Talk:Max Müller/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Additions by 58.165.201.69

58.165.201.69 has added the folowing passage, which after being deleted by me, is repeatedly being re-added by User:Shivraj Singh:

It is wrong to say that Müller's work contributed to the developing of interest in Aryan culture which set Indo-European ('Aryan') traditions in opposition to Semitic religions. In fact he himself was a product of an environment where the Germans and the european nations were considering themselves as belonging to the superior Aryan race. Being in line with that he advocated the aryan invasion of India. He later retracted on it by showing a deep sadness as he realised that in India it was Aryan culture and not aryan race. He thought that the Old Testament, composed in 1500 BCE, was precursor to the Rigveda as the thoughts in Rig Veda were the product of a higher evolution of human mind. With this idea he proposed a chronology proposing that all Hindu sriptures were having lower antiquity than 1500 BCE. Thus unwittingly he distorted the chronology of Indian history.

This was a rewrite of the earlier passage:

Nevertheless Müller's work contributed to the developing interest in Aryan culture which set Indo-European ('Aryan') traditions in opposition to Semitic religions. He was deeply saddened by the fact that these later came to be expressed in racist terms. This was far from Müller's own intention. For Müller the discovery of common Indian and European ancestry was a powerful argument against racism.

The rewrite is problematic for the following reasons:

1. The opening sentence is made to say that Muller's theories did not contribute "to the developing of interest in Aryan culture", when clearly they did, as is acknowledged by absolutely everyone. Note that the original version actually points to the problems that were generated by this new scholarship (the Aryan v Semitic model).

2. It says he was "an environment where the Germans and the european nations were considering themselves as belonging to the superior Aryan race". This is not wholly false, but it's very misleading. Racial theories were not prominent in the 1840s. Theories of cultural identity were, and Muller was essentially a product of German Romanticism and Transcendentalist philosophy, which meshed well with the interest in the Upanishads at the time. Muller was never interested in biological race-theory. His ideas provide a link between Kantianism and Jungianism.

3. Muller never advocated an "Aryan invasion", he assumed an expansion of farmers from Bactria, which also involved on-off military conflicts. He never "retracted it". The writer is getting confused with Muller's retraction of the term "race" in connection with the Aryans. In his earlier writings he used the term, but that was when the term was roughly equivalent to modern expressions like "peoples" or "ethnicities". He rejected it when the term increasingly came to mean something like "sub-species".

4. He did not think that the OT was "composed c1500BC", or that the Rig Veda was "the product of a higher evolution of human mind". In fact he thought the RV was a complex mixture of primitive and highly sophisticated ideas. The idea that he proposed a post-1500 date because of the OT derives from a popular Hindutva claim that he was was trying to fit it into the post-flood Bible chronology. There is no evidence at all of this, and anyway Muller clearly stated that much earlier dates were possible.

So, in essence, these additions are a tissue of falsehood and fantasy. In many cases they even garble the mistaken arguments they are repeating. Paul B 16:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC, outsider's comment:

I agree with Paul Barlow that the disputed passage (as by Shivraj) is unencyclopedic and doesn't fit WP:NPOV. A sentence like "It is wrong to say ...", unsourced and unverifiable, goes against some very basic principles of how to write a Wikipedia article. Shivraj, please read WP:NPOV carefully before you go on editing this article again. Please do not just re-introduce this passage unchanged. If there is something you think needs to be included, give it a wording consistent with NPOV policies, and add a verifiable reference to a reputable source. Paul and Shivraj, both of you, it seems you have both been violating the three-revert rule quite a bit, so I'd suggest you both take a break for now. But thanks, Paul, for bringing this to the attention of RfC. For the moment, I am reverting to the earlier version. Lukas 10:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Lukas,

This is indeed funny. Germans/Westerners defending Aryan Invasion theory as if it is gospel. Anyone providing counterpoints is either a hindu nationalist or a clueless wiki editor. Though people pushing the AIT, eventhough it is debunked in all forms and shape, have no agenda and are following NPOV.

AIT was proposed by Muller on behest of Britishers in India for cultural imperialism of India. There are no two ways about it. Here is an excerpt from British Broadcasting corporation (BBC). Question is why are these modern day aryan supremacist supporters clinging to the authenticity of this theory?

Every thing below this line is from BBC

"The Aryan Invasion Theory

One of the most controversial ideas about Hindu history is the Aryan invasion theory.

This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in 1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasion of :India's indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryans around 1500 BCE.

The theory was reinforced by other research over the next 120 years, and became the accepted history of :Hinduism, not only in the West but in India.

There is now ample evidence to show that Muller, and those who followed him, were wrong.

Why is the theory no longer accepted?

The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence.

Later research has either discredited this evidence, or provided new evidence that combined with the earlier :evidence makes other explanations more likely.

Modern historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had such great influence on Indian :history. It's now generally accepted that Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest :times to today.

The changes brought to India by other cultures are not denied by modern historians, but they are no longer :thought to be a major ingredient in the development of Hinduism.

Dangers of the theory

The Aryan invasion theory denies the Indian origin of India's predominant culture, but gives the credit for Indian culture to invaders from elsewhere.

It even teaches that some of the most revered books of Hindu scripture are not actually Indian, and it devalues India's culture by portraying it as less ancient than it actually is.

The theory was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas:

• it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures
• it implied that Hinduism was not an authentically Indian religion but the result of cultural imperialism
• it suggested that Indian culture was static, and only changed under outside influences
• it suggested that the dark-skinned Dravidian people of the South of India had got their faith from light-skinned Aryan invaders
• it implied that indigenous people were incapable of creatively developing their faith
• it suggested that indigenous peoples could only acquire new religious and cultural ideas from other races, by invasion or other processes
• it accepted that race was a biologically based concept (rather than, at least in part, a social construct) that provided a sensible way of ranking people in a hierarchy, which provided a partial basis for the caste system
• it provided a basis for racism in the Imperial context by suggesting that the peoples of Northern India were descended from invaders from Europe and so racially closer to the British Raj
• it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier
• it downgraded the intellectual status of India and its people by giving a falsely late date to elements of Indian science and culture"

EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE IS FROM BBC

Now I have provided evidence of Panini, Pythagorean thoerem, genetics and more on AIT talk page but the right winger aryan supremacists do not even read what is posted.

Shivraj Singh 18:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Shivraj, you haven't addressed the issue. The topic of this NPOV discussion is not whether Muller's theories were right. I personally have absolutely no opinion about that. The discussion is on whether you, Shivraj, can bring verifiable references showing that some reputable authority today believes that Muller's motives in developing his theory were shaped by racist prejudice. That's what's claimed as a fact in the paragraph you wanted to have inserted. And as long as you don't source it, it can't stay. It's that simple.

I reapeat my plea: please read WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability, carefully.

By the way, the quote you give above actually claims the exact opposite: it says that Muller's theories were motivated by "archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence" available at the time.

(By the way, I don't know where in the above the quote ends and where your own comment starts. Please be more careful in quoting stuff.) Lukas 18:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Lukas, I have put quotation marks around the BBC article. I have given the link also. Please read it again. Majority Indians believe that Muller developed this theory on Britishers cue to subjugate the minds of Indians by portraying that all good things of India originated in the west and hence Indians were inferior to British/Aryans/Westerners. Also read Stephen Oppenheimers's book "real eve". See the archive on AIT talk page where genetic map of world is given and it is shown all DNA of europe was sourced from India which in turn was sourced from Africa. Paul has a head in the sand approach. He beleives his POV is correct and rest of other POVS are hindu nationalist POV. Shivraj Singh 18:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You again haven't addressed the issue. "Majority Indians believe that Muller developed this theory ... to subjugate the minds of Indians": Irrelevant. I asked you whether some reputed historian writes somewhere in the scholarly literature that Muller developed his theory for those reasons. Is it really so difficult to see the difference?

If you could cite such an historian, Indian or foreign, no matter, then the claims contained in the disputed paragraph might be worked in; but they could still not be let standing as a simple fact, in the way the paragraph was worded.

