 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 May 6. The result of the discussion was merge with Indology. |
fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Bias edit
Very funny. A biased anti-bias bias from Hindutva, isn't it? My dear Indian friend (and I don't need to see History Page to guess your nationality), a heap of outrageous accusations and insults cannot be balanced by adding 'alleged...' 'supposed...' etc I am not going to edit it, not at all. Let it stand as it is as a witness to your misplaced nationalistic bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.22.167 (talk • contribs)
This whole article reads like a hilarious parody of an Indian screaming "racist bigot imperialist Nazi" at anyone who feels that India is a nation like any other, or Hinduism is a religion like any other. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, take this stuff elsewhere. dab (ᛏ) 17:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't make personal attacks. Comment on content and how to improve it, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will rarely help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.
- in case you are referring to me, I am commenting on content. I wouldn't know how to attack you personally, since I have no idea who you are (you make people look at the edit history even to see your username, please sign your posts). You may be a nice guy (or gal), your article is fascinating, but it is the fascination of a trainwreck, or of somebody hitting himself over the head repeatedly with a live penguin. dab (ᛏ) 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Dab, looks like you are on a crusade against this article. Pls explain why you feel this article is a fascination of a trainwreck.Bharatveer 08:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- It would be better to be able to discuss the subject in only one single article. Otherwise, parts of it would have to be discussed in separate articles like Indology, South Asian Studies, Colonialism, East India Company, etc. But maybe the article title could be changed. ("Indology" is also not as broadly defined as "South Asian Studies".) The subject and the article are big enough to merit their own article. Entire books have been written on some aspect or another of this, for example Chakrabartis "Colonial Indology". --Sendrin 22:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I read the article and felt the arguments it makes to be very cogent. If some of you feel that is not so, then it is your responsibilty to explain the reasons. Tell where the mistakes are and how you will answer them. Instead I hear only blanket staements saying everything is wrong. In the article author did not claim India is the best nation in the world or Hinduism is the best religion in the world. So why make such an accusation! May be this is an instance of bias? Save this page and not delete atleast so we may get a sensible discussion on this subject.
- I don't really care anymore if the article is deleted or not. I understand some (not all) of the arguments that the article should better be merged into Indology, or at least until there is more material. A problem is that the Indology/South Asian Studies article is a stub, and the criticism section would IMO overwhelm that article. (Which is unfair to Indology, the criticism is an important part, but as long as Indology is a stub that section would overwhelm the rest). Because of this a separate criticism article would be the better solution, as it is done for many other pages. Wikipedia has articles on criticism of scientology, islam, many smaller sects and about many other things, so another criticism article is not a big deal. Maybe a better title would be Criticisms of South Asian Studies. --Sendrin 21:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)