This page is for requesting input on possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories.
Questions related to articles on fringe theories may also be posted here.
The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality is maintained.
I'm afraid there is little regard for WP:FRINGE or other policies dealing with the promotion of pseudoscience and creationism. We may need to ask for arbitration enforcement if this behavior doesn't stop.
JPS, I realize you have a POV that you want to see reflected in the above articles, but these articles are precisely about issues around which there is controversy and lack of consensus. Your opinion that they are "fringe" does not mean that they are not notable issues and that the sources cited are not reliable. The threat of "arbitration enforcement" is also out of place.
Regarding the Fermi paradox, Bernard Haisch is a clearly a notable author and astrophysicist. While I point to a particular article that he has self published See WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I'm sure that others hold the same opinion and it is likely that a secondary source could be found, but that's not necessary and I don't have the time to pursue it. Instead of reducing material in the article, your efforts would be better spent adding a source in place of the Haisch post if you feel it is a better source. Actually, it's my understanding that he does not believe in UFO's but is, in this article, simply playing devil's advocate regarding why the claims of UFO sightings cannot be completely ruled out by the Fermi Paradox.
Regarding the Fine-tuned_Universe edit, I think it very rude of you to accuse me of "Creationist POV-pushing" simply because I add a cite to Haisch's "The Purpose-Guided Universe: Believing in Einstein, Darwin, and God," a book by a highly qualified astrophysist who, very pertinently, wrote his book to address the fine-tuned universe issue in a way that denies creationism yet argues for the existence of God. FYI, perhaps you disagree, but I consider the accusation of "creationism" to imply a belief in a literal interpretation of the Genesis and six day creation myth. I also think it's rude to call someone a creationist unless they describe themselves that way.
Regarding the God of the gaps edit you reverted, I did not even introduce new sources. I simply fixed two incomplete citations then corrected the sentences citing these sources to make them actually reflect what the sources were saying. If you believe I did not correctly summarize these sources, fix my summary, but do not revert to the badly summarized content. Don't you have something constructive to contribute? Why are you following me around to undue my contributions? Please assume good faith and try to work with other editors to build up articles rather than trim them down to some POV which best suits you. You are not the editor-in-chief or final arbiter of reliable sources. -GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The Haisch source is fringey as fringe gets. SPS only applies if he were discussing his scientific work that had previously been published in a reliable third-party publication. Here he's giving an opinion on something that has nothing to do with his prior published scientific work, or scientific work at all for that matter. And the book you cite pretty much only shows up on creationist or fringe websites. I'm also not sure what you added it in to cite. Also, I have to note, we don't "build up" articles for the sake of doing it. They'd get prohibitively long and be filled with all types of undue cruft. Indeed, the opposite is true. Wikipedia has a POV and that's the POV expressed by mainstream reliable sources. Capeo (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The "controversy" and "lack of consensus" you are claiming exist are themselves WP:FRINGE claims that are promulgated, mostly, by religious believers, ufologists, and pseudoscientists. Your edits seek to promote these fringe viewpoints as being equally footed (e.g. your appeal to Haisch as a "highly qualified astrophysist". Be aware that we are intimately familiar with Haisch and his claims at this website: Talk:Bernard Haisch#Some background: Three sections from Paul_August's talk page). Trying to claim some level of mainstream acceptance for these ideas is exactly the problem with your edits. jps (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
They used Expelled as a factual source? Yeah, not good. Capeo (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The bigger problem was that he consumed a great deal of editor time at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy, had a major case of WP:IDHT, and appears to be incapable or unwilling to understand, never mind abide by our policies because of their zealous ideological stance. If he/she is continuing his disruptive behavior on other articles, then it's clear that WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR apply. Maybe a discretionary indef would save both us and him/her a world of anguish. I just don't see a ray of hope here based on their interactions with other editors at the talk page on Creation-evolution controversy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I see. I wasn't aware there was prior history involved. I only came to notice their recent edits from checking out the FTN yesterday. Maybe a creationism/evolution TB might do the trick? Capeo (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
That would be a good start. It's worth considering. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The references recently added to Stephen Barr look rather dodgy and coatracky. Certainly, if a scientist has notable fringe views, these should be discussed, sourced to independent sources with weight as appropriate. But also the subject's scientific work should remain the focus of the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Honestly I don't even see how Barr meets any notability claims. He hasn't published a significant scientific paper since the 80s and his work amounted to nothing. Today searches bring up nothing but religious and fringe websites at best where he gives an interview. His books are limited print with no notable reviews. And I know Google hits aren't a good argument for inclusion but that's when we're debating tens of thousands of hits. Barr doesn't even seem to have a single page to himself before random Stephen Barrs start popping up completely unrelated to the subject of the article. Is this person notable? Capeo (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Barr's work on grand unified models is extremely well-known. He passes WP:PROF#C1, with 30 scientific papers cited more than one hundred times on Google scholar, and WP:PROF#C3 as a fellow of the American Physical Society. So he is notable as an academic. I don't know what the appropriate weight is to assign his personal views on religion, but I suspect it is not much. In particular, I object most strongly to the recently-added "references" at the article. They portray the subject in a false light, as a crackpot, and arguably violate WP:BLP and other guidelines. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
If the criteria is that lax than I guess it is what it is. But given that criteria there should tens of thousands of articles on just about anyone who has published. #3 is particularly lax. Here's the list of fellows added to the APS just in 2014: http://www.aps.org/programs/honors/fellowships/archive-all.cfm
Pick anyone on that list and plug them into google scholar. Out five I tried four of them were cited more than Barr though they, rightfully I'd say, don't have articles here. I'm having a hard time finding a paper of his that has been cited in the last 20 years and most cites are much, much older than that. As for his personal views on religion? Today at least, that's by far what he's best know for. He's written a book on the subject, given interviews and even has a substantial section about it on the front page of his personal website. I'd think those views should get at least some weight in his article. Capeo (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Notability isn't temporary. I'm sure you'd have a tough time finding articles authored by Albert Einstein in the last 20 years too :-) But there is no serious debate that he passes the guideline for scientists. He has written an impressive number of papers cited in the hundreds. Presumably, that is a high citation area, but even so he clearly passes C1. However, unless he is specifically notable for his views on religion, the article's very existence relies on WP:PROF, so it seems to me that it would be more in keeping with that guideline to emphasize his role as a scientist rather than a Christian apologist. But I don't really know what the relevant guideline is for such things. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Really wish you hadn't done that -- this had someone politely (if a bit much) going up dispute resolution processes to RFC and instead of getting external input to the question it aborted into rewarding the approach of snarking responses about toilets and holocaust and then banning the poster. Winds up nothing produced at the article or RFC conduct that could be held up as admirable. Now seems a shameful #fail at WP:RFC, WP:CENSOR, WP:SHOOT, and effectively exemption for some on WP:POLITE, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:OUTOFSCOPE. I will see what I can do. Markbassett (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The only sources I can find for this are in fringe sources concerned that the government out to control us. Are there any reliable sources that discuss it? Thoughts? Thanks! - Location (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I would very much support an AfD on this. BlueSalix (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for this notice.--LarEvee (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
User:LarEvee, please read the specific question for the RFC. Please note that this is not a discussion of whether TCM is pseudoscience, whether the source meets WP:MEDRS, or anything else like that; the question is whether the article even says what it is being used to say.QuackGuru (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The proposal of this article is that "near-death studies" as promoted by IANDS is an academic discipline in the same way that, say, reincarnation research may have been so considered in the past. I think this is way oversold and rather unbalanced. In fact, I think that the claim that there is an academic "discipline" should be handled under the parapsychology umbrella in the same way we handled reincarnation research. Redirect to Near-death experience#Near-death studies might work well. Thoughts?
Without having time to look at any of this, the balance point to me is, are there enough reliable sources to make 'near death studies' an actual article, regardless of its categorization? And then link it into the appropriate other articles (such as the suggestion by jps. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Near-death studies is a name for a field of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience. According to Bruce Greyson, MD, Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Connecticut Health Center, Psychiatry, vol. 56, November 1993: It is of interest to mental health professionals because these experiences produce widespread and long—lasting changes in values, beliefs, and behavior that dramatically affect the experiencers' attitudes toward living and dying.
It is about what the patient under care claims to experience for the purpose of treatment. While scientists clearly have a hard time containing their curiosity the primary purpose of the studies arises from an interest in what happens if the patent doesn't die. (As oppose to Parapsychology that is interested in what happens after death)
Our job is not to ignorantly second guess the merit of scientific investigation but to establish if such research happened and if the field of study received enough coverage. After doing so we should consider if there is value in having a separate scientific context besides from the pop culture, the level of content replication and how big the articles are. Ignorantly blending science with pop-culture is a terrible idea but given the terrible state of the article it is an understandable mistake. You probably thought the scientists are looking for god or something like that.
There are sufficient sources to satisfy notability of the scientific field. Notability extends infinitely far into the afterlife: If it ever was a notable field it will be notable forever. If the field is abandoned doesn't mean we should delete the article. This same mistake is indeed to be found in : Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reincarnation_research_(2nd_nomination) That topic unquestionably has been subjected to serious research by researchers with respectable academic posts. In this AfD we also get to see the POV fork fallacy repeated: WP:POV fork: Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except for in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing.
For a scientific article, beyond establishing notability, we want scientific sources from proponents and deniers alike. I can see how the Skeptic dictionary editors don't like that idea, they want to use ignorant blog postings that fit their already made up believe system, not scientific objectivity. Clearly what we have here is editing to advance a specific view.
Thanks for your time,
P.S. Kindly restrain yourself from subscribing me to any of these unscientific believe systems and/or considering me a proponent of any of this. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Well cited criticism being removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I can see that but why is it here? Why cant you/Dough just restore it and use the talk pages? At the top of the noticeboard I read: "This page is for requesting input on possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories." The contribution seems wrong enough not to merit a discussion here. What part am I missing? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Just hoping for more eyes. I don't really have a lot of time for editing and am gradually removing most articles from my watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone ever considered altering the above template in such a way as to allow it to not use the words "fringe theories" in the template as it appears, but rather the phrase "minority theories"? There is currently discussion about the definition of "fringe theories" here at Christ myth theory, where some individuals are advocating, I think not necessarily wholly unreasonably, that the "minority" theory that Jesus never existed might not qualify as a "fringe theory" the way that phrase is ordinarily used in everyday speech. Given the somewhat perjorative nature of the term fringe theory in a lot of circles, I can see potentially other instances in which the latter phrasing might be more reasonable than the former. Any ideas? John Carter (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
If something is truly a minority theory, isn't that different than fringe? Over at WP:WEIGHT there are three bullet points. I was always under the assumption that the third bullet point was in essence our definition of what fringe material is. It seems like the folks in your example are claiming it's the second bullet point. If that's the case, I'm afraid changing the phrase to minority theory would only confuse that matter since it would categorize a wider array of things as fringe material. I think it'd probably be better to point folks to the distinction between fringe and minority views instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Kingoffaces, a minority view is substantially different than a fringe one. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I personally would retain something of the "media" section (though not in its current proxy-for-inclusion form) and something like the last paragraph of the lead. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems there are some creationists who think that soft-tissue preservation is their ace in the hole for supporting Young-Earth creationism. I just did this revert because it seems to me that since Ken Ham has supported a huge number of peculiar reinterpretations of mainstream ideas highlighting just soft-tissue is the bugbear WP:COATRACK of this particular creationist editor. YMMV.