All the rest of what you write above, about Oppenheimer and DNA and whatnot, again concerns the question whether Muller was, in hindsight, factually right; not the question of why he wrote what he wrote at the time. Irrelevant to the question here. I repeat, is it really so difficult for you to understand the difference between these two questions? Lukas 11:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Lukas,

Here are various links to historians/researchers who have delved into why AIT was proposed when it was proposed and why it stands completely debunked. If you say that all these people are not "serious historians" then I will have to conclude you are a firm beleiver in aryan supremacist muller.

stephen knapp from http://www.stephen-knapp.com/death_of_the_aryan_invasion_theory.htm: Death of the Aryan Invasion Theory. This booklet discusses and presents evidence of the real origins of the Aryans and Vedic civilization, and why the theory of an invasion of Aryans, a so-called tribe of Caucasian people from the north, was developed to denigrate the real culture of India. It establishes how there never was an Aryan invasion, how the Vedic texts present no evidence of such happening, how the Vedic Aryans were indigenous to India, and how the Vedic influence spread from India throughout the world. (23 pages)

Who is Stephen Knapp? A "writer, author, philosopher, spiritual practitioner, traveler, photographer, and lecturer" who has a web site [1]. This is not a peer-reviewed or otherwise reputable academic source. By the way, anybody who can quote with a straight face another author who claims that Sumerian, Phoenician and Aryan were one and the same language, is certainly not a serious researcher, I can vouch for that much. Discard this one. Lukas 18:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

BBC web site article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/

Who is the author? This is just an anonymous journalistic piece of colportage. And the relevant page, which you already quoted above, doesn't say what you claim it says. Lukas 18:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

David Frawley's article at http://www.geocities.com/narenp/history/info/frawley.htm

Who is David Frawley? Lukas 18:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Klaus Klostermaier's research at http://www.iskcon.com/icj/6_1/6_1klostermaier.html

Finally. This guy at least has some notability. Note that he doesn't clearly advocate the modern revisionist Indian account, he just compares it (though somewhat favourably) with the traditional European one. Now, question to you: where exactly does Klostermaier say something that we could use as a reference for the assertion: "In fact [Müller] himself was a product of an environment where the Germans and the european nations were considering themselves as belonging to the superior Aryan race."?

From Klaus: "Max Müller, in a letter to his wife wrote in 1886: 'The translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3 000 years.' " Shivraj Singh 18:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and what conclusions does Klostermüller draw from that quote? That Müller was motivated by racial suprematist ideology? No. His interpretation is a different one: He says that Müller and others were "motivated by Christian missionary considerations". Not the same thing. Shivraj, you really really need to try to understand that the purpose of this discussion is not to simply pile up anything and everything just because it may seem to you to make Müller look bad. Lukas 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Lukas, you are deliberately looking the "other way" when facts are staring at you. Are you trying to say Muller is talking as a missionary and not as aryan supremacist when he says "It is the root of their religion, and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3 000 years.". These are the utterances of a person who firmly beleives in the superiority of his race because he wants to "uproot" the firm belief of millions of hindus (now billions) by telling them that there Vedas/Gita and there ancient centres of learning were created by aryans of europe/germany. Now tell me how your viewpoint is NPOV? Shivraj Singh 18:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about my viewpoing, and it's also not about whether any viewpoint is the correct one. It's about whether we can attribute a certain viewpoint to Klostermüller, so that we can use him as a reference for a certain claim. For the thousandth time: You claimed Klostermüller said that Müller was a racist; I showed you that Klostermüller does not say Müller was a racist. Get it, finally? Whether Müller in fact was a racist is an entirely different question. But this is getting frustraing, it's like talking to a wall, so I'm going to stop and not respond again. Lukas 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Feeling is mutual. I feel I am talking to an aryan wall who have only one agenda to make sure nothing bad about Muller or his AIT is published here on WP. Rational discussion is possible only when people talk without prejudice. But on WP prejudice runs deep and in general a westerner cannot be "wrong" and his motives will always be "respectable" and all others fall under nationalists and what not. Why is it so diffucult to see what Muller is saying reeks of superiority of his race? This is amazing obtrusenes. Shivraj Singh 18:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Next time you quote sources, please consider to prefer quality to quantity. It's not our business to wade through volumes of text in order to do your work for you. If you need a reference for an assertion you want included in the article, it's your task to point us exactly to the relevant bits. Lukas 18:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Klaus's References :

Feuerstein, George, Subhash Kak and David Frawley, In Search of the Cradle of Civilization, Quest Books: Wheaton, Ill. 1995

Frawley, David, The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India, New Delhi: Voice of India, 1994

Frawley, David, Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization, Passage Press: Salt Lake City, Utah, 1991

Kak, Subhash, The Astronomical Code of the Rigveda, New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 1994

Kak, Subhash, 'Archaeoastronomy and literature', Current Science Vol. 73, No. 7 (October 10, 1997): Historical Notes, pp. 62-47

Mueller, Georgina, The Life and Letters of Right Honorable Friedrich Max Muller, 2 vols. London: Longman, 1902

Rajaram, Navaratha S., 'The Puzzle of Origins: New Researches in History of Mathematics and Ancient Ecology', MANTHAN, Oct. 1994-March 1995, pp.150-71

Rajaram, N.S. and David Frawley, Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilization, 2nd ed New Delhi: Voice of India, 1997

Seidenberg, A. 'The Geometry of the Vedic Rituals' Agni: The Vedic Ritual of the Fire Altar, Vol. II, ed. by Frits Staal, Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1983, pp. 95-126

Seidenberg, A. 'The Origin of Mathematics', Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 19, No.4 (1978), pp.301-42

Talageri, Shrikant G. The Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism, New Delhi: Voice of India, 1993

Zabern, Philipp von, (ed.) Vergessene Städte am Indus: Frühe Kulturen in Pakistan vom 8 -2 Jahrtausend v.Chr. , Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, n.d. (c. 1984) (Contains important contributions by C. and J.-F. Jarrige, as well as by G. Quivron on Mehrgarh, R. Mughal, G. F. Dales and others on the Indus Civilisation). Shivraj Singh 17:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added a well known quotation from Müller on the subject of Aryan "race". Even though it's not really appropriate to this article I will for the last time attempt to explain why Oppenheimer is irrelevant to this whole issue, not just to Müller, who, of course, cannot be blamed for being ignorant of DNA evidence. Oppenheimer presents evidence to support the entirely uncontroversial, though far from proven, view that paleolithic peoples migrated from Africa to the Middle East and what is now South Asia, during the last Ice Age - a period when world geography was very different. From these warmer locations they migrated into Euope. This migration was in the stone age. The migration proposed by Müller was from Bactria/Central-Asia some 20.000 years - maybe 50.000 years - later, in the bronze age. Oppenheimer's model has no bearing on Müller's model at all. If you cannot understand this simple point, then we cannot have a productive discussion of the issues. Paul B 12:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul,

Let us start thinking for a change and perhaps things will be clearer. Let us go by what you said. 50k years ago people migrated from Africa to India. Some time later they moved to Europe from India. Note this group that moved from India to Europe has genetic markers which are identifiable today. Now this said group lived in europe for thousands of years and then it came back to India as part of AIT 2500 years ago. This group, before coming to India, when it was living in europe acquired some genetic mutations. None of these genetic mutations are present in majority of Indians. What does this mean? This means majority Indians have no genes from europeans: neither bactrian farmers or your aryan race. You are an aryan supremacist and there are no two ways about it. Shivraj Singh 18:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What "aryan race"? There is no such biological entity, as Max Müller himself said, as clearly as can be. That does not mean there was no migration. There are markers that have been assiociated with the migration model, see Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia. But the existence or non existence of such markers is really neither here nor there. Do you think that Pakistan went Muslim because the "race" of the people changed?. However, this is not the page on which to discuss such issues. Paul B 01:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul here or nor there argument is for people not trained in genetics or who do not want to beleive evidence debunking there favorite theory. Pakistan went muslim because of the muslim religion. And here is an excerpt from Klaus Klostermaier's research, regarding your "linguists theory", at http://www.iskcon.com/icj/6_1/6_1klostermaier.html

"When the affinity between many European languages and Sanskrit became a commonly accepted notion, scholars almost automatically concluded that the Sanskrit speaking ancestors of the present day Indians were to be found somewhere halfway between India and the Western borders of Europe-Northern Germany, Scandinavia, Southern Russia, the Pamir-from which they invaded the Punjab. (It is also worth noting that the early armchair scholars who conceived these grandiose migration theories, had no actual knowledge of the terrain their 'Aryan invaders' were supposed to have transversed, the passes they were supposed to have crossed, or the various climates they were believed to have been living in). Assuming that the Vedic Indians were semi-nomadic warriors and cattle-breeders, it fitted the picture, when Mohenjo Daro and Harappa were discovered, to also assume that these were the cities the Aryan invaders destroyed under the leadership of their god Indra, the 'city-destroyer', and that the dark-skinned indigenous people were the ones on whom they imposed their religion and their caste system." Shivraj Singh 18:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ivanka Kovacevic quote

Why do I revert the Ivanka Kovacevic quote Shivraj put in?

1. Kovacevic is not an expert; she is an entirely unnotable literary critic who once wrote a dissertation or something about English novels and now seems to be teaching Croatian literature somewhere.
2. The article cited isn't about Müller but about some other guy; for all we know, she might mention Müller only in a single sentence.
3. The article was written for a Yugoslavian journal in 1975, which means that it will clearly have its own anti-Western, anti-imperialist, Marxist agenda.
4. None of us has actually read the article, the only thing we have is the online abstract (which Shivraj copy-and-pasted verbatim from here: [2].) If you see the abstract in its context, it becomes pretty clear that Kovacevic's paper is probably little more than a POV rant in itself. (But of course, we don't know that.)

All in all, just another attempt at Shivraj to heap up anything and everything that he thinks makes Müller look bad, without regard to quality or relevance. Lukas ^(T.|@) 19:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Er, putting aside the amusing but generally irrelevant discussion of racism (for the record, the most sophisticated folks I've run into from the subcontinent seem to be more interested in preserving the good old days of the Raj), what is really difficult in this tale is the repetitiveness. Some basic copy-editing may be in order? --djenner 04:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This tale? Could you be slightly less opaque? Ae you referring to this talk page or to the article itself? If the latter, what repetition do you have in mind? Paul B 11:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Last try to get to an understanding

Shivraj, as Paul and I said, the Müller quote about the "uprooting" of Indian tradition can stay in, and some sentence about it too. But this quote does not show what the accompanying paragraph ("It is wrong to say...") states. It's about cultural superiority, that's simply not the same thing as racial superiority. And even if that quote proved what you think it proves, we could still not keep the paragraph as it stands. We can't state the claim that Müller had a racist background as a simple fact. Per WP:NPOV (read it, please please please!), such a claim has to be attributed to a reputable secondary source, and you haven't brought such a one forward. Please do not try to re-introduce that paragraph unchanged again, it is absolutely unacceptable. If you must, write something new that expresses what you want to express more precisely. Lukas ^(T.|@) 14:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Shivraj

I agree with Paul B and Lukas on this matter, we wikipedians look for the facts not hearsay, It will be indeed much helpful if you provide with any reputable secondary source of proof that Max Muller had a racist background.

Satyameva Jayate - Truth Alone Triumphs

--Ganesh 20:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys are you even reading what is posted? Muller is ready to uproot 3000 year beliefs of Hindus to show them the superiority of his own Aryans. Why is this not a racist comment? Why is there a need for more proof? Shivraj Singh 18:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Shivraj Singh excels in lunacy, sheer unambiguous lunacy. His tone, his rant, his muddled scholarship, his pathetic sense of nationalism evoke nothing less than contemptuous disregard. He should do himself the greatest favour by joining the revisionist wing of the BJP. [written by an anonymous author]

---

I find the context in which this quote regarding "uprooting" stands now very illuminating and I elaborate in the hope that Mr. Shivraj Singh might understand.

Müller distanced himself from [the dispute about value-judgement of pagan or undermining Christian religion], and remained within the Lutheran faith in which he had been brought up. He several times expressed the view that a "reformation" within Hinduism needed to occur comparable to the Christian Reformation. In his view, "if there is one thing which a comparative study of religions places in the clearest light, it is the inevitable decay to which every religion is exposed.... Whenever we can trace back a religion to its first beginnings, we find it free from many blemishes that affected it in its later states". He used his links with the Brahmo Samaj in order to encourage such a reformation on the lines pioneered by Ram Mohan Roy.

In this context Müller wrote a letter to his wife, in reply to her concerns that he was undermining Christianity:

The translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3000 years.[4]"

Being a Lutheran is significant as Lutherans understand their own faith as the result of an uprooting of the customs and belief-structures of the church of the pre-reformation era. Luther translated the Bible into common vernacular so that people might go back to the sources of their faith and re-discover the truth which had overgrown with obscuring ideas and customs. Hence, I conclude, that his point about "uprooting" was a realization that the true Hindu religion had to be re-discovered and for that many aspects of a popular cult had to be uprooted. I happen to agree that this is still one of the major difficulties in true interreligious dialogue. Gschadow 20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

I will remove the unreferenced parts of this section. This is an encyclopedia article, not a jotter. Sven99 19:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

For IP

The quotes are already excessive. Too many quotes leads to quote-mining which is a form of original research. Please find a reliable source analysing the primary source that are Mueller's letters, otherwise WP policy against original research requires it to be removed. We can discuss it further once that is done. Please read all the links to WP policy and frame a reply, if any, in that context. Thanks! Hornplease 07:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for attempting to modify the article partially to reflect these concerns. Note, however, that additions also have to reflect a strictly neutral point of view. In effect, this means we need to quote 'mainstream' historians on Mueller's views. An opinion article in the Organiser, for example, does not qualify as a reliable source in this respect. I must ask you to review your contributions in this light. We need to have quotes saying "X and Y report that Mueller's statements on the Vedas towards the end of his life indicate that he believed Z", where X and Y are reliable sources, preferable published in a reputable academic journal. Hornplease 07:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Also some of the content is misattributed (example Rajaram's opinion piece does not say that Muller was "paid by East India company"), sourced to non-reliable sources and the whole second paragraph added to the lead is POV pushing based on synthesis of quotes culled from (mainly) non-reliable sources. Abecedare 07:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Now, am I right in presuming that references 6-13 would be considered original research? Have they been mentioned in other published works?

I will remove the corresponding paragraphs if I don't hear a good reason not to within 48 hours. Sven99 19:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sir, Someone reverted my edits on the basis of "Undue_weight". This is absolutely absurd. 1."NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source", this is my intention in editing this article. 2. "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all". This is important; I didn't give aminority view, in fact, i didn't give any view at all. I quoted authors who quoted max muller. I didn't present their views, i presented their factual statements. An absolute fact isn't a view. In any case, it isn't a minority view. I have access to world-wide university databases with millions and millions of theses and scholarly papers and there are many who have quoted Max Muller as I have. You may discuss your concerns further with me and we can all help to improve the factual accuracy of this article. Thanks. 86.40.97.64 11:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sir, Someone reverted my edits on the basis of WP:LEAD. This is absurd too.
"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."

That is why i contributed to the article. I was relating to the controversy section. The abusive language used by Max Muller is later explained in the article as a personal defence of Max Muller in order to avoid controversy in the christian community.
86.40.97.64 11:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The edits are fine. There are no controvsial nor any opposing views. The article is neutral and portrays Mueller in a positive light which is a wikipedia guideline. If Mueller considered the scriptures to be "absurd" then that is his own problem/opinion, no one is criticizing this view; more importantly the article does *not* *condemn* him for having these views. His views as an Indologist are not only important, but also absolutely central to an informative encyclopaedia and unbiased article about him. I personally find no fault with Mueller. We have to understand these statements from the point of view of the time in which he lived and from the point of view of the circumstances in his life. Nobody has ever criticized Max Mueller for having these views. I agree that all un-sourced statements need to be removed from this article though.

Lookingseeker 3 12:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

What is the protocol for repeated vandalism? Various people have been removing well-sourced sections from this article.

Lookingseeker 3 13:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The person who is deleting information has called me a troll and has not explained why. And now he is deleting information on this page which is wholly unappropriate.

Lookingseeker 3 20:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to deal with this except to continue launch a revert war. Can someone suggest how to go about complaining to wikipedia. It BIZZARE that there were so many edit police when I began editing this article, but now they've suddenly gone silent? I agree with some of the things you say. This is an article about an Indologist. It's just a matter of principal. Wikipedia is for any intellegent person to edit. Thanks for your edits.

