Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a25ef17fb800d04f

Jump to content

Talk:David Frawley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 108.39.84.90 in topic Biased review and inaccurate labeling.

Critic's accusations and hatemongering

[edit]

Critic's accusations and hatemongering has no place in wiki, any accusations David Frawley has faced should go into a subsection of controversy. GhostIn$hell (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

We tend to avoid criticism sections of WP:BLP. The criticisms are well referenced, what specifically do you object to and why? disagreeing is not enough. GimliDotNet (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Obviously, this part. See WP:CENSOR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
is this response aimed at me, if so I’m not sure why? GimliDotNet (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but the censor-part at GhostIn$hell. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Guy Beck

[edit]

Guy Beck is RS, see , but I removed the word "glowingly" and a nowiki tag from the paragraph which shouldn't have been there. 122.161.190.122 (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Beck has his PhD in religion and his scholarship centers on Hindu music; he has nil academic expertise to review a book that debates AIM. And, Yoga Journal is a pop-magazine. When all critics who have published in academic journals are so harsh, we cannot choose to introduce false balance using shabby publications. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
If you had said this on your initial edit then I wouldn't be reverting you. 122.161.190.122 (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Biased review and inaccurate labeling.

[edit]

I think the overall article is biased towards David Frawley for his more right leaning view. He did after all give evidence to his claims for indigenous versus invasionist claims and provided valid criticism towards the theory. While he may have been more selective and not done a full analysis regarding what he wrote I don't think that condones him being a pseudo-historian as people tend to call him. 108.39.84.90 (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply