User talk:Joopercoopers/closure

Request for Comment: Inclusion of minority points of view

During efforts to improve this article, a number of editors asserted the need to emphasize a non-academic minority theory. Initially proposed by P.N. Oak, this theory asserts that the Taj Mahal was not originally built by the Mogul Emperor Shah Jahan, but was a much older Hindu temple or palace stolen by the Mughals. It is instructive to note that Oak also claims that the tombs of Humayun, Itmad-Ud-Daulahand Akbar — as well as the Vatican in Rome, the Kaaba in Mecca, Stonehenge and "all historic buildings" in India — were also stolen Hindu temples or palaces.[1]

"The Taj is only a typical illustration of how all historic buildings and townships from Kashmir to Cape Comorin though of Hindu origin have been ascribed to this or that Muslim ruler or courtier."P.N. Oak at www.hindunet.org

We seek comment, prior to an overhaul of the article, to establish "to what extent we are obliged to include minority points of view within this article." 17:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Please read the guidance on responding to RFC's at Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

• Please see the vehemence of editor comments associated with Oak's theories on the PN Oak talk page.

I enjoy a fringe theory as much as the next editor (I am a follower of the 9/11 Truth movement, don't believe in a lone gunman, wonder about the relationship between vaccines and autism, etc., etc.). There's a line, however, and Oak has crossed it. His reasoning reminds one of Emily Litella, (e.g., Oak thinks that the word 'Christianity' sounds vaguely like 'Krisna-neti', and extrapolates therefore that Christianity is historically based on worship of Krishna. Etc. Etc. ET CETERA.)

It's a very amusing joke, in my view. But his followers have determined to believe his wild logical jumps despite any supporting evidence. Not just believe, but to insist that other views are equally theoretical. In the US, this is similar to the Creationism debate, except that at least among the Creationists there are some reasonably well equipped scholars TRYING to find some reasonable evidence to support their case. And also, evolution theory, like any scientific theory and unlike history, is designed to adjust to the give and take of new developments.

Oak's theories by contrast have only the political arguments to support them. You MUST accept them or you are a Bigot. If you can't accept them, you must acknowledge them by reference, thereby giving them credibility. That these are political demands, and not scholarly demands, can be seen clearly on the PN Oak talk page.

Although Ancient astronaut theories includes the theory that aliens built the Egyptian Pyramids, the theory is NOT included on the Egyptian pyramids page.

Can we please dispose of this Oak nonsense?--Nemonoman 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Nemonoman's above views. PN Oak's "theories" are as ridiculous as the Moon-made-of-cheese or the flat-earth-theories. I do not see any reason to propagate such unscientific views, which qualify as a joke at best. Thanks. --Ragib 18:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I suppose, these types of theories are not universally acceptable. So as Nemonoman and Ragib mentioned, they do not follow NPOV policy. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Virtually exclusively for our purposes, all reliable sources on the matter state that Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal. Wikipedia reports the knowledge of the relevant community on any given topic; we are not here to dish out personal conjectures.UberCryxic 19:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nemonoman's analogy is persuasive. Oak's theory is notable enough to be featured in Wikipedia, but, like the "ancient astronaut" theories of the construction of the pyramid, Oak's conjectures do not deserve to be included in the main articles on their subjects. PubliusFL 19:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• How about including the said theory under a section ==Conspiracy theories==? Just a thot. Sarvagnya 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already in the "Legends and Theories" section. It takes up quite a lot of space, and has almost any references as the main article. Why so much emphasis? Because any attempt to remove it or shorten it simply ends up in near edit-war.--Nemonoman 21:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Whatever his other theories are, this one is quite plausible. The Mughals were quite skilled at demolition, its not like they appreciated the "beauty of Hindu temples".Bakaman 21:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Plausible? His theory is that the Taj Mahal is a Hindu temple, not that it is on the site of a demolished temple, so if Oak were right the whole point is that they did appreciate the "beauty of Hindu temples". Paul B 21:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Quite skilled at demolition"? What? The Mughals, notably Shah Jahan, undertook probably the most ambitious and expensive public works campaign since the Romans. What 'demolition' are you referring to? Let me guess: Temple defacement under Shah Jahan's son, Aurangzeb.

No one denies that, PARTICULARLY ME. (See how I have worked to keep information on Aurangzeb's temple destruction in the Aurangzeb article despite numerous attempts at removing it -- also for political reasons, mostly non-Indian in this case.)

Aurangzeb's acts should not, however, influence whether we decide to include a wacky theory that Shah Jahan (who, by the way, built numerous buildings using similar designs and construction techniques, including Akbar's tomb, Red Fort Delhi, Shalimar, Jama Masjids all over the place, and big chunks of Agra Fort) was not (as most of the world, and 99.9999999999% of historians believe) the principal force behind the building of the Taj Mahal.

One thing Oak never explains is the way so many chronicles begin to mention the Taj at the time of Shah Jahan, and how no one mentions anything about a Shiva Temple before this. The Taj is so massive, so sumptuous, that people needed to talk and write about it. If it had been in existence previous to its accepted historic incept date, as a temple, palace, or even as a supermarket for Pete's sake,somebody would have said: "Hey that's one honking great Shiva Temple they got down there in Agra!".

Or maybe all those records disappeared mysteriously as well.--Nemonoman 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the great thing about conspiracy theories. Absence of evidence is ITSELF evidence. PubliusFL 22:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nonsense & Remove - enough said.--Blacksun 23:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Clear case of WP:FRINGE. remove it. Alternatively, Keep and ridicule the heck out of it. Blueboar 23:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm certainly no admirer of Oak, but I see no reason why we should not include discussion of his claims. After all Akbar S. Ahmed mentioned them in his article on "The Taj Mahal" in History Today back in 1993. Since then they have led to court cases and even questions in the Indian parliament. We should not have a separate bibliography for this stuff though. That legitimises it. Paul B 23:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Paul B. It would be disingenous not mention Oak's claims. A smaller dose seems appropriate, however.--Nemonoman 00:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oak should be mentioned, but it should be stressed that nobody in the academic world agrees with his wacky views, although the issue of censorship regarding the court case is interesting... Rumpelstiltskin223 04:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remove preposterous, non-notable nonsense. I too find Nemonoman's Pyramids analogy apt. And while on the subject, Mr Oak should probably take a class on formal logic... Cribananda 07:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• P.N. Oak's 'theories' are accorded far too great a prominence on this page, and I would like to see them confined to the crackpot websites where they belong. However, as we all know, wikipedia has more than its fair share of crackpots who see the freedom to edit here as a golden opportunity to push extreme opinions which no reputable publisher would print. They are likely to descend on the page in swarms if this poisonous rubbish is removed altogether. This might seem like waving the white flag to extremists, but we all know that that's how things work here. What we can do is reduce the amount of attention paid to it, and certainly remove many of the links. Otherwise we just have to hope that readers approaching the subject for the first time will be able to read the article and its talk page and then make up their own minds about the reliability of a man who claims that the Ka'aba is a Vedic Temple. I have tried to improve the references in the main article, and added a contemporary quotation from Bernier which demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the Taj Mahal was indeed built by Shah Jahan and is what all but those blinded by bigotry can see it must be - the greatest of all Mughal garden tombs. Most of the conspiracy theories are based around a single page in the (unfortunately untranslated) Badshahnama of Lahauri, the court historian, in which he mentions that the land on which the Taj was built was orignally a garden belonging to Rajah Jai Singh of Jaipur, and contained a small Manzil, a caravanserai or pavilion. There is no mention of a temple or a palace, and he makes it clear that Shah Jahan purchased the land to build the tomb, whose construction he describes. I can write out this passage and translate it from the Persian if anyone thinks it would be useful, although I doubt if that will make much difference to the fanatics.Sikandarji 23:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy Cow! It might not make a difference to the fanatics, but I for one would be HUGELY grateful to read it!--Nemonoman 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. --Joopercoopers 14:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

O.K. - might take me a couple of days. Sikandarji 14:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• WP:Undue weight should give sufficient guidance. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

All I can smell here is pure politics. I have never heard any discussion of a possible Shiva temple at the Taj Mahal site. I have never heard of any guide at Agra or ASI official discuss this possibility. As far as this encyclopedia goes, we report only convention. If there are new interpretations or new discoveries, we wait for the broader scientific community to deal with it and only when they reach a consensus, do we adopt that information to any prominence or permanence. Oak's theory is neither prominent, nor discussed or subject of a consensus view. As WP:NPOV goes, some fringe opinions are best not mentioned in view of Wikipedia's reputation. As this is political, we best keep it away from now. Perhaps a separate article on Oak's bio, his book may explain his views, but not an article on the Taj Mahal itself. Rama's arrow (3:16) 21:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To add, I think this claim is inspired by the existence of a Rama-Lav temple within the Lahore Fort. And believe me, if this claim that any substance to it, it would be the subject of heated discussion in India before making any appearance on WP. Rama's arrow (3:16) 21:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Coming at this from outside: Since the is a WP article on his book, the appropriate text for that section would be one sentence followed by the usual "see main article" reference. There is no point in describing it at medium-length here when it is described fully there. DGG 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remove, Oak isn't much of a reputed historian himself (bordering on pseudo-historian i'd say), and if he's the only 'academic' proponent of this idea (which is what i gauged from this discussion), then it probably doesn't merit mention. ITAQALLAH 12:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all the world is academic. If one academic, however eccentric, has followers, and his views have attracted public attention enough for there to be independent sources, there is no basis for omitting the views completely. Bu tit doesn't necessarily merit much mention. Given the diversity of opinion in WP (and in the world in general) the only practical course for this and the many similar situations is to compromise.