86.40.97.64 21:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'information' that has been deleted is the following passage which utterly distorts and misrepresents Muller, as anyone who reads the actual quotations from his work can see:

Research scholars have quoted Max Müller's views on the Indic texts. The eminent political scientist Madan Mohan Sankhdher has said that Müller believed that the Vedic works "deserved to be studied as the physician studies the twaddles of idiots, and the ravings of madmen".[6] James Drummond (2003) has attributed him with saying that the sacred sanskrit texs are "absurd and revolting".[7] According to Sharada Sugirtharajah, Müller called some indic texts "extremely childish, tedious, if not repulsive".[8]

None of these passages are written by Muller, but are alleged comments by other people about what they think he said. I seriously doubt their accuracy. The Drummond quotation is footnoted as "James Drummond, Studies in Christian Doctrine, 2003, ISBN 0766174492, OCLC: 4201544, pg. 241" Drummond's book was in fact published in 1908 (the 2003 edition is a reprint)! It's true that MM believed that there were 'absurd and revolting' things in some Indian literature. Well frankly, there are. There are in Western literature too. So "some indic texts" are tedious? So what? Try reading Leviticus. He believed there were great works and bad works. That kind of critical evaluation is what schoars do. This section simply lists only negative remarks, as though it's a criminal offense to say anything critical about any aspect of Hindu culture. It does not present a balanced view. Paul B 18:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect policy, sir. The user originally quotes Max Mullers own works where he had made those comments. However, someone said that if you quote Max Mullers own work, then it is considered original research. In my opinion, this is absurd, since he was quoting Max Mullers own works with references. The gentleman who gave the original research claim, stated that you must quote other authors who quoted Max Mullers own works instead of quoting the works directly. Max Mullers views as an indologist are important. If you have some proof that Max Mullers works were later fabricated to include these statements then you may add. However, for now i'm going to revert the changes. If you want me to send you a copy from Max's books about his scholarly opinions i may, however for wikipedia's needs i can provide well sourced references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stammer jammer (talk • contribs) 06:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read most of MM's books, however if you want so give me some free copies of them, I'd be happy to receive them! The point is that the alleged quotations do not in any way properly represent his views. This section simply does not portray "Max Müller's Indological Views" in any meaningful sense. Paul B 13:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the usual hatchet job. MM has been a favorite whipping boy of the blog-barfers ever since Rajaram et al pointed the way. rudra 11:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, you say "his section simply lists only negative remarks, as though it's a criminal offense to say anything critical about any aspect of Hindu culture. It does not present a balanced view". This is a fact. It is important to mention his views as an indologist. It is strange when you say "it's a criminal offense to say anything critical about any aspect of Hindu culture". I have studied indology in the past and i am certain that it is not a criminal offence to say anything critical about any aspect of Hindu culture. If Max Muller did not like Hindu culture then that's fine with me. Wikipedia is an encylopedia which contains relevent facts. Wikipedia is never condemning him, just stating his views. If he had some positive views as an indologist, then you are free to add them, but don't delete well-sourced references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stammer jammer (talk • contribs) 06:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to put things in context in an encyclopaedia article. Which is why we quote scholars who can report what Mueller was trying to say. Excessive quoting runs the risk of choosing quotes that are not representative of his work and thinking, and thus we avoid it; that is the province of reliable scholars of Mueller, and one we cannot trespass on, or we are conducting our own original research. Hornplease 07:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The article does state 'his views as an indologist', in great detail. I wonder, have you actually read the article? The section you added does not in any way shape or form represent 'his views as an indologist'. It's just a series of semi-hearsay comments which give no sense of his actual opinions - unlike the numerous quotations and detailed discussions already present in the article. So, have you ever read any of MM's books, or any properly scholarly book about him? Paul B 09:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixing the Footnotes

The footnote referencing is all screwed up, from what looks like mixing incompatible schemes. Does anyone have a strong preference for a particular method? If not, I'll undertake to impose a uniform scheme in a few days. rudra 03:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of it is in an archaic scheme that should have been changed ages ago. I mean to get round to it, but it's the sheer effort that's offputting. We should use the straight <ref> format or the cite templates. Paul B 09:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job, thanks! rudra 23:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Georgina Adelaide

I have some doubts about the dates given to Max Müller's wife Georgina Adelaide (1794 - 1919). Did she really live for 125 years ??? The birth must be a typo 129.199.161.178

It would seem so - [3] EddEdmondson 17:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It isn't true. Someone copied it from said site...the letters are supposed to be from the Muller family, 1794 to 1919. I couldn't find a birthdate but this website says she died in 1916. Mike H 17:22, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

1834-1916. They met in 1853 when she was 19 and he was 30. (Source: Nirad Chaudhuri's biography of Max Muller, Scholar Extraordinary.) rudra (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Basis of Indian History

It would seem we are all in a chaotic whirlwind with no start or end?

How reflective of the state of Indian History today. Few good reference books, few properly conducted archaeological studies and many different groups all claiming their own point of view.

Regarding Muller we must look at those he was connected with: Thomas William Rhys Davids was dismissed for misconduct, Alois Anton Fuhrer was dismissed for forgery of Ashoka inscriptions. It would seem highly likely that we have a group who conducted purposeful deception of history to create the Indo Aryan theory. This also occured perhaps with Nobili in Madurai.

We have a very real problem here. The Bastions of history: Oxford and Cambridge University are publishing works using the papers of these men. We have a crisis in Indian History which must be solved through independent archaeological studies and digitization of manuscripts with those manuscripts also being held secure. Note the holders of the Rig Veda manuscripts used by Muller were recently vandalised and some manuscripts were destroyed.

Whatever the consequences we must agree that in India and about India the manipulation of history does occur. This has large consequences for Asian history in general as all scripts and languages are ultimately referenced to Sanskrit, a language that was the foundation for Mullers work. What if Sanskrit is a made up language to suit the theories of Muller? It would mean that much of Asian history is a sham . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.151.130 (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit is a "made up language"? Wow! This is a breakthrough worthy of Von Daniken. Paul B (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone was looking for blog space and lost his way. rudra (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, students and scholar must be informed the fact that most "history related" papers, in particular where religion is concerned, these papers are written down and published by "westerners" whom most of the time are highly remunerated people working under pressure and scrutiny by the various religious and political groups that funds such expedition. Hence, most westerner's works and publication holds a certain bias only decipherable by the "locals" which undoubtedly they know much better their own "history" than any outsider - notwithstanding, I found mind opening, the blog comments than the official and academic backed-up papers published and printed by so called "well known institutes" which are less transparent in revealing the entity/type of the stakeholder that funds and run the institute itself. Although Max Muller is a respectable scholar but this comment left on blog explains clearly why the "hindu" express their concerns while reading in "enlgish" their own "religion" as interpreted by Max Muller. In particular Dr. Jessica Mercay,from the American University of Mayonic Science and Technology - AUM S&T, she commented saying that her research also shows that the famous Max Muller who translated many Sanskrit texts into English and German was paid to mis-translate and to add information that would be deceptive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davedawit (talk • contribs) 15:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Type "Jessica Mercay" into google and see how many hits you get. Needless to say the "University of Mayonic Studies" is not recognised by anyone. They apparently promote the cosmic mystical powers of Hindu architecture. Please don't fill Wikipedia pages with utter rubbish. You should know that random rambles written on blogs are worth nothing. Paul B (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the much needed cleanup; --Nvineeth (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nor does it surprise me to see "jingoistic" individual behind every historical and religious articles on Wikipedia - It look like they are purposely recruited by the same groups that has looted and exploited mankind history just from the beginning of the early "renaissance”(?) Can anybody tell them please that this is "internet" and all their nefarious lies books and works are being exposed day by day.

Most Max Muller works has been hampered from the beginning- maybe he was paid to do so or someone did it purposely is a mystery - but the Hindus are not keen of his works- visit http://www.salagram.net/MaxURdog.html for further info . Davedawit (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hindu extremists are not, and even they have usually never even read them. The claim that he "translated the Rig Veda in a demeaning style" is typical. This is repeated over and over on websites and yet Max Muller did not translate the Rig Veda at all! Paul B (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I was actually surprised to see the criticism material from "Hindu extremists"! In fact Swami Vivekananda has praised Muller for his works, I will add this material sometime when I get time. Vivekananda regards Muller's works to be ground breaking. --Nvineeth (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Need elaboration

After reading the following: "He was also influenced by the work Thought and Reality, of the Russian philosopher African Spir," I thought that it would be so nice to know in what way he was influenced.Lestrade (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Max Muller's Methodology

In 1878, Max Muller delivered a series of lectures at Oxford University titled "Lectures on the origin and growth of religion." The following quote comes from page 80:

Still more is this the case when we have to form our opinions of the religion of the Hindus and Persians. We have their sacred books, we have their own recognized commentaries; but who does not know that the decision whether the ancient poets of the Rig-Veda believed in the immortality of the soul, depends sometimes on the right interpretation of a single word, while the question whether

Page 81:
the author of the Avesta admitted an original dualism, an equality between the principle of Good and Evil, has to be settled in some cases on purely grammatical grounds?
Let me remind you of one instance only. In the hymn of the Rig-Veda, which accompanies the burning of a dead body, there occurs the following passage (x. 16, 3):

“May the eye go to the sun, the breath to the wind,

Go to heaven and to the earth, as it is right;
Or go to the waters, if that is meet for thee,
Rest among the herbs with thy limbs.

