Talk:Indology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance for this Project's importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
 |
Indology is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Dear Indian friends
People don't like crude propaganda. Please take it back. You are discrediting your own ideology. The 'Bias' section reads like a brainwashing session at some Hindutva rally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.199.22.124 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 24 Jun 2006 (UTC)
-
- All in the modern world know that the Indian culture is far superior than the rest of the world. Thats the reason that even in this centuary Indians holds family and social values high. And some wise westerners are learning more about it and practicing. But the fools still remains in the dark. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.252.238.119 (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Are you trying to hint something? Anonymous, realize that Indology is somewhat personal to Indians and Hindu Scholars like Talageri are inherently superior to Witzel because they can truly analyze the Vedas and deduce the messages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bakasuprman (talk • contribs) 03:17, 27 Jul 2006 (UTC)
- No, I am not trying to hint, I am saying it directly - the 'criticism' section of the article (that is sadly the largest section) as it stands now (August 4 2006) is mostly shameless propaganda and personal point of view that has no place in Wikipedia. I understand that more and more millions of Hindutva followers are getting Internet connection these days so any attempt to stop them is futile (see, I don't even try to edit the article?). So you can pile this garbage here as you please. The problem is that people that were not conditioned by propaganda will turn away in disgust and will not accept your point of view, so whom exactly are you trying to convince? You have a cause to fight for, good. But what will be the net result of your crude tactics? Zero. No outsiders convinced. 212.199.22.37 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Who exactly cares what outsiders think? The "Indologists" write the textbooks, which (I have used them in school) portray the three C's (by sound) (C)Karma, Cows, and Caste. They talk about Islamic philosophy and Xtian philosophy but nothing about Hindu philosophy. They also nevermention Vedas, Upanishads, Gita or anything that is a hallmark to Hindu culture. Instead they treat it like some bizarre tribal society, instead of teaching that its the world's oldest religion, and talking about the beliefs.Bakaman%% 15:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- --- said the internet propagandists. Care to back this up by any sort of evidence, or indeed evidence that "the Indologists" have a single simplistic opinion (as opposed to constituting a wide field of scholarly debate)? Care to back up the ludicrous claim that "Indologists never mention the Vedas, Upanishads"? (while in reality, there probably wouldn't exist printed editions of these works without academia)? dab (𒁳) 09:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Who exactly cares what outsiders think? The "Indologists" write the textbooks, which (I have used them in school) portray the three C's (by sound) (C)Karma, Cows, and Caste. They talk about Islamic philosophy and Xtian philosophy but nothing about Hindu philosophy. They also nevermention Vedas, Upanishads, Gita or anything that is a hallmark to Hindu culture. Instead they treat it like some bizarre tribal society, instead of teaching that its the world's oldest religion, and talking about the beliefs.Bakaman%% 15:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pseudoscience?
Why is this article in the pseudoscience category? brain 23:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Removed. deeptrivia (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
it's just trolling. removed again. dab (𒁳) 09:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge content from Indologist
Indologist is a very short article containing little information. I see no reason why it should be separate from this article. Stebbins 05:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Already redirected by Dbachmann and it looks fine. It lasted so many months :) Thanks. --Bhadani 02:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Indologists
I observe that links to pages on David Frawley,Koenraad Elst and Srinivasan Kalyanaraman have been removed while those on Romila Thapar and Michael Witzel continue to stay. Well, David Frawley is a scholar on Sanskrit and Indian astrology who is widely known for strongly contesting Witzel's take on the Aryan Invasion Theory.He has authored a book The Myth of the Aryan Invasion wherein he challenges existing views on the Aryan Invasion Theory. Sinivasan Kalyanaraman is an acclaimed Indologist and linguist who has prepared a lexicon of ancient Indian languages and has authored several scholarly book on the Indus script. Could the person who has reverted those edits explain the basis upon which he has removed these entries while retaining Romila Thapar and Michael Witzel? Thanks - Ravichandar84 09:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Indology" implies peer-reviewed academia. Elst is in fact an Indologist (but not active in academia, he just got a degree and went freelance). Frawley is no such thing. He is well at home in Category:American Hindus, but he has no academic background whatsoever. We don't list him here any more than we list Witzel at List of teachers of Vedanta. Do not attempt to turn this article on a respectable field of the humanities into a platform for covering internet flamewars over Hindutva propaganda stunts (Wikipedia:Recentism). Concerning Srinivasan Kalyanaraman, surely you must be joking? This is an amateur author who started to dabble in Indology after his retirement, embarking on "deciphering" the Indus script and similar pranks. --dab (𒁳) 09:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I expanded and cleaned up the list. Under "living" Indologists, we list eight individuals at the moment. Surely this can be expanded, but only senior academics who have left their mark on their respective fields should be considered (list with institution where they are tenured). --dab (𒁳) 11:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- If "academic qualifications" form the main criteria upon which it is to be decided who are Indologists and who are not, then what about Robert Caldwell who was simply a bishop of Tinnevely "dabbling" in the study of Dravidian Languages. Besides, the article on Iranology mentions Firdausi as the "Father of Iranian Studies". From which University did Firdausi obtain his degree? - Ravichandar84 10:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