The better solution is to simply avoid letting that section turn into Creationism arguments/debates by proxy. As a BLP, Ham is the article's focus, hence it is sufficient to say "Ham believes X" in a non-argumentative fashion, give the cites that support it, and not make it the issue whether or not X is true. I'll make an edit to remove that sentence accordingly, then we'll see if editors insist on forcing the debate back in. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Nice change jps. Azurecitizen, it is correct that it would still sound like a coatrack as it is still going to provide extra push it doesn't deserve. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, AzureCitizen. There's a little pushback, but I'm not convinced we have any authoritative secondary sources which describe precisely how Ken Ham does his thing. Perhaps Ronald Numbers' book could work, but I don't think he goes into enough detail. There's also the interesting story of how AiG and CMI split over personality differences. Well... maybe the sleeping dogs can be let lying. jps (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus among knowledgeable editors who are familiar with the literature that Indo-Aryan migration is the overwhelmingly predominant view among reliable sources in the field, that any alternatives – aside from religiously and nationally motivated ideologies – are indeed WP:FRINGE, and that the Indo-Aryan migration should therefore be presented as an established historical fact (subject, of course, just to the standard proviso that historical models, as a matter of principle, can hardly ever reach the same amount of certainty as natural laws in the physical sciences; the objection that an historical model isn't "testable" and therefore "not scientific" is an obviou red herring.) Fut.Perf.☼ 08:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we regard Indo-Aryan Migration theory (IAMt) as a historical fact? In terms of making references to it, or using the hypothesis as the actuality for generalizing the historical events.
Wikipedia:FRINGE says "Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact."
In recent months, a lot of content from the main page of the hypothesis has been forked into pages like Hinduism, Vedic Period, Historical Vedic Religion by a particular user, previously they had not even mentioned. While it had received acceptance as a possibility, it is heavily debated and remains controversial as the proposed similarities of various cultures are based on linguistics and these issues are not yet settled. And it is contradictory to multiple scientific(DNA) researches,- that even questioned the existence of 'Aryans'. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This is not really an issue for this board, at least not in the way Bladesmulti seems to think it is. IAMt is not remotrely a fringe theory, and of course it should be central to discussion of the Vedic religion. This issue arises because user:Joshua Jonathan has been trying to improve these articles, which are magnets for Hindutva cruft. I have a busy schedule at the moment, so can't help in keeping this issue focussed on scholarship, rather than being held hostage to ridiculous ideological/nationalist agendas. So more eyes are certainly needed. Bladesmulti's last sentence indicates his utter incomprehenion of the issue. The existence of "Aryan" DNA as a biological entity is as irrelevant to the issue as the existence of "Latin" DNA in France or Romania. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You don't know but this board is not just for fringe theories, but anything that is contradicting the fringe policy. Kurgan Hypothesis was discussed here before, which is related with this. If the reliable citation says that there is no DNA evidence, that is what we have to mention. Another problem is that if these hypothesis should be posed as real when they are not yet established and contradicts to scientific researches. If you compare the version before January 2014 to the current one, you mostly find the one sided explanation to have been repeated and much of the refutation being removed. We should rather point the contradiction. Plus it is already being denied  I don't see any professing since the last DNA research(from 2011). Did you? Bladesmulti (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh my, Blades, please state the question in a proper way. As you've stated it now, there's only one answer: yes, the IAMt is a historical fact. The theory exists.
What you are trying to say is that the migration of the Indo-Aryan people, cq. the spread and diffusion of the Indo-European languages and culture, is not a "fact", but a theoretical assumption. Dù...
But you still haven't named even a single scientist who claims it to be scientific? It is not actually historic because it is based on linguistic similarities that are usually debunked and have no factual basis. See Pseudoscientific language comparison. Thus your explanation has nothing to with the above question that still remains unanswered. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
All historical linguists agree on this. There is no debate about this in the science of historical linguistic. The genealogical unity of the indo-European languages - including the Indo-Aryan languages is a basic and foundational assumption of the entire field of historical linguistics and therefore noone has to argue about its status in the literature. It would be akin to astronomers arguing about whether the earth is flat, or biologists arguing about divine creation. It is simply outside of the realm of that which can reasonably be doubted given the available evidence.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't need your Wikipedia:EXCEPTIONAL claims, I had asked for the valid citation that you haven't brought. Also we are talking about the migration, not proposed linguistic similarities. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You are not fooling anyone by spouting acronyms, everyone can see that you are the one making the exceptional claim here. (namely that the Indo-aryan migration is not accepted by science) I have on the other hand provided more than five different mainstream scientific sources that state this as fact. The onus is on you to show some better sources in support of your claim that the migration theory is "no longer accepted".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
-- are not exceptional but common understanding about the hypothesis that there is no reality in it. Have you even read my original post? You are misinterpreting your booklinks as scientific when one of those two says that there is lack of archaeological evidence in this hypothesis. None of them talks about the scientific researches such as those that I have mentioned. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
That is not a scientific book bladesmulti, it is book published by a commercial printer written by a non-specialist with no credetntials in the relevant field ("Kamlesh Kapur, an educator and researcher, has a Masters in. Economics from Punjab. University, and a. Masters in Education from St. John's." she is also a grantee of the religious Infinity foundation). Why you would link to it is a mystery because it only demonstrates your lack of understanding about what is and isnt "scientific". You need tyo stop, cause this is getting nowhere and you are wasting everyones time. Go preach your hindutva nonsense somewhere else.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
My question still remained unanswered. Why you are not even reading it? Where did I said that it was a scientific book? It is only analayzing the other scientific research that each of your citation that are lacking. Linguistic is not even a subject here since we are talking about the credibility of a hypothesis that is violating Wikipedia:FRINGE. If you cannot handle, then at least you can consider to stop posting some irrelevant books. By canvassing one of the user for favoring your argument and when other uninvolved users are clearly opposing the hypothesis on scientific basis, you are required to collaborate with them. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no collaborating with people like you who are hellbent on pushing a fringe POV. You have demonsytrated very clearly that you are neither willing or able to listen to reason or even to identify a reliable source or use the word "science" in a meaningful way. You are in violation of WP:FRINGE because you are trying to represent what all mainstream sources agree is a fringe view as if it had any validity. That is advocacy and has no place on wikipedia. By citing studies that are clearly advocacy published by religious organizations in order to promote a non-scientific religious viewpoint you show that you cannot be trusted to edit in good faith. I have no reason to read that kind of stuff because it has no bearings on how wikipedia should write about this topic. User Taivo is an expert editor who is a professional historical linguist. That is why his input is valuable. You on the other hand is a religious fanatic with an axe to grind and your input is useless untill you start listening to reason. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
It is not a "Fringe POV" when one is adhering to Wikipedia:FRINGE policy. Yes we can cite a few scholars who claim Peruvians to be the ancestors of Celts and interpret it as "mainstream" when none of your hypothesis is recommend nor it has received universal acceptance. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
He did. Mallory, Witzel and Jamison are all trained in linguistics and use it as part of their general work. Are you claiming that all linguists are "pseudo-scientific?" Kautilya3 (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
A share of proposed linguistic similarities does not require human migration. Mallory himself says that the languages may have spread under the conditions of friendly trade. For proving actual human migration, there is a need of other scientific evidence like DNA, archaeology, etc. and it is lacking. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. You are misrepresenting what Mallory says. Trade is a form of migration, what he is saying that it need not have been a military invasion. A migration of speakers is an absolute requirement for explaining the linguistic history. There is no need for any other evidence to establish that. And yet there is ample evidence of influx of genes, cultural artefacts and people into the subcontinent.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Neighbors can inspire neighbors in terms of language, where is the need of migration here? Keep your belief to yourself. You are going way off here without properly reading what he has told. Point is that there is no proof of migration, just stories, unless you have got some proof or research that has explicitly proven. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
No they cannot. That is not how language spread happens, and noone in the world believes it does. Historical theories cannot be proven, they can only be disproven and this one far from being disproven has found wide and unequivocal support. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The IEMt/IAMt does not speak about large groups of people moving around, sot he lack of genetic changes fits into the theory. It speaks about linguistic and cultural change. Small (elite) groups can effect great changes. David Anthony and Michael Witzel have given some explanations for this; see Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis#Anthropology: elite recruitment.
