Talk:The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editThe categorization to Hindutva is just absurd. I saw the cateogry HIndutva. That category is more related to politics related to Hinduism. This book is an attempt of Historical Analysis of Rigveda. Taking side of Witzel in Talageri-Witzel controversy is POV. I am removing that categorisation.
Fair use rationale for Image:Photo rigveda.jpg
edit
Image:Photo rigveda.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
New article on Shrikant G. Talageri
editHi,
Why is there no page on Shrikant G. Talageri?
One can just copy entire Wiki page from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrikant_G._Talageri to begin with! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.95.81 (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
POV
edit"On the basis of Erdosy's and Witzel's mis-citation of Talageri's book's title and name, Talageri concludes that Witzel criticized the book without having read or seen it."
This sentence shows the tone of the whole article. It makes it sound as if Talageri had nothing to say about Witzel's commentary and so was intentionally vague about a retort, based on a rhetorical device. I am rewriting it as:
"Talageri retorted saying that Witzel criticized the book without having read or seen it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.76.243.10 (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The article was written at a time when this flamewar was in progress. The right question to ask now, after a few years have passed, would be: what part of this is at all wiki-notable, and why? --dab (𒁳) 13:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
None of it. Hindu nationalists theories are notable for their impact on politics and scholarly debate, but they are fringe theories that go against the findings of linguistics archaeology, and most damningly, genetics. There should be boilerplate disclaimers in all articles targeted by hindu nationalists explaining that there is this alternative point of view, and linking to an article about it. It is tiresome to browse articles on Iranian history and see wild claims which would only confuse and befog the novice reader.72.191.211.45 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)