Talk:Subhash Kak

message: A single purpose account has made a long list of complaints in April but not returned to defend them. One mentions  "Leftist activist Meera Nanda. But they are not historians of science." Her article calls her just that, a "historian of science" " with a PhD in biotechnology from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi and a PhD in science studies from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute." A critique by Michael Danino in what appears to be a Hindutva source isn't going to be
a reliable source. If anyone disagrees, go to WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See the other two comments I left for you on this page. Satisfy our policies on WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFY and WP:FRINGE. Full stop. Heiro 07:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's look at [[Meera Nanda]] 

message: From User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Please Answer:
 you added diff the following text to the lead (in bold):
I removed diff this addition from you for the following reasons:
* You dumped a piece of text in the lead; the WP:LEAD summarizes the article, which your addition clearly didn't do;
* "has shed new light and doubt on the whole Aryan Invasion Theory" is incorrect; Narasimhan's research has strengthened the Indo-Aryan migration theory. You obviously didn't read the Smithsonian article: 
:
:
* "Aryan Invasion Theory" is an outdated term, used by polemicists.
Clearly, your intention in not to build an encyclopedia, but to build an argument. Wrong place; I removed it diff. See also Talk:Indo-Aryan migration/Archive 10#Shinde et al. (2019). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Answer 

message: Can I add the following to the intro of the article saying that he is an Indic scholar? This source says he is an Indic scholar. Although he may not have a degree in Indology, he nevertheless has published about it and has contributed to it. 
"and Indic scholar" 
Shakespeare143 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Without an education in Indology nor an academic position in that field, he cannot be a scholar of Indology. Yes, he is an published author on topics in Indology, but he is not an Indic scholar by any means. Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think he needs to have an official education in Indology or an academic position in the field to be an Indologist, although those would probably help him in the field. Indologist Edwin Bryant considers Kak to be an Indologist and a scholar in Indology. Bryant also calls him an intellectual. Shakespeare143 (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Without any qualifications, he is just another raving fringe author that commands no respect and little attention from academia. If he had qualifications, then he would be a fringe Indologist, but he doesn't. Chariotrider555 (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: He has made contributions to the field and is considered an Indologist. He does command respect and gets attention from academia. He is often criticized by ideologues. He is a part of academia, which also illustrates how he is not a "raving fringe author" - he's also not even a fringe author. Regardless, the Reliable Source describes him as a scholar. Shakespeare143 (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation 

message: The first sentence intends to make the subject look a particular way because (as we will discover reading the article) he holds a minority opinion about about an ancient people's location of origin, which we are to trust the findings of scholars as being invalid without their conclusions as to why that is provided. 
Now the origin point of the ancient Aryans is not something in the historical record being reinterpreted by Mr. Kak, it preceeds the historical record and is instead his proposal of an alternative conclusion regarding archeology thus does not make him a historical revisionist and further more the coloring of his character with this charge implies political motives behind this characterization whatever the assumptions about the political nature of his opinion. We can at least try to appear objective on Wikipedia, I hope. ThomasLeonHighbaugh (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: From a read of the article and supporting literature, the description of Prof. Kak as a historical revisionist is warranted and correct. The tenor of this article is somewhat back and forth--those in support of his arguments seem to have plucked as many quotes as possible to add to the article. As someone with an anthropological background, the Indigenous Aryan hypothesis is not seriously discussed as a possibility. It is seen primarily as a branch of the Hindutva revisionist movement, similar to Prof. Kak's claims about ancient advanced astronomy. Honors from those powerful in the Hindutva movement, such as those delivered by PM Modi's government, do not grant him great credibility in that respect. TarnishedSteel (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Historical Revisionism as a Slur