"We analyze 25 diverse groups to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the “Ancestral North Indians” (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, while the other, the “Ancestral South Indians” (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other."
"Many Indian and European groups speak Indo-European languages, while the Adygei speak a Northwest Caucasian language. It is tempting to hypothesize that the population ancestral to ANI and CEU spoke “Proto-Indo-European”, which has been reconstructed as ancestral to both Sanskrit and European languages, although we cannot be certain without a date for ANI-ASI mixture."
"The stronger gradient in males, replicating previous reports, could reflect either male gene flow from groups with more ANI relatedness into ones with less, or female gene flow in the reverse direction. However, extensive female gene flow in India would be expected to homogenize ANI ancestry on the autosomes just as in mtDNA, which we do not observe. Supporting the view of little female ANI ancestry in India, Kivisild et al.44 reported that mtDNA ‘haplogroup U’ splits into two deep clades. ‘U2i’ accounts for 77% of copies in India but ~0% in Europe, and ‘U2e’ accounts for 0% of all copies in India but ~10% in Europe. The split is ~50,000 years old, indicating low female gene flow between Europe and India since that time."
So, what does the article say:
There is 'genetic divide' between north and south India;
The northerns are genetically close to Europeans;
The researchers are 'tempted to hypothesize' that the ancestors of the the northerns and Europeans spoke Proto-Indo-European;
There has been an ongoing inflow of male genes, but not of female genes.
Now, this fits in perfectly with the IAMt, as described by both Anthony and Beckwith (I'm quiting Kautilya3 here): "He [Beckwith] said that the males migrated and married local women. The pidgin languages that their children spoke gave rise to the variety of Indo-European languages." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You're referring to the famous Thangarajan-study, not to the study above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ But, let's see what Fountain Ink states:
"Most Indians alive today are descended from a mixture of two very diffrent populations, Reich and colleagues reported in Nature in 2009 based on a study of 25 ethnic groups. Thse two populations—the red and green of the earlier analogy—were given the names Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ASI)."
"Th ANI showed genetic similarities with Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Central Asians. Some ANI ancestry was present in almost all Indian groups, but the percentage was found to be greater in the north of India and lesser in the south"
"Broadly, groups that spoke IndoEuropean languages and were traditionally considered upper-caste had a larger ANI component."
"It was still unknown when exactly these populations had mixed. Thse details came in August this year in the American Journal of Human Genetics. K. Thngaraj and Reich’s groups had assembled data from 73 diffrent ethnic groups from across India and two from Pakistan"
"In summary: about 4,200 years ago, there would have been people in the Indian subcontinent who were completely ANI in their genetic makeup, and others who were completely ASI. About 1,900 years ago, there were likely no pure populations of either ANI or ASI left So, there began about 4,200 years ago a period of demographic change due to inter-breeding among two dramatically diffrent populations. Then, after about 1,900 years ago, there was no signifcant inter-breeding, pointing to cultural changes that brought in a strong form of endogamy, the practice of marrying within one’s group. Th period is known to be a particularly eventful one for the Indian subcontinent: large-scale changes were occurring in river systems and climate; the Harappan civilisation was fragmenting; and, according to many linguists and historians, the Sanskrit language and Vedic culture were making an appearance"
"K. Thngaraj believes it was much longer ago, and that the ANI came to India in a second wave of migration that happened perhaps 40,000 years ago."
It's not clear to me how this study "proves" that the IAMt is "wrong". Notice also: "according to many linguists and historians, the Sanskrit language and Vedic culture were making an appearance". Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
None of them are accepted by the scientific community. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
To answer your questions:
1. Mallory & Adams (2006), The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World:
"Currently, there are two types of models that enjoy signifiant international currency (Map 26.1)." (p.460)
"There is the Neolithic model that involves a wave of advance from Anatolia c. 7000 bc and, at least for south-eastern and central Europe, argues primarily for the importation of a new language by an ever growing population of farmers." (p.460)
"Alternatively, there is the steppe or kurgan model which sees the Proto-IndoEuropeans emerging out of local communities in the forest-steppe of the Ukraine and south Russia. Expansion westwards is initiated c. 4000 bc by the spread from the forest-steppe of mobile communities who employed the horse and, within the same millennium, wheeled vehicles." (p.461)
Clear answer: the the IAMT, c.q. IEMt, is a scientific theory which is generally accepted, while the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is not even being mentioned.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
That book is outdated in the sense that it was written before the decline of the Indo Aryan Migration hypothesis, it is not discussing any scientific data.
