This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India Low‑importance 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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). Astrology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Hinduism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 is RS, see [1][2], 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]

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]