The unborn part—warm it with thy warmth,
May thy glow warm it and thy flame!
With what are thy kindest shapes, O Fire,

Carry him away to the world of the Blessed.”

This passage has often been discussed, and its right apprehension is certainly of great importance. Aga means unborn, a meaning which easily passes into that of imperishable, immortal, eternal. I translate ago bhaagah by the unborn, the eternal part, and then admit a stop, in order to find a proper construction of the verse. But it has been pointed out that aga means also goat, and others have translated—‘The goat is thy portion.’ They also must admit the same kind of aposiopesis, which no doubt is not very frequent in Sanskrit. It is perfectly true, as may be seen in the Kalpa-Sutras, that sometimes an animal of the female sex was led after the corpse to the pile, and was burnt with the dead body. It was therefore called the Anustarani, the covering. But, first of all, this custom is not general, as it probably would be, if it could be shown to be
Page 82:
founded on a passage of the Veda. Secondly, there is actually a Sutra that disapproves of this custom, because, as Kaatyaayana says, if the corpse and the animal are burnt together, one might in collecting the ashes confound the bones of the dead man and of the animal. Thirdly, it is expressly provided that this animal, whether it be a cow or a goat, must always be of the female sex. If therefore we translate—“The goat is thy share!” we place our hymn in direct contradiction with the tradition of the Sutras. There is a still greater difficulty. If the poet really wished to say, this goat is to be thy share, would he have left out the most important word, viz. thy. He does not say, the goat is thy share, but only “the goat share.”

However, even if we retain the old translation, there is no lack of difficulties, though the whole meaning becomes more natural. The poet says, first, that the eye should go to the sun, the breath to the air, that the dead should return to heaven and earth, and his limbs rest among the herbs. Everything therefore that was born, was to return whence it came. How natural then that he should ask what would become of the unborn, the eternal part of man. How natural that after such a question there should be a pause, and that then the poet should continue—Warm it with thy warmth! May thy glow warm it and thy flame! Assume thy kindest form, O Fire, and carry him away to the world of the Blessed! Whom? Not surely the goat; not even the corpse, but the unborn, the eternal part of man.

Hokie Tech (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

In comparison, here is the same verse from Ralph Griffith's translation of the Rig Veda:

3 The Sun receive thine eye, tne Wind thy spirit; go, as thy merit is, to earth or heaven.

Go, if it be thy lot, unto the waters; go, make thine home in plants with all thy members.

4 Thy portion is the goat: with heat consume him: let thy fierce flame, thy glowing splendour, burn him

With thine auspicious forms, o Jātavedas, bear this man to the region of the pious.

As you can see, he translated "ago bhaagah" as "the goat share" instead of "the unborn part".

Hokie Tech (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Müller today

He's been dead for a century. His works are read today by a very small percentage of the population. Müller's social theories are not influential at present. What seems to matter now are his translations. I am grateful to his shade that he took the trouble to give us an English language version of the Upanishads and Kant's first critique. He produced his work in spite of frequent accusations that he was harming Christianity.Lestrade (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

Aryan race

The article currently notes that Muller did not subscribe to the biological or anthropological aspect of the Aryan race. While this is correct to some degree, Muller actually coined the term "Aryan race" and was one of the first to propose that Indo-Europeans (Aryans) shared a common ancestry. For quotes see the Aryan race article, which has just been updated. Therefore i think this should be added to the article. BookWorm44 (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The term "race", as you know, was used at the time to refer to ethnicity. I do not think there is any clear evidence that Muller "coined" the phrase. Indeed, he often uses the expression "an Aryan race", which implies one of several races of people who speak an Aryan (IE) language. He was absolutely clear that this was not a biological concept beyond the limited extent that it implied some common ancestry. All this was in the Aryan race article in the past. These quotations are all in Wikiquote. They used to be in the article but were moved [4]: "I have declared again and again that if I say Aryans, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language… in that sense, and in that sense only, do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest Scandinavians... To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar." Paul B (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Macaulay

Please do not add totally uncited material about Muller's relationship to Macaulay "supported" by a quotation from Macaulay that has nothing to do with Muller. This is an article on Muller, not on Macaulay. In fact Macaulay's views on education were the exact opposite of Muller's. This is evidenced in all the legitimate scholarly literature on Muller including his biography [5]. See Friedrich Max Müller: a life devoted to humanities, p. 58 [6]. Paul B (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Just fyi - the information added by User:Ashishsinghal74 is also a copyright violation having been copied and pasted from a source with no evidence of permission.--BelovedFreak 09:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah it's from the notorious Lies with Long Legs by Pradosh Aich! This is a totally unreliable source. Indeed Aich seems to just make stuff up. It has already been discussed above in the section on educational qualifications (Talk:Max_Müller#Muller.27s_educational_Qualifications). Paul B (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's a pretty damning rejection of that particular source. Ravensfire (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am amazed by the Victorian moral policing you people are doing. You are trying to bully me not to put a referenced content in an article without letting keeping open the said content(disputed by you) for public review. This is strenghthened by the fact that you people are trying to remove the remark as soon as it is put. This violates the basic purpose of Wikipedia - open content for anyone to edit. I request 'real' wikipedia admins to kindly block these users trying to prevent a point view not suitable to them Ashishsinghal74 (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The content you added was not "referenced" and we do not put any old stuff in for people to "review". If something is asserted to be fact then we have to be sure that it is fact. All you have done is cut and paste text from the blurb of Aich's wholly unhistorical 'book' and present it as fact. Aich cannot even understand the meaning of what Macaulay actually wrote, let alone its connection to what Muller's quite distinct opinions were. If you wish to complain about the users who have reverted you, you can leave a message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but I think you'd be better advised to read the relevant policy pages that have already been pointed out to you. It might also be helpful to read a real scholarly book on Muller. Scholar Extraordinary by Nirad C. Chaudhuri is the best introduction to his work. Paul B (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Who has given the right to certain heavily biased racist people to decide about the reputability of the sources. Do all the authors have to take permission from these 'gora sahibs' to become reputable. As said in wikipedia guidelines, reputablity of source depends upon the context. You may differ from Pradosh Aich or other Indian authors but have no right to give subjective assessments about them or their work. On the other hand, look at yourselves. You are not allowing any point of view or fact differing from your perspective to remain on Max Muller's page. This is gross vandalism. Ashishsinghal74 (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please add your comments at the bottom of the page or section. Don't just stick them in any-old-how. There is nothing "racist" about the rejection of the source. Several authors we quote are Indian, and we would reject a Western source on the same grounds. We have policies to which you have already been pointed. Pradosh Aich has no qualifications and can't even write a coherent sentence in the English language. His book is full of total misrepresentations of the facts, which you can check for yourself. If you really want to discuss what Muller's views were then I'm happy to do so. The article could always be improved. But just chopping out text you don't like and adding stuff from webpages does not help. Paul B (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