I am not getting that why you are even copying this irrelevant quote for misinterpreting its status as scientific. We have already discussed it on the talk page, haven't we? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You are quite mistaken, Bladesmulti. The Mallory and Adams book is the current most accurate survey of the IEMt. It is completely and totally scientific and accepted by all competent Indo-European scholars. There is no qualified dissent from its findings or discussion. For example, Benjamin W. Fortson IV, Indo-European Language and Culture, An Introduction, Second edition (2010, Wiley-Blackwell); David W. Anthony, The Horse, the Wheel, and Language (2007, Princeton); George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain, "General Introduction," The Indo-Aryan Languages (2003, Routledge, pp. 1-45). The claim that the IAMt is false is simply not supported by linguistic fact. This is not a "theory" any more than gravity is a "theory". --Taivo (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Not yet established facts. I have seen more books that would regard them as completely clueless. And none of those books that you have named are talking about the scientific credibility of the hypothesis. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
"The 'revisionist project' certainly is not guided by the principles of critical theory but takes, time and again, recourse to pre-enlightenment beliefs in the authority of traditional religious texts such as the Purånas. In the end, it belongs, as has been pointed out earlier, to a different 'discourse' than that of historical and critical scholarship. In other words, it continues the writing of religious literature, under a contemporary, outwardly 'scientific' guise [...] The revisionist and autochthonous project, then, should not be regarded as scholarly in the usual post-enlightenment sense of the word, but as an apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking aiming at proving the 'truth' of traditional texts and beliefs. Worse, it is, in many cases, not even scholastic scholarship at all but a political undertaking aiming at 'rewriting' history out of national pride or for the purpose of 'nation building'." (Witzel, Michael (2001), "Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts",Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 7-3 (EJVS) 2001(1-115))Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Who asked for this irrelevant quote?
We are talking about why we should give weight to a hypothesis, often defunct. Which is violation of policy on fringe. Witzel is not a scientist. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
"...the parallels between the Intelligent Design issue and the Indo-Aryan "controversy" are distressingly close. The Indo-Aryan controversy is a manufactured one with a non-scholarly agenda, and the tactics of its manufacturers are very close to those of the ID proponents mentioned above. However unwittingly and however high their aims, the two editors have sought to put a gloss of intellectual legitimacy, with a sense that real scientific questions are being debated, on what is essentially a religio-nationalistic attack on a scholarly consensus." (Jamison, Stephanie W. (2006). "The Indo-Aryan controversy: Evidence and inference in Indian history (Book review)".Journal of Indo-European Studies 34: 255–261.)
Also a clear answer: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe.
Just like the Indo-Aryan Migration hypothesis as none of them have any scientific status. Above author has no status in scientific field. Just throwing the word 'science' anywhere doesn't make the pointed object any scientific. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You very clearly have no clue about what science mean or what it means for a theory to have scientific status.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Maunus Show a single citation where 'scientific' status is being claimed by a non-believer of this hypothesis if you feel so confident about it? Just like I have shown multiple where they consider its status to be contradictory to science. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
That is an absurd request. It is like asking for a citation from a creationist arguing that the theory of evolution is "scientific". It is neither possible or relevant. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Have you just made another nonsensical attempt without addressing the proper question? Avoid the red herring. There are millions of scientists that we can find for the theory of evolution, where none for this hypothesis. Why you even compare this defunct hypothesis with universal theory of evolution? Bladesmulti (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
My god you are dense. ALL mainstream historical linguists accept the fact that indic languages originated outside of India.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like you have obvious issues with competence. See how you are changing the subject and trying to make up discussion about some subject that is irrelevant here. I didn't asked you to misinterpret the linguistic agreement and at least not without a proper citation, I had asked you to show a single scientist who claims any credibility of this hypothesis. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
LOL. You are a complete and utter moron, and should be permanently blocked for disruption and POV pushing. I will not continue to discuss with you since you are clearly outside of the reach of reason. Go back to your hindutva alternative reality if you like, but just keep that crap the fuck out of wikipedia which is intended for rational human beings to educate themselves.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Still my questions remain unanswered and your inflammatory nonsense strikes up. Bladesmulti (talk)
Some theories are so widely accepted that they have the status as the kind of provisional facts that scientists work with as basic assumptions. The "Indo-Aryan migration theory", which simply means that Indo-European languages originated outside of india, is one of those facts. There are two main contenders for the history of the I-E languages, the Kurgan and the Anatolian hypotheses. Neither of them is compatible with an account that sees IE as having originated within the Indian subcontinent. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Blades, this statement "Above author has no status in scientific field" is ridiculous. Totally, complete bullshit. Open your eyes and read again, very slowly:
J.p Mallory, emeritus professor at Queen's University, Belfast, a member of the Royal Irish Academy and the editor of the Journal of Indo-European Studies;
Douglas Quentin Adams, professor of English at the University of Idaho.
If professors don't have status in the academic field, not even Harvard professors, then who does? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
We don't determine the validity of a hypothesis by the "status" of a professor. A professor at any level can push garabage under an appeal to authority that way. That is instead determined by acceptance of the idea by others in the field in the peer-reviewed literature. When you summarize the literature reviews in the field, what do they say? Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
They do not even mention the possibility that Indo-Aryan languages could have originated within the subcontinent. It is a non-starter.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
"We don't determine the validity of a hypothesis by the 'status' of a professor". Umm, yes we do. That's exactly what we do. Wikipedia works by 'appeal to authority'. That the whole point of WP:RS and WP:OR. We don't argue the ins and outs of arguments for or against a theory. We assess the views of authorities. As for you request for a "literature review", this is not really a typical feature of the relevant scholarly fields. Paul B (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
That's not how scientific publishing works. An idea gains notoriety based on the authority of the evidence making the claim. At Wikipedia, we give authority to things like journals which organize and publish the vetted research, but not so much the individual. Either way, I didn't have much trouble doing a quick literature search and getting some reviews pretty close to the topic at hand. It seems far from a topic where people wouldn't publish considered that. Someone who is more knowledgeable on the topic and could do a more concise literature search shouldn't have a problem pulling out recent reviews. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
See above and below: accepted mainstream theory (the Indo-European Migration theory/Indo-Aryan Migration theory, not the socalled"Out of India theory", which is fringe). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I asked because nothing is really jumping out at me from the few sources mentioned here. Some don't appear to be peer-reviewed (so they can say pretty much whatever they want), and book reviews aren't too reliable for assessing scientific consensus. WP:RS/AC is pretty clear that we need clear statements of consensus from strong sources, and I'm not really seeing that from my quick glance. That's why I'm asking what reliable secondary sources actually say for and against the idea if at all (and that's for everyone involved here). Without that, we can't determine if the view is mainstream, a minority view, or fringe. If each source could be put in a list here or at the talk page with just one sentence or two for the main conclusion it's drawing, we could at least start trying to figure out where the weight lies. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Danesh Jain, George Cardona. 2007. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Routledge, Chapter 1. General Introduction (discusses the debate of the Indic homeland and sides with mainstream migrationist view)
Benjamin W. Fortson, IV. 2011. Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. John Wiley & Sons, p. 206 (states invasion as simple fact, mentions no other view)
J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams. 1997. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. p. 306. Taylor & Francis. Assumes as fact that proto-Indic was on the iranian plateau and moved from there into the subcontinent.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Cherrypicking a few books without properly reading is irrelevant and even more when they don't mention scientific agreement or talk about science, instead claim that hypothesis has no firm archeological evidenceBladesmulti (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Cherrypicking is my concern too, but if these are fringe ideas, what are the sources that establish the mainstream idea then Bladesmulti? Any recent reviews? Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Those all look like books where anyone can say pretty much whatever they want. If we're going to talk about academic consensus, I'd be looking for peer-reviewed papers. I'm not really seeing any concrete sources that we'd use for stating scientific consensus yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I dont think you are really sufficiently familiar with this field of science to say what they look like. These are peer reviewed books published by academic presses published by the major authorities in the field - and of course peer reviewed. They are also secondary sources that summarize the standing of the field. In history peer reviewed articles are generally original reserach studies. Incidentally you shouldnt listen to Bladesmulti who is the povpusher here who is pushing religiously published sources written by non experts and trying to claim that they have any relevance for assessing the standing of the field.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that Kingofaces43 had good understanding about it, we cannot overlap or violate the Wikipedia:FRINGE guideline only because a hypothesis was supported by an academic who has to do nothing with the scientific community. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not knowledgeable in this area at all, but just looking at Historical_Vedic_religion, whatever the truth or other wise of the hypothesis, the long section on the origins of the Vedic religion seems out of place. After all what evidence could their be of their religion clear enough to be relevant to the article? Also - a good way to get a first idea about something like this is to look at other encyclopedias to see how they treat it. So Encyclopedia Britannica for instance clearly states it as a largely discredited hypothesis, see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/37468/Aryan
"However, since the late 20th century, a growing number of scholars have rejected both the Aryan invasion hypothesis and the use of the term Aryan as a racial designation, suggesting that the Sanskrit term arya (“noble” or “distinguished”), the linguistic root of the word, was actually a social rather than an ethnic epithet. Rather, the term is used strictly in a linguistic sense, in recognition of the influence that the language of the ancient northern migrants had on the development of the Indo-European languages of South Asia. In the 19th century the term was used as a synonym for “Indo-European” and also, more restrictively, to refer to the Indo-Iranian languages. It is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages, a branch of the larger Indo-European language family."
That's markedly different in tone from the current article, which would seem to suggest that it is promoting a fringe hypothesis. It might be an idea to search for other more specialist encyclopedias to see how they treat the hypothesis and what weight they put on it. Also the previous version of the article was similar in tone to the Encyclopedia Britannica entry, and had been worked on by many editors - so again as a meta observation that would seem to support the suggestion that it should be treated as fringe, marked as such, and not stated as fact in other articles. As for origin of the languages - it is surely a separate question. Otherwise you'd conclude that large parts of the world population migrated to their present location from the UK because they speak English, when that's only true of some of the places where English is spoken as the main language. Hope these observations help in some way! Robert Walker (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Robert, two things: it's about the "Indo-Aryan Migration theory", not the "Aryan Invasion theory". You don't know indeed what you're talking about. And two: I already told you three times today to stop harassing me diffdiffdiff; one more time, and you're back at ANI. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@Robertinventor: I am not sure I understand what you are saying. There is no mention of "invasion" or "race" in our Historical Vedic religion. So, what discredited ideas are we using? As for the question of what evidence there is of their religion, we have texts, most notably the Rig Veda, which has extremely detailed information about their religion. None of this is controversial.
The only debate at the moment is as to whether these "aryans", i.e., Indo-European speakers, were indigenous or came from the outside. Our User:Bladesmulti here contends that there is no evidence that they came from the outside. The fact that they spoke an Indo-European language that was current in other parts of Eurasia isn't good enough for him. So, your input on this linguistic issue would be useful. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
But what is the need to even fork one-sided positive explanation to the articles when it is not a universal theory and already superseded? Bladesmulti (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Correct, there is no need to fork this. This should all be treated in a single place, where both the mainstream view and the various fringe views such as the OOIT are given their due weight. That will mean that your favorite scholars will of course receive much less coverage than they do now, because such a page will be written from the POV of mainstream science not Hindutva propaganda.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh not doubting the ancient origins of the Vedas, hope that's clear! But - does the question of origin help to understand how the Vedas developed? As I said, linguistic origin is clearly a separate question from whether a migration occurred, as migration is just one of several ways languages can spread. For complexity of the processes see The Different Modes of Language SpreadRobert Walker (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
No, migration is ALWAYS involved in language spread and shift. Languages cannot travel without people. But there are different kinds of migrations that correlate with different kinds of spread and different timescales and social outcomes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Try reading the article - The Different Modes of Language Spread he gives several examples where languages spread with only a small number of individuals who migrated. Indeed, some of his examples, there was no physical movement of people at all, it just spread to the culture from trading partners
"Yet the indigenes held on in a number of rugged areas, particularly those characterized by heavy, year-round rainfall, such as the Sierra Madre Mountains of eastern Luzon** (in the winter dry season, the Sierra Madre catches rain from trade winds forced up-slope). From such redoubts, however, the indigenous foragers interacted extensively with their Austronesian neighbors, exchanging rain-forest products for agricultural and manufactured goods. Eventually, the languages of their trading partners fully “diffused” across their societies and then began to evolve in their own directions. Today, the several surviving “Negrito languages” are much more closely related to the languages of their neighbors than they are to each other."
