this article - let's not get personal.
I'll wait for your response, and we'll come to a consensus on this. I may respond a bit slowly, because it's a low priority topic for me.

I am not sure why I have to point this out in such painful detail. It might help to actually read the entire article in context, and click on whatever articles are linked for more information on topics you aren't familiar with. --dab (𒁳) 18:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I don't agree or disagree with your views on Subhash Kak, but everything you wrote above is your POV. If you have any reliable sources that claim that his "Indological" publications exhibit Hindu chauvanism or nationalism, then that should be mentioned under any specific publication, so far only done to a degree for the first publication listed. We need to separate them because they are separate subjects. This is about the quality of this article, not anyone's POV. When writing an encyclopedia, notions need to be objective and consistent. NittyG (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I have separated the subjects. If you wish to add anything about the political nature of any of the publications that is NPOV, then simply add them to the publications individually. The fact that his publications are considered pseudoscientific and nationalist is already mentioned in the Indian polics section, and I have added a something about it in the main description. NittyG (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

Pending changes[edit]

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC).