This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography 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 India: Politics 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. This article is supported by WikiProject Indian politics (assessed as Mid-importance). 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. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Belgium This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium 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.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Elst's work has drawn both praise and criticism". I'm not sure we're representing things accurately here. The praise seems to be entirely from non-academic sources while the criticism is from academic ones. However, this is not evident the way this section is written, it looks like the praise and criticism are even-handed. What's missing is the fringe nature of Elst's theories and we need to bring that out somehow. Ideas? --regentspark (comment) 23:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your statement of the problem, but don't have too many brainwaves as to the solution. One thought that does occur is to dump the Voice of India sources as being undue weight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Provide one or two reliable sources where "Out of India" has been called a fringe. There is nothing wrong with "controversial proposition" either, see the earlier article history.[1] D4iNa4 (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@D4iNa4 and Lorstaking: You have been edit-warring over the issue of fringe theory. Please familiarise yourself with WP:FRINGE and read the RfC Talk:Indigenous_Aryans/Archive_3#RfC:_the_.22Indigenous_Aryans.22_theory_is_fringe-theory.

If you have anything new to add, please state it here. Do not edit-war! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That RFC has no sources to indicate that theory has been called fringe. WP:TRUTH is not exactly WP:VERIFY. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:LABEL, one needs to have reliable source for the label, so far there are not any to call Out of Theory a fringe theory. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Labelling something as a fringe theory is something we do as encyclopaedia-writers, based on our assessment of the entire literature on the subject. You may or may not find the label in secondary sources that we use. The RfC is precisely the mechanism we use to reliably identify fringe theories. You are arguing against the Wikipedia consensus. This won't get you anywhere! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"fringe theory", can be found for other theories[2][3][4] thus its best to stick to sources. Recent article history is full of removing that specific wording, let it be removed unless there are sources. Lorstaking (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear concencus at Wikipedia that the Out of India "theory" is fringe. Pushing your point or view, c.q. censor information, is not acceptable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB: let's turn the burden of proof to where it belongs: show us that the OoI-"theory" is not fringe, c.q. a mainstream theory, or a theory propounded by a relevant minority of sound academics. That does not include Elst and his likes, to be sure. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still it doesn't means that we should be using a term that isn't supported by source. "Controversial proposition" rather seem to be the correct phrasing for the theory that is not mainstream and a minor one. Since we can't rule out that source is needed for this term, we need to omit the term. This theory is not being presented as mainstream anyway. Lorstaking (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the lead to a better one. I can't find if he is more popular for out of India, it can be also that he is more notable due to his books on Ayodhya that received more academic views, as well as those on medieval period in India. And describing a "fringe" theory on lead is not fair :) Lorstaking (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Koenraad Elst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060530210948/http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/books/pp/index.htm to http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/books/pp/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know him having any official academic affiliation, so i doubt he can be called an "indologist" or "historian" on these matters. The LEDE is missing the fact that he was a major proponent of non-aryan invasion theory (this has been the subject of his studies some years ago), a theory which is highly controversial according to mainstream academics, to say the least. I've also re-included stuff about his political activities in Belgium, why remove that ?

Also, what is his influence in maintream academic indology ? Not very much I feel. He is mainly known for his political opinions about India, not much about Hinduism. His strong support to some crackpot indian writers and individuals who, even in India, have no authority on Hinduism have sidelined him quite a bit. Cheers, Xinheart (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the new lead is a definite improvement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's more of an improvement than I thought it was after I first read it. It's still hedging in some ways, though; his views aren't supported or criticized, it should be and. Furthermore, I'm not sure the "supported by neocons" is due weight in the lead. You say you want to discuss his support for the Indo-aryan theory in the lede; fair enough, but right now the lede doesn't say that he was a proponent of these theories, it says he was involved in the controversy. Vanamonde (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've started neutralizing the lead. Xinheart (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other editors, User:TwoHorned and User:Xinheart are the same guy who have extensively edited this biography since 2006 and tried to paint a negative picture of Mr.Koenraad Elst. Please bear in mind when any other new guy pops in to restart his dirty defamation campaign. Thanks. 117.241.3.2 (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You state that the edits are unsourced. Which bits exactly? The Meera Nanda piece is also referenced in the Biography section. Please be clear. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was an editor of the New Right Flemish nationalist journal Teksten, Kommentaren en Studies from 1992 to 1995, focusing on criticism of Islam, various other conservative and Flemish separatist publications such as Nucleus, 't Pallieterke, Secessie, or the neoconservative The Brussels Journal and Middle East Forum.

This entire section is unsourced and slanderous. Please see Koenraad Elst's message to wiki editors.