These examples (the Negritos, the Pygmies, the Aslians, etc.) are all examples of relic populations that have been pushed (or originated) in marginal habitats and who adapted their language for purposes of survival. In no case are these examples of a large, vibrant population being linguistically overwhelmed by a small minority without some type of military invasion by a substantial number of invaders. When a large population is linguistically subsumed, it is always by force and always by significant numbers of invaders. --Taivo (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh he gives an example of that also: "The Magyars, on the other hand, were able to firmly establish their language, which is spoken today by roughly 15 million people, even though the Magyars themselves were a relatively small group, substantially outnumbered by the peoples that they dominated.". Also trade is powerful too. It was a major reason for the spread of the Phoenician alphabet for instance: Spread of the Phoenician alphabet and its social effects - that's mainly because they were such great traders, not invaders. So can be many reasons, not just military. I don't know what are the preferred hypotheses here - but just saying that generally you can't deduce a huge amount from the spread of a language, as I understand it, unless you know how it spread. Robert Walker (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but that is wrong. Linguists can deduce a lot from the spread of the language, for example they can achieve a good idea about how it spread. In fact in the absence of written historical sources there is no other way to find out how language spread. And no, it is not always military and noone is claiming that it is. That is not what this is about. This is about the fact that all linguists who are not religiously invested in a fringe hypothesis agree that Indo-Aryan languages originated outside of India and arrived there by migrations. the question of whether this was a military invasion or not is entirely irrelevant and wading around in it muddles the discussion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
And the spread of an alphabet is irrelevant to the question of the spread of a language. Alphabets are independent of language--the dynamics are quite different. And Maunus is right--the specific mechanism of how Proto-Indo-Aryan arrived in the subcontinent is immaterial to the fact that it arrived from outside. Reading the ridiculous comments elsewhere here (and on the Talk Page of the article), that hundreds of Indo-European cognate sets and 200 years of historical linguistic reconstruction have been thrown out the window reminded me of some of the most laughable nationalistic pseudo-science. There simply is no debate in the legitimate scientific community on this--Indo-Aryan has its origins in central Ukraine (or, less likely, Anatolia) and Proto-Indo-European. --Taivo (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to say - I don't know what the current opinion is about either - but these are two different hypotheses. "Indo-Aryan languages originated outside of India", " and arrived there by migrations." - whether the languages originated outside India or inside, and whether, if they originated outside, they spread via migrations or via other methods such as trade, conquest (which could be temporary with the conquestors later retreating to their original homelands), intermarriage, diffusion, etc. And cognate sets do not by themselves show the direction of influence. And in any case all this discussion seems WP:OR to me. Who is it who has this hypothesis? If it is a well established widely respected theory there should be - not just isolated papers - but many of them by dozens of authors - and whole books on the topic by distinguished academics, but I don't see a lot by way of sources being shared here. Just a lot of talk. I know I don't know much about the topic but then on the other hand that may give me a little bit of an outside perspective also, possibly... Robert Walker (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Robert, you are not helping anyone here. Major sources, handbooks, encyclopedias, and textbooks have been produce that clearly show that this is the only theory that has any backing in mainstream scholarship. Your "outside perspective" is not useful when all you use if for is to sow doubt about a theory that is so mainstream that noone even argue about it except from a handful of religiously motivated scholars in India and their supporters. As for your attempts at being "nuanced" and "complex" aboutit: Conquest, trade, intermarriage are also forms of migration, they just have different implications for HOW language spreads because they involve different kinds of social relations between the migrants and the natives. We are not arguing about that. All we are arguing is that ALL the relevant literature is unanimous in the fact that the Indic languages originated outside of India and spread into India through some kind of migration. Which kind of migration is a different question. Look at the sources that Taivo and I have provided. Then think about whether you really have anything to add to this discussion. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
In those books, there is no indication of Wikipedia:FRINGE that is warning against promoting the hypothesis as facts when they have no acceptance in scientific community. Further one of your 1/2 book argued that the archaeological evidence is likely nothing. That is not what we are looking for. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Our page doesn't say that the Vedas were imported from the outside. Heaven forbid! We would get nailed to the wall if we said anything like that. However, historians know that some aspects of this religion: animal sacrifice, fire worship etc., must have existed prior to their arrival in India because they also show up in other regions: Iran and Greece etc. The same kind of comparative method used in linguistics is also being used to reconstruct the religion, literary traditions etc. of the ancestors, but all that is still in infancy. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay perhaps that needs to be made clearer -that long origins section seems like it is intended to explain the origins of the Vedas to a casual newbie reader. It doesn't make too clear what aspects of the previous religions are thought to be relevant to the Vedas, maybe if that was explained it would be clearer. I'm referring to Historical_Vedic_religion#Origins and for instaqnce "The Vedic beliefs and practices of the pre-classical era were closely related to the hypothesised Proto-Indo-European religion, and the Indo-Iranian religion. According to Anthony, the Old Indic religion probably emerged among Indo-European immigrants in the contact zone between the Zeravshan River (present-day Uzbekistan) and (present-day) Iran". Which would seem to suggest the Vedas came from Iran at a first read. And if that's not what it is about - why give so much space in this article to this discussion? Robert Walker (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It turns out that I understated our case earlier. It is not just fire worship and animal sacrifice, but also all the major Rigvedic gods are present in the other Indo-Iranian branches. The little boxes at the right of the origins section are expandable map templates. (You probably didn't realize.) The third map in the Indo-Aryan Migration template shows 4 green arrows coming out of the Andronovo culture, which are the Indo-Iranian branches. I believe all of them have knowledge of the Rigvedic gods. The earliest written mention of the gods actually is found in Syria and Anatolia in 1500 BC! So, there are good reasons for the discussion in the "Origins" section. But I will let Joshua Jonathan take in your comment and see if he wants to condense it a bit. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Not a good reason, when they are just speculations. Similar to the claim of Peruvians that are ancestors of the Celts. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