To say that a particular author has no qualifications means that the commentator is more qualified than the author. I repeat this is your subjective assessment and biased racist view that you are hanging on and guarding this webpage for many years and not allowing valid updations to take place by hook or crook through successive editions/deletions , bullying by warning to block the editor or taking help of different usernames. Same criterion should be applied in a level playing field. So you are also under obligation to quote source for each sentence as you expect from me or others. Also most of the Wikipedia pages present an objective view of the context by describing all viewpoints. But your moral policing is making this page static. On behalf of all like-minded people I would like to assure you that I will try to prevent this blatant violation of what Wikipedia stands for - open editing nail and tooth with all my might. Please leave this moral policing. Perhaps you may be emotionally attached to Max Muller. But you must understand that every context looks different from different perspectives and we should respect this difference. This is the basic objective of open editing of an encyclopedia. I think this will do to look things in adifferent way and amend your ways. Ashishsinghal74 (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"To say that a particular author has no qualifications means that the commentator is more qualified than the author." No it does not. It means we follow the agreed policy laid out at WP:RS. I appreciate that you are new, and that these acronyms probably mean nothing to you, but just click on the link and read what it says. I repeat there is nothing "racist" about this. Aich is not being rejected because of his "race". In fact I don't even know what his "race" is. I very much doubt that you have ever read a book written by Max Muller. I suggest that actually look at one of his books - or even at the section above entitled Max Muller's Methodology. You get a sense of what he actually says in his books. We are not under an obligation to quote a source for "each sentence". Look at featured articles, for example. Your insistence on this is what is known as WP:Point - deliberate disruption to make a point. Perhaps you can explain why references to the fact that Muller was born a Lutheran and that he wanted to reform Hinduism via the Brahmo Samaj are "biassed". They are both true (though the first is complicated by the fact Muller had to officially join the Church of England to get a UK university post; he said he remained unchanged in the basic beliefs of his childhood.). Paul B (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to note that you have noticed your fallacies and quite by yourself made the context of Muller's works clear as you youself seem to emphasize the point that the true motives of Max Muller were to promote Christianity rather than being a real 'Orientalist'. As you have said yourself, We are not under an obligation to quote a source for "each sentence". This was what I was trying to tell you when you were resorting to vandalism by deleting my posts within minutes after my editing while giving your subjective assessments as reasons of deletions. When you quote Wikipedia policies, you advertantly miscontext them. The same policies say that reputability of source depend on the context. If you are raising doubts on a living persons's educational credentials, you need to have confirmed sources, as you have already accepted in case of Max Muller. Then, why double standards for Pradosh Aich. Because he is not a gora sahib or Christian like Max Muller or you. Rather than engaging in moral policing you should introspect for your own betterment. Ashishsinghal74 (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any 'fallacies'. I merely added material to flesh out the section, which now says exactly the same thing it did before but with more detail and with references. Muller was a true Orientalist. Yes, he was a Christian. Is there something wrong with that? He believed that there were spiritual truths in all religions, but that Christianity had a fuller truth than others. Many Hindus believe the same thing about Hinduism. If you read many Hindu authors, Aurobindo for example, you will find exactly the same thinking in reverse. It is perfectly possible to be a sincere scholar while still believing in one's own religion. If you bother to read any of Muller's books you will learn that. I doubt you will ever bother, because I dont see any sign that you want to do anything other than have your own prejudices confirmed. Your posts were pure vandalism. You were not remotely interested in improving anything or learning anything about Muller. You added lies and removed truths. That's all you did. You have shown no interest in looking at actual relevant sources at all and I see no sign that you have even ther faintest idea what Muller's ideas were. Your sanctimonous drivel about "my own betterment" is utterly nauseating.

Re your comments on sources. Frankly, I can can make no sense of them. You say, "If you are raising doubts on a living persons's educational credentials, you need to have confirmed sources, as you have already accepted in case of Max Muller. Then, why double standards for Pradosh Aich." There is no double standard. The credentials of a scholar are not related to whether or not he/she is living. You appear to be mixing up WP:BLP with WP:RS. We generally reject writers who have no relevant qualification and whose work is not peer reviewed. That is the case with Aich. There is no evidence that he has any scholarly knowledge of the period, has ever taught it, has ever published in academic journals or is recognised by other scholars. In fact an elementary knowledge of the historical background will clearly identify to any reader how absurd and ahistorical Aich's claims are. See WP:REDFLAG. Read this jaw-dropping interview, in which Aich makes so many howlers it's impossible to count them. [7] He lambasts the most famous European linguists for their supposed poor knowledge of Sansktit, but mentions in passing that he can't even read Sanskrit! There are many bona fide Indian scholars of the imperial era to choose from. Paul B (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You can make no sense because you do not want to. My previous edition was only reinforcing your statements but you deleted it thus proving the truth of my statements. I did not intend to use the word living, it was there by my mistake. But my point remains valid. Previously you were talking about English knowledge of Aich and now you are talking about his historical knowledge and peer review. So you are changing your stand according to your convenience without any principals. I do not bother about your and your colluders threatenings but I will stand for truth. No doubt, Max Muller brought Hindu scriptures in front of the world but he did something which went a long way in dividing Indian and Hindu society. So the other side and his motives should also be under scrutiny. This was and is my basic objective and think this is important for all readers to know about the conflicting aspects of Muller. So what you have expanded now I am only reinforcing it and not saying anything which contradicts what you have said in previous statements. Inspite of that if you go on deleting comments, it makes clear your personal vendetta and obsession over moral policing this page. Ashishsinghal74 (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Your reply makes no sense. Yes, Aich can't write a coherent English sentence and yes he gets his facts all wrong. Both are true. There is no contradiction so I am not "changing my stand" "without any principals (sic)." Both are relevant to the claims you make about the book's reliability, though the latter is more important than the former. You say "Max Muller brought Hindu scriptures in front of the world but he did something which went a long way in dividing Indian and Hindu society." I cannot see what this mysterious something was. You say "I am only reinforcing it and not saying anything which contradicts what you have said in previous statements". No, you are not. You are adding the unsupported claim that his main reason for engaging in scholarship on India was to convert Indians to Christianity. There is nothing in his books to suggest that at all. He was a linguist at a time when the study of Sanskrit was important to the development of Indo-European studies, and he was a theorist of comparative religion. His reasons are really a product of the transcendentalist thinking of German scholars of the period - Kant especially. He writes of his visit to Schopenhauer who revered the Upanishads, and Muller's own work sees a link between the Vedanta to modern German idealist philosophy. The reform he wanted in Hinduism was one away from popular superstitions, ritual etc towards a philosophical study of the Vedanta. His own form of Christianity was very latitudinarian - essentially seeing the figure of Jesus as a moral force, and he was not wedded to a particular theology; he was "Lutheran" in the sense of being a reformist who emphasised the 'invisible church'. He actually thought in the end that an Indian form of Christianity would lead to a rejection of the traditional Christian doctrine of atonement, which is central to orthodox theology, including Lutheranism. See Protap Chunder Mozoomdar. This is light-years away from any conventional Christian missionary. Even the letter to his wife was written to placate her because she was worried that his work was going to undermine Christianity. In the cultural context of the time all scholarship was seen in the context of challenges to Christianty and Muller had to be careful about what he said and wrote. In other words, this is very complex area. There are many Indian scholars who can and do examine this skillfully. It's just that Aich is not one of them. He repeats the most cliched ahistorical Hindutva revisionism. Paul B (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Continue to add unsourced remarks to a BLP and they will be removed. Continue to edit war those remarks into the article and they will be raised to WP:AN3. Comment without your personal attacks, and I will reply. Until you strike your attacks above, it is impossible to have a conversation. Discuss the edits, not the editor. Ravensfire (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me how each and every line in an article can be sourced. Also how a particular author is considered repuatable and a similar one not reputable by subjective assessment of single editor. One may hide behind different strategies to counter a valid revision but the light of truth will remain alive. When you cannot answer, you revert to deletions or continuous editing, reversion under different usernames. Stop this and understand that what you are now deleting is the inference of your own words.Also who is this Sharada Sugirtharajah and what are his credentials. He is a nondescript self-publishing author and cannot be considered reputable. His references should be deleted in same manner as you have considered Pradosh Aich's. Ashishsinghal74 (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Use WP:RSN for determining reliable source issues. Be sure to mention the discussions (both current and previous) here. Also, do not post your "inference of previous statements" edit again without sources that specifically make that claim. You've been reverted 3 days in a row by three different editors. That's edit-warring on your part at this point. You need to use the talk page to get a consensus on it. Failing that (which you are), look at the dispute resolution process. Aich's work has some HIGHLY critical reviews from reputable sources. You've got a tough road ahead. Ravensfire (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"who is this Sharada Sugirtharajah and what are his credentials. He is a nondescript self-publishing author and cannot be considered reputable." He is a she, and she is a Senior Lecturer in Hindu Studies at the University of Birmingham [8]. Her book is not "self published". It is published by Routledge. Paul B (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be sockpuppetry in removing the content under different usernames or supporting usernames which is exemplified by the fact that you all are even removing the content which follows your own logic and you are having double standards on verifiability considering only your own sources as reputable and demanding sources for each and every statement from others while not following the same policy for yourself. Ashishsinghal74 (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to allege sockpuppetry go through the proper channels. The relevant venues have been pointed out to you. I see no sign that you intend to use them. Paul B (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Paul B, It is very unfortunate that you have not overcome your own fallacies. Your only objective seems to be moral policing and not allowing any valid editing to take place. The assertion I have placed is well supported by references which you yoursef consider reputable. Max Muller does not talk about Islam as said by you but about Hinduism as he says about " the ancient religion of India". If you still go on edit-warring without any principles, this is gross vandalism and should result in an action of blockage against you and not against others as you seem to emphasize through sockpuppetting. Ashishsinghal74 (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please provide an academic, non-biased, reliable secondary source which puts the letter in context. As it stands, the context that Muller was saying that Christianity should step in before Islam does makes historical sense. Or, at the very least, please provide a proper citation for the quotes instead of just pointing at the two whole volumes. The responsibility to properly source information is the burden of the person who adds the information. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I found a copy online

You left a lot of contextual information out, Ashishsinghal74:

"India can never be anglicized, but it can be reinvigorated. By encouraging a study of their own ancient literature, as part of their education, a national feeling of pride and self-respect will be reawakened among those who influence the large masses of the people." - Seems to show a fair bit of regard for Hinduism, just disregard for elements associated with it which he believed would prevent the religion from surviving and prospering.

