User talk:Harpreet 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello, Harpreet 25, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to World War II seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Chronikhiles. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Chronikhiles (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to Battle of the Ten Kings appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 02:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Battle of the Ten Kings. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Battle of the Ten Kings, you may be blocked from editing. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Battle of the Ten Kings. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

April 2024[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Battle of the Ten Kings are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at your edits; most of them are rambling, and some of them seem to support Indigenous Aryanism. Wikipedia is not a hobby-project in which you can propagate your personal opinions and (mis)understanding, but a serious project with rules which also apply to you. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am absolutely fuming! I asked you to provide evidence for your claims and all you can do is hurl accusations at me! I do not support Indigenous Aryanism - I support the truth, and the truth is that the Aryan invasion and migration theories are absolute garbage. So instead of deflecting and avoiding the question, why don't you actually answer it for once? Show me the facts, or admit that you have none. Enough with the nonsense!
There is currently no scientific evidence supporting the theory that Aryans were invaders or migrants into India. The idea of an Aryan invasion has been largely discredited by modern archaeology and genetic studies. Recent research suggests that the Aryans were likely indigenous to the Indian subcontinent.
1. The Aryans used fabrics that were only available in the Indian subcontinent, indicating that their origins were likely in this region.
2. The philosophy of the Aryans is far more complex and deep than that of Central Asians, suggesting a long-standing presence and development in the Indian subcontinent.
3. The horses used by the Aryans during the Vedic period had 34 ribs, a physical characteristic not found in Central Asian horses, further indicating a native origin.
4. The Aryans demonstrated a knowledge of where to find natural resources in the Indian subcontinent, suggesting that they were familiar with the region and its resources.
5. The natural resources utilized by the Aryans, such as metals and timber, were not readily available in Central Asia, making it unlikely that they originated from that region.
6. The language and cultural practices of the Aryans have strong ties to the Indian subcontinent, further supporting the theory that they were indigenous to the region.
7. The geographical references in Vedic texts align with locations in the Indian subcontinent, providing additional evidence of the Aryans' connection to the region.
8. The agricultural practices of the Aryans closely mirror those of ancient Indian civilizations, indicating a shared heritage with the indigenous peoples of the subcontinent.
9. The presence of indigenous flora and fauna in Aryan texts points to their familiarity and interaction with the environment of the Indian subcontinent.
10. The genetic and archaeological evidence also suggests that the Aryans had a long-standing presence in the Indian subcontinent, making it unlikely that they were foreigners from Central Asia.
11. We all know that Aryans were tall. And there is no doubt about it. But the Central Adians were comparably shorter than Indus people. And the most interesting according to ASI this tall height of Indians was stable and consistent from Neolithic period to the Early Medieval times. And then came stupid Mughals and then Europeans and looted us and gave us thousands of famines. Harpreet 25 (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly consensus is against you; see Indigenous Aryanism. Regarding "The idea of an Aryan invasion has been largely discredited by modern archaeology and genetic studies," on the contrary; see only Narasimhan et al. (2019) (the private opinions of Shinde made him look like a fool). But to test you convictions: is there any scholarly publication, in a serious journal, in which the points above are defended? I'll make you a bet there isn't. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will provide you the needed evidences. Both from my and scholarly perspective. So be ready to loose the bet. If I win then the modern dates would be published on wikipedia. Harpreet 25 (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Wait which type of proof do you need? And against which theory Aryan Invasion. And the actual thing is that people who propose amor support the theory should provide evidence and not the non believer. I am against the Aryan Migration and Invasion theory. So you should prove it to me. But still for your satisfaction I will reply you soon with bu ch of evidences. Harpreet 25 (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/iit-calendar-on-aryan-invasion-myth-is-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-professor/article38065010.ece
https://medium.com/the-indian-interest/the-aryan-invasion-myth-how-21st-century-science-debunks-19th-century-indology-74aaacee8be3
You can buy Abhijit Chavda book that debunks Aryan Invasion and Migration theory with scientific research and it is also logical unlike Colonial works. Harpreet 25 (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The responses on the calendar are telling: scroll.in, the wire. Chavda is WP:FRINGE as fringe can be. WP:RS means serious, scholarly publications, peer-reviewed. For a comparison: Narasimhan et al. (2019), The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central Asia was published in Science. Quote:

By sequencing 523 ancient humans, we show that the primary source of ancestry in modern South Asians is a prehistoric genetic gradient between people related to early hunter-gatherers of Iran and southeast Asia. Following the Indus Valley Civilization’s decline, they mixed with people in the southeast to form one of the two main ancestral populations of South Asia whose direct descendants live in southern India. Simultaneously, they mixed with descendants of Steppe pastoralists who spread via Central Asia after 4000 years ago to form the other main ancestral population. The Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same profile as that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people that affected both regions and that likely spread the unique shared features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages.

562 citations at Google Scholar. To my surprise, Chavda's The Aryan Invasion Myth: How 21st Century Science Debunks 19th Century Indology is indexed at Googl Scholar: 4 citations. See the difference? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah read the book of Abhijit Chavda. Harpreet 25 (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bimbisara. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Harpreet_25&oldid=1219854077"