These defamatory allegations are part of the campaign orchestrated by User_talk:TwoHorned#Bizarre_allegations and his sock puppet User:Xinheart who added it . Please remove them. Thanks. 117.241.3.2 (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koenraad Elst himself says that he was an editor of TeKoS, so what's defamatory about that? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, BLP also applies to him. I've moved some info from the lead into the body of the article, and added some source-tags. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan, the way it is worded it sounds as if the guy is some kind of islamophobe only criticising Islam, while he has criticised all groups from communists to hindu nationalists. Also the source you added only references his TeKoS claim. No references are provided for claims about his writing in The Brussels Journal and Middle East Forum. 117.241.3.2 (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-sock consensus lead was stable for a long time. I have restored it, since it was actually sourced. Elst is mostly known for his work for Indian politics, and only those books are notable enough that they have Wikipedia articles. Hopefully this resolves concerns raised by IP. Orientls (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stability is not everything. Writing a neutral article requires an adequate summary of all its points in the lead, not a bare-bones description of the individual. Vanamonde (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Cpt.a.haddock: Source does support South Asia, I have added the quote. Since migration route was Ukraine to India, use of "South Asia" speaks that IA-languages didn't originated in South Asia or it's Indus Valley Civilisation. Out of India says Indo-Aryan were languages of IVC (Afghanistan, Pakistan, India) but mainstream scholarship say it didn't originated in Afghanistan/Pakistan/India but entered after IVC. That's why South Asia is an accurate term, "India" lowers the scope. Orientls (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Lorstaking (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Orientls: I'm afraid that you're simply pandering to one of those editors who go around replacing India with South Asia. Koenraad Elst doesn't use South Asia and your quote is from some random page. The section dealing with Elst, barring one mention of South Asian homeland, largely only uses India as do the other two sources I've quoted. In his entire chapter on the Indo-Aryan controversy, Elst doesn't use South Asia. From what I can tell, he appears to make it a point to do so. And India encompasses the entire subcontinent in this context and the authors use it similarly. I think the scope is fine and offers the reader clarity vis-à-vis the use of "Out of India" as the name of Koenraad Elst's preferred theory. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This issue directly and entirely concerns South Asia, not just India. You are doing WP:SYNTH and even then you can find sources that say Elst supports "South Asia" as origin for IA languages. "Since Sanskrit also has a term laksa, which means a very large number, Elst (1996), who argues for a South Asian homeland, has proposed that..."[5] and also read [6] It means we have sources for South Asia as well. "Out of India" the theory itself claims South Asia to be an origin of Indo-Ayran languages. Unless you have sources that IA languages originated in Pakistan or Afghanistan, you have no reason to limit the scopeto India. Orientls (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capt. your edit summary makes no sense. We are talking about the mainstream academic views both on lead and section when we talk about major academic view, not Elst's views which are already noted in form of his support towards Out of India that covers South Asia, especially IVC as origin of Indo-European languages. But now I am seeing that even Elst supports "South Asian homeland" so what else we have got to do here? Lorstaking (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I simply take umbrage at the fact that editors seem to go out of their way to replace India with South Asia when India is just as right and stable. South Asia is a modern political construct synonymous with regional India and while the shift is probably inevitable, I'd much rather see it happen organically or via a site-wide consensus than the half-assed find-and-replace or selective-replace strategy that many editors seem to employ. Anyhow, in this case, I've already noted in my previous reply that "barring one mention", sections dealing with Elst prefer to use India, presumably in light of the "Out of India" context. Examples from the same book, Elst is extending this same logic to argue that all the Indo-Europeans could have been situated in India …, The animal was encountered in the steppe area by the northwesternmost border of the Indo-European language continuum that was expanding out of India., Elst raises the possibility of Proto-Indo-European evolving into Vedic in India itself, an evolution which involved, over time, the loss of certain archaic Proto-Indo-European traits. Meanwhile, other Indo-European languages left India at various stages … etc. And after quoting a random unrelated passage in his previous reply, Orientls now cites an example where Elst quotes Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke's book on Savitri Devi. Anyhow, I'm done.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would vouch for "South Asia" here because the main article Vedic Period too says "speakers of an Old Indo-Aryan language who had migrated into the northwestern regions of South Asia". I will check this soon and edit the main article once I gather more information. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Asia is a post-Indian independence term, not used before solely to distinguish multiple countries post partition/colonization. The region was called India since 1800. Ngram confirms my hypothesis. Using south-asia in events post-1947 is irrelevant and non-sensible, as south-asia and India were same. Crawford88 (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about this edit.

cc. @Orientls:

1. The specific place of IE homeland is disputed. A cursory glance at Proto-Indo-European homeland is enough to confirm that. The lead says, "Currently, the majority of Indo-European specialists support the steppe hypothesis, which puts the PIE homeland in the Pontic-Caspian steppe around 4,000 BCE. A minority support the Anatolian hypothesis, which puts it in Anatolia around 8,000 BCE. A notable, though unlikely, third possibility is the Armenian hypothesis which situates the homeland south of the Caucasus. Several other explanations have been proposed, including Baltic origins, the Paleolithic continuity theory, and the Indigenous Aryans/Out of India theory; none of these enjoy a wide acceptance, or are considered to be fringe theories."

2. The specific homeland is WP:UNDUE here because Elst's position doesn't change if the scholarly consensus had been in Anatolia instead of Krugan.

3. This is a futile edit, with no potential for any further help in reading this article.

Crawford88 (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they didn't originated in India, then where they did? I was clarifying that, because above argument (that ran for hours) was over "India" vs "South Asia", even if "South Asia" had replaced "India", still there would be a question about the actual origin. People believe in different hypothesis that they originated in Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. I think I did justice by providing the correct location as per mainstream scholarly opinion. Do you have problem with only lead or body as well? Think about proposing something more better instead of removing. Orientls (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with you inserting Krugan as IE homeland instead of "outside India" at two places, one in lead and other in a section. Krugan is not the consensus, it's a majority opinion. Crawford88 (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No comments from the other side, which prompts me to revert to a (possibly) neutral edit. Crawford88 (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not neutral because it echoes the possibilities of origins other than India. When you are mentioning mostly accepted IE homeland, you just suppress such doubts. Orientls (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears as if written by some propagandists or his harsh critics. This is evident in the tone of language and content of this article. Onkuchia (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please make specific suggestions, or be bold and fix the issues yourself. There is a consistent lack of support for Elst among reliable sources, so the discussion of his work is going to be critical if it is written neutrally (no, that's not a contradiction). Vanamonde (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]