After the comment about missionaries, you left out the part where he blames missionaries for most of the stuff the missionaries didn't like: "much of the work which is theirs they would probably disclaim."

It is unacceptable to twist about another person's words to advance a position they do not state for your own socio-political agenda. I will assume it was a mistake instead of dishonesty, for now. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I am amazed by the duplicity of standards. Previously the said reference had been used as such by previous editors without proper citation and even now the references on the page stand as such. Please make us understand why you people are keeping on policing this page to suppress the fact that motives of Muller were not purely academic and influenced by political and religious contexts. It was a racist comment by Paul B when he uses (shock horror) after education and an insult on intellectual levels of Indians. He should immediately apologize. Ian Thomson of course provides a context in favour of regard for Hinduism by Muller. But the other side should also be brought to prominence rather than a blind passion for Victorianism to maintain the neutrality of Wikipedia.I am amazed if Paul B will try to allow this content to appear in the article as he has unusual flair for moral policing. Ashishsinghal74 (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You do realize the British Raj failed to provide a decent public education system, right? One only university offered a science degree at the time. It is not a racist insult to human intelligence, but pointing out that Indians were being deprived of something that should be a fundamental right. Is it wrong to believe that Indians have a right to education? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"It was a racist comment by Paul B when he uses (shock horror) after education and an insult on intellectual levels of Indians." The only intellectual level I have a problem with is evidenced by your remarks on this page. I wrote "He says that the people of India should be educated (shock horror!)." How on earth is it racist to promote education in India - or anywhere else, hence my use of the mock "shock horror", meaning there is nothing shoccking about it at all! It obviously implies that Indians have the "intellectual levels" to understand modern science etc. If he had said Indians should not have access to modern education then that would indeed be racist.
This was also the view of the much maligned Macaulay by the way, when he said that English should be taught to an Indian elite to access modern scholarship, which would then be translated back into local languages to produce mass education of Indians by Indians in Indian languages. That's the meaning of the sentence "To that [Western educated] class, we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population." He's talking about mass education in Indian languages ("the vernacular dialects of the country"). It's hardly an insult to Indians is it? The differences between Macaulay and Muller arose because Muller also believed that Sanskrit and Indian traditional culture should continue to play an important role.
Yes of course the phrase "the ancient religion of India" refers to Hinduism. Muller does not directly mention Islam in this passage, but he is saying if Hinduism declines something else will take its place. In the context of the time, if it was not Christianity it would most likely be Islam. Again, this has to be read in the context of the letter as a whole - remember he has just been telling Campbell that Indians should be educated in their own culture, including religion ("the ancient sacred writings of the Brahmans"). The Evangelical Christians, of course, wanted Christianity to be promoted in the education system. Paul B (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Muller's letter

I will copy the text of Muller's letter here in full published form (though there are elisions in the published version), just to show how the Hindutva websites totally distort Muller's meaning. In addition one has to take into account the fact that Muller is actually trying to dissuade the Duke (who had just been appointed Secretary of State for India) from supporting overt evangelism by arguing that religion will "take care of itself". He also says that the literal minded Christians will be embarassed to find that Indians will adapt Christianity to their own culture ("The Christianity of our nineteenth century will hardly be the Christianity of India."). Paul B (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

To THE Duke of Argyll.

Oxford, December 16. [1868]

As for more than twenty years my principal work has been devoted to the ancient literature of India, I cannot but feel a deep and real sympathy for all that concerns the higher interests of the people of that country. Though I have never been in India, I have many friends there, both among the civilians and among the natives, and I believe I am not mistaken in supposing that the publication in England of the ancient sacred writings of the Brahmans, which had never been published in India, and other contributions from different European scholars towards a better knowledge of the ancient literature and religion of India, have not been without some effect on the intellectual and religious movement that is going on among the more thoughtful members of Indian society. I have sometimes regretted that I am not an Englishman, and able to help more actively in the great work of educating and improving the natives. But I do rejoice that this great task of governing and benefiting India should have fallen to one who knows the greatness of that task and all its opportunities and responsibilities, who thinks not only of its political and financial bearings, but has a heart to feel for the moral welfare of those millions of human beings that are, more or less directly, committed to his charge.

India has been conquered once, but India must be conquered again, and that second conquest should be a conquest by education. Much has been done for education of late, but if the funds were tripled and quadrupled, that would hardly be enough. The results of the educational work carried on during the last twenty years are palpable everywhere. They are good and bad, as was to be expected. It is easy to find fault with what is called Young Bengal, the product of English ideas grafted on the native mind. But Young Bengal, with all its faults, is full of promise. Its bad features are apparent everywhere, its good qualities are naturally hidden from the eyes of careless observers. . . . India can never be anglicized, but it can be reinvigorated. By encouraging a study of their own ancient literature, as part of their education, a national feeling of pride and self-respect will be reawakened among those who influence the large masses of the people. A new national literature may spring up, impregnated with Western ideas, yet retaining its native spirit and character. The two things hang together. In order to raise the character of the vernaculars, a study of the ancient classical language is absolutely necessary: for from it these modern dialects have branched off, and from it alone can they draw their vital strength and beauty. A new national literature will bring with it a new national life and new moral vigour. As to religion, that will take care of itself. The missionaries have done far more than they themselves seem to be aware of, nay, much of the work which is theirs they would probably disclaim. The Christianity of our nineteenth century will hardly be the Christianity of India. But the ancient religion of India is doomed — and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be?

Max Mueller's slanderous work used racist constructs!

This article seems to avoid references to the slanderous nature of Max Mueller work, in making a violent racial construct out of sublime texts. The only reason max mueller could push through such barbarian ideas was because he was white . He wrote 'The translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3000 years.'

Here is a bigot who was trying to destroy a civillization, when the civillization is bound by foreign rules. Can you see what he did to uproot ? Instead of doing anything positive, he invented/popularized a despicable racist story and introduced that to hindu literature and philosophy.

However his despicable intentions are justified in the article :

In this context Müller wrote a letter to his wife, in reply to her concerns that he was undermining Christianity: - Hillarious that the defense to undermining christianity is a confession of attack on hinduism !! It seems like an apology from a activist, fixated with Max Mueller.

I went to buy a translation of a book by Max Mueller, it was useless for religious purpose. The transdental was reduced to an object of hate. It is spreading racial warfare in the worship of people. How lower can one stoop to ! Please evaluate Max Mueller from this.

Dhara2 11:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Dhara2

Yes, there were bigots in the 19th century, as there are now. Whether he was a bigot or not, he can still be appreciated for the things he did right, or not? It kind of takes a bigot not to appreciate anything from another bigot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.34.7 (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

To Paul B or whomever has taken the responsibility for editting this work. While I admire your dedication to upholding a neutral point of view in this article. I must voice the opinion that you're lack acknowledgment towards the fact that he is/was a controversial figure to Indians is not in-line in general with wikipedia. There are many examples of articles on this website that provide info about controversial issues in a neutral position while usually providing material for and against the issue. I think that that would be the only way to present a truly fair and neutral portrayal of Max Muller. One other consideration for yourself would be what is you consider a mainstream opinion, because I am sure that you are aware of the politics that goes into getting a paper published and the biases that can play for or against it. Finally, your vehement refutation of other sources based on "who is he?" shows your own inability to question and research into ideas contradictory to others. I would recommend that if you are going to portay a neutral article, please do so by giving both sides of the story. Incidentally, I'm not a nationalist and I'm not a member of hindutwa; I am however a person that likes to search for and be presented with all relevant informations whether they are contradictory to my own opinion or not. - Raj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.203.143 (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There is the issue of whether or not the weight is due. While Muller was a product of his era, he still regarded the darkest skinned Indians as his fellow Aryans, which kinda shoots the whole "racist" deal in the ground. If some nationalists choose to misinterpret his statements because of later misinterpretations instead of actually looking at his work, that's their problem. If those nationalists are stupid enough to think he was discovered the Aryan migrations and that most historians without political agendas since are just being racist, then that's their problem. But per WP:SOAPBOX we're not a means to promote their views. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, we should only give this minority view coverage if it is notable, if it has received coverage in outside sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Vilified

"This led to the development of links with Indian intellectuals, notably the leaders of the Brahmo Samaj, and to syncretist attempts to unite Christian and Hindu traditions. Modern Indians have both praised and (largely) vilified these activities."