Although there is an article about one of his books, I think this excessive and duplicative of the article. It should be merged into the article with a redirect. In anticipation of this, I have put the link I proposed to the article about him, which should be non controversial, but also shorted the text. Those who think it worthwhile to learn more can follow the link. .DGG 22:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Some additional details found here but not in the article on Oak have been inserted there. The headings here have been adjusted. No text has been removed from WP, just rearranged. DGG 23:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry DGG, I've reverted your edits for now. Let's finish this RFC before implementing the findings, doing so beforehand rather prejudges the conclusion. --Joopercoopers 11:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Remove. Nemonoman's analogy with ancient astronaut theories is useful. Paul Barlow mentioned the fact that Oak's views have made news and gone to court. Similar points could be made for the notoriety of ancient astronaut theories, but that does not constitute sufficient grounds to mainstream them. This is a fringe theory and should be treated as such. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep--D-Boy 02:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Remove irrevocably Having once wasted 45 minutes listening to him in person, I can assure you he is as much of a nut job in real life as he is in print. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Remove -- unfounded claims do not make it notable for inclusion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - minor note Even though Oak's theories doesn't have general acceptance, I believe it should be a little note about the opposing theories of Oak. If there by any case are any thruth's in his theories, they shouldn't be hidden from the people, as people should get the opportunity to be enlighten by his views on the matter. Therefore I want to keep a small note, and maybe a link to an own page for his theories regarding Taj Mahal Dhirad 21:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep under strict limitations As proposer of this RFC I would like to make some comments and observations on the responses. Bakaman, you imply that Oak is an unreliable source in every respect other than his views on the Taj - logically this doesn't make any sense and certainly doesn't persuade. To describe Oak's ideas as theories is to grossly misrepresent them - a theory implies academic rigour of some kind. We should refer to them as ideas. I would much rather not include anything about these these ideas in the article at all, but as Paul B points out, a certain notability has been established for them to be included, not least the court case and a mention in two books of mine, under the myths section. (Nemonoman you'll note that whilst Pyramids of Egypt doesn't have any wacky ideas in it Great Pyramid of Giza does - that's not to say I agree it should). It should also be noted that wikipedia does not attempt to document what is 'true or false' but that which is written about in secondary sources, and make judgements as to whether or not those sources should be included. Jpgordon suggests we consider WP:Undue weight and I suggest we agree here to confining the Oak ideas to a specific number of sentences - 3 should do it. It also does not warrant it's own sub-section and certainly not it's own references section - the Taj, like many a famous building has an enormous amount of rumour and folk lore surrounding it, we should sandwich Oak's ideas between the stories of the time-honoured "beautiful building's patron has architects and builders, killed/blinded/dismembered" (see also the castle of Khwarnaq[2] 125mi south of Baghdad for some islamic context on that one) and the myth that if the inlaid finial shape on the riverfront terrace is beaten, water will come forth - apparently officials regularly find broken bangles but no water. Another example of accepted knowledge triumphing over wishful thinking --Joopercoopers 16:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this approach...with any approach, frankly, that fails to bow down to Oak's preposterous 'ideas'...will be the constant edits of enthusiastic, motivated believers. Editors who share a belief in building a responsible article, and who undertand the importance of sharing a right-minded consensus, will need to be watchful and thick-skinned. Maybe VERY thick-skinned.--Nemonoman 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not really a reason not to try and reach a consensus - if nothing else its the wikipedia way of sorting things out - if the article is bombed by POV pushers, then there are other options available. Can we agree on a consensus for a very limited inclusion subject to the conditions above? --Joopercoopers 19:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. It's good that the RFC has shown such a consistent view. The hard part will be enforcing the consensus view.Nemonoman 04:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Closure

This RFC has been running for a month now so we should look to try and bring it to a close and establish what the consensus is. As a summary:-
Users who believe the vishnu temple idea should not be included in the article

1. User:nemonoman - would consider limited inclusion - see below
2. User:Ragib
3. User:Shyam Bihari
4. User:UberCryxic
5. User:PubliusFL
6. User:Blacksun
7. User:Blueboar - would consider limited inclusion - see below
8. User:Cribananda
9. User:Rama's Arrow
10. User:Itaqallah
11. User:Alarob
12. User:Fowler&fowler
13. User:Nichalp
14. User:Joopercoopers - would consider limited inclusion - see below

Users who believe the vishnu temple idea should be included in the article

1. User:Bakasuprman
2. User:Dangerous-Boy no rationale.

Users who would accept limited inclusion of the vishnu temple idea's inclusion

1. User:Blueboar - would prefer removal
2. User:nemonoman - would prefer removal
3. User:Paul Barlow
4. User:Rumpelstiltskin223
5. User:Sikandarji
6. User:DGG
7. User:Deep750
8. User:Joopercoopers - would prefer removal