Why would anyone get vilified for that? The missing ingredient (here and in the article as a whole) is missionaries. He gets vilified by Indians nowadays for supporting missionary activities in India for most of his life, though he was solidly Hindu towards the end. (He only did it for the money anyway) See "Max Muller, A Lifelong Masquerade" by B.D.Bharti Prater 20:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that Muller is often vilified for his sceptical/rationalist attitudes. You only have to look at some Hinducentric websites to see it. I don't know what you mean about Muller being 'solidly Hindu' towards the end, nor do you explain what it was that he is supposed to have 'done for the money'. He was an Oxford scholar. It was his job. He got paid. So what? You can tell from the evidence presented in the article that Muller was not considered to be a missionary, but was actually 'vilified', to repeat that word, by Christians for his pro-Hindu ideas: which is why he did not get the chair in Sanskrit. It's true that he lent some support to sympathetic missionary work. Why shouldn't he? I've read "Max Muller: A Lifelong Masquerade", and a more ridiculous, biassed and incoherent rant it is difficult to find. The author's animus is evident throughout. He makes no attempt to understand Muller in the context of his time and he attributes the worst motives to everything on the flimsiest of evidence. I remember reading his summaries of articles written by Muller and then going back to the texts, which bore no discernable relationship to the summaries. The book is a disgrace. Paul B 14.32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mr Paul Barlow - You seem to be editing this page but have devloped the same disdain which makes you blind to racial constructs of max mueller. I have no intention to hurt you, please allow me to use a personal construct to show the issue - It would be painful to declare in your local newspapers that your faithful and lovely wife is whore. apology to her. -- If you felt the pain of the situation, it is simillarly painful when ill understood primitive ideas of MaxMueller tamper worship in derogatory racial terms. Instead of acknowleding this, you use words like 'hindu centric' websights, 'hindutwa'...? Could you read Kant to understand simillar to hindu ideas, and compare that with slanderous racist work of Max Mueller ? Dhara2 12:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Dhara2

There is nothing remotely slanderous or racist about Max Muller. I don't think it's appropriate to make comments about my wife, even in the abstract, however I am at a loss to understand how Muller can ever be said to have been abusive about India. Read his books. Have you read any of them? Paul B 14:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about inappropriateness making a comment that reduces the expanse of one's love into cantankerous objects. I have no such intention and immense respect to your happy world. But did Max Mueller had the same respect? A human always has a soft side and an attribute when he gets lost. We get lost in sleep, in beauty, in a different union in the transndence of aryama. My objection is that maxmueller has misunderstood this lost aspect and dehumanized it into cantankerous. This is atleast in one religious book that I myself have reviewed. Rest all I have read from books, including from european authors. You are the first person who say he had nothing to do with racist constructs, remotely. I wish you to be correct. 59.93.129.130 16:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Dhara2

I stick with my criticism of this article. Max Muller is a very controversial figure in the eyes of, say, 40.000.000 Indian people, and quite a few others. The article deliberately avoids all mention of this. In an attempt to appear fair and up-to-date, it mentions a very marginal critical view coming from the Brahmo Samaj. Prater 21:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I very much doubt that 40.000.000 Indian people have actually heard of Max Muller, let alone read any of his works. The article is about the real Max Muller, not some fantasy-figure created in the minds of people who have probably never read any of his books. Have you? Paul B 0042, 8 May, 2005 (UTC)

Not 40,000,000, but 1 billion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.213.193 (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

---

I think you are missing the point, whether intentional or not, his study was used to justify occupation of india and the theory of being conquered/invaded before by a mythical intelligent white race called the Aryans. Firstly Aryan means noble and was meant in the Vedas as the an educated elite. The Klu Klux Klan and Aryan Brotherhood use this to justify puritan race. The reason I say mythical because it is widely discredited the existence of european travellers going to Indus Valley or 'east' with vedic knowledge, and secondly Max's dating of this invasion was around 1500 to 1000bc. This can not be, as the river saraswati dried up around 1900bc, and the fact that the vedas must have taken hundreds, if not thousand years to develop. Im sure Max had not intended to have his work used in such a manner that it was used to justify the murder of millions of Jews and Roma people, or justify a slave trade or even convert a part of the world where skin colour proceeds your identity in other peoples eyes, but it has and its regrettable. The move forward should be a question of less flag waving and more seeking to re-write the wrongs and replace with the true scientific truth. Danny*

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.213.193 (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"Müller was wary of Darwin's work on human evolution" (Life and work, § 5)

I find the above claim very doubtful. I do not know well Max Müller's life and work, and have only recently had a look at his work because of a particular linguistic problem related with Darwinian theory, and I found in Müller's work (Lectures on the Science of Language (1864, 2 vols.), Lecture VIII, p. 341 of the original = p. 285 of the electronic version by Project Gutenberg, cf. External Links in the article) the following passage:

"It will be seen, from the very wording of these two paragraphs, that my object was to deny the necessity of independent beginnings [of different language families], and to assert the possibility of a common origin of language. I have been accused of having been biassed in my researches by an implicit belief in the common origin of mankind. I do not deny that I hold this belief, and, if it wanted confirmation, that confirmation has been supplied by Darwin's book “On the Origin of Species.“313"

Note 313, on same page: "“Here the lines converge as they recede into the geological ages, and point to conclusions which, upon Darwin's theory, are inevitable, but hardly welcome. The very first step backward makes the negro and the Hottentot our blood-relations; not that reason or Scripture objects to that, though pride may.” (Asa Gray, “Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology,” 1861, p. 5.)

“One good effect is already manifest, its enabling the advocates of the hypothesis of a multiplicity of human species to perceive the double insecurity of their ground. When the races of men are admitted to be of one species, the corollary, that they are of one origin, may be expected to follow. Those who allow them to be of one species must admit an actual diversification into strongly marked and persistent varieties; while those, on the other hand, who recognize several or numerous human species, will hardly be able to maintain that such species were primordial and supernatural in the ordinary sense of the word.“ (Asa Gray, Nat. Sel. p. 54.)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierbancel (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Oversights?

Hey wiki editors and contributors, much appreciation for your hard work on the articles. Just wondering why there is no mention of: a) Max's meeting with Swami Vivekananda which led to his writing the biography of Sri Ramakrishna (Paramhansa)? by all accounts he was deeply interested in Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda specifically travelled to England to meet with him, having a deep sense of mutual respect for each other. b) His paid translation work by Christ Church, commissioned so that missionaries would better understand who they were preaching to.

In all honesty a very well written and informative article, however it definitely appears to have a very Christian bias. I'm surprised that his only contemporary controversies were with regards to his blasphemy against Christianity, while the very idea of his being able to speak Sanskrit was questioned by many educated Indians and that he had been considered a foremost scholar of Ancient Indian culture without having stepped in India. Finally, the very last paragraph in views on the future of India is definitely enough to be considered a modern controversy.

Well written article? Yes. Neutral Article? Does not seem so. While it may seem that you have omitted these points to avoid controversy, the omittance is what is the largest source of controversy for Indians who are, ostensibly, the most affected by his work. Rather than acknowledging that he had been born in a time of Christian prejudice and was subject to these prejudices to be able to survive in the academic world, it appears that you would rather bury it deep in the sand and apply our construct of racial tolerance and acceptance to his time period.

I don't think inclusions of the negative aspects of Max Mullers life would tarnish the neutrality of this article. What you must understand is that while in the west most people might not know him, among people from the East he is very well known and is still representative of colonial oppression, how that oppressive worldview manipulated cultures to show their own domination and how that oppressive nature continues in the world of academia.

Incidentally, some of his translations of the Chandogya Upanishad and of the Shatpatha Brahman are pretty terrible.

Would love to write all this into a legit, sourced wiki article for you guys? JBalz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.203.143 (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)