In fact the Britannica is absolutely clear and unequivocal about this: "Vedic religion, also called Vedism, the religion of the ancient Indo-European-speaking peoples who entered India about 1500 bce from the region of present-day Iran"  You are really just demonstrating that you don't know what the "fringe hypothesis" actually is. You are confusing the idea of an "invasion" of "Aryans" (hence 'use of the term Aryan as a racial designation') with the largely accepted view that Vedic culture evolved from an earlier Indo-European religion as a result of the expansion and migration of early I-E peoples. There's nothing remotely fringe about that. You are just sowing confusion and adding to muddle created by the confused comments here of Blademulti. Paul B (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
How many times we have considered that Britannica is an unreliable weblink? What type of largely accepted you are talking about? Are they taught in universities? Colleges? Hypothesis seems outdated now. Read  can you find any advocacy for this hypothesis after - proven scientific research? Bladesmulti (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Generally whenever one feels the need to preface a statement with "I am not knowledgeable about this area" that would be a cause for reconsidering the urge to participate in a complex discussion about that specific topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It's on the disambiguation page for Aryan invasion theory so - it's an understandable mistake I hope? Never said I was expert on this, and trying to help. If that section of Enc. Brit. is not relevant, how about finding another similar encyclopedia entry, to help clarify this, maybe in a more specialized encyclopedia on religion, whether it is regarded as a fringe theory? You get many professors and some of them have fringe theories and being a Harvard professor doesn't mean that you can't also publish fringe theories from time to time, so I think arguments like that are unlikely to settle the debate by themselves. Just a thought. If what I say is not helpful, I just offer my apologies to you all! Robert Walker (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This whole nonsense is one unscientific POV-pushing religio-nationalist trying to claim that his fringe nonsense is somehow mainstream (based on no valid scientific sources) and that mainstream science (99.99% of all historical linguists and archeologists) has somehow been invalidated. We have presented ample current scientific literature to prove that User:Bladesmulti is utterly wrong in his assertions, but he has a serious case of deafness when it comes to the facts of the matter--claiming that we have posted no sources when we have posted current, credible, scientific sourcing. Sadly, there are admitted non-specialists here who are unwittingly feeding the troll. This whole time-wasting thread should be closed. It is Randy in Boise. --Taivo (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Your first sentence can be correct when we see that the many scholars regard the hypothesis as unscientific and also pseudoscientific.- I hope you are talking about the outdated hypothesis that frequently changed its meaning in order to gain acceptance but it never received any acceptance from scientific community. You are obviously not competent enough to consider it, but let me help you there. The link that have have mentioned comes even before the recent scientific researches.(-) Of course there is no wonder that we don't see any advocacy for the hypothesis anymore now. Just because uninvolved and policy understanding users happen to disagree with you and you are not backing with even a single citation that would support your belief. It doesn't means that you would be allowed to misinterpret the science,(bogus 99.9% estimate, not even 000.1% in actual) I said that the your citations are irrelevant because they indeed don't discuss the scientific evidence, and 1 of those two even said that there is lack of archaeological evidence. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Bladesmulti the words "emotional" and "unscientific" in the source you are quoting are used to describe the Iindigenous Aryan hypothesis. The hypothesis that you claim have any scientific validity. You really are either incredbily stupid trying to pass this off as if it was supporting you, or else you are editing in so bad faith that you are only interested in confusing people. Either way you should be blocked and removed form this venue were tou are currently wasting a lot fo editors time.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I have changed them accordingly, but and where did I said that I was talking about the Indo-aryan hypothesis and not Indigenious Aryans? You can see -, the elements of Indo-Aryan hypothesis are indeed pseudoscientific. It is considered that both of the hypothesis are incorrect, the previous one, "Indo Aryan" invasion theory is already rejected by mainstream as pseudoscientific. They have to be mentioned if they are backed by multiple reliable citations. Yes there is a argument that the elements of the aryan hypothesis are pseudoscience, which is even different than unscientific. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Did you see my suggestion to use this quote to hang the article on - or something like it? Maybe it is sufficiently neutral? I did a bit of a google scholar search and I turned up nothing yet that suggested that anything has been proved on this topic at all about the language, never mind about the idea of a migration. One of the citations above turned up - but as a controversial theory, not as a proven hypothesis everyone agreed on.
"The more careful members of the Indigenous Aryan school, at least, simply recognize that all that can be factually determined with the evidence available at present is that "the Indo-Europeans were located in the Indus-Sarasvati valleys, Northern Iran and Souther Russia". From this perspective, if the shared morphological and other similarities mandate that the Indo-Europeans had to come from a more compact area, that is, from one side of this large Indo-European-speaking expanse, most Indigenous Aryanists see no reason that it has to be from the western side" - Page 141 of "The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate" By Edwin Bryant
Oh, I see that the book predates these more recent scientific studies using DNA analysis. -). So I suppose we need something more recent. 2004 is well before DNA sequencing became low cost, easy and commonplace. Robert Walker (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't say much only just learning about this topic in the last hour or so, but I did start searching through more recent literature and found some interesting related primary studies on the Roma . I looked at what cited that article to find a review  which confirmed acceptance of the idea that European Roma migrated from northern India about 1000 years ago. I believe that's a slightly different topic than what's being discussed here, but that is the kind of process that should be used to find reviews that make statements like that. Not too hard to do if you know the material, and a review like that can only be refuted by other reviews if we stick to how we deal with scientific content. Otherwise though, I don't see any clear indication of anything being a mainstream view or fringe, so I'd suggest closing this as well until folks have tried to hash out the weight issue with more reliable sources (books aren't the best kind of source here) first. Otherwise it's difficult to gauge what's actually going on in the topic itself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You can find academic support for many kinds of hypothesis, but they actually require scientific verification. If hypothesis is not accepted by scientific community, you cannot treat hypothesis as a fact. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally the book offers two other hypotheses in addition to the two main ideas that the language spread from India to Europe - or the other way - from Europe to India (by whatever method) - another being that it was originally spoken over a large area including both India and Europe, i.e. that it evolved over that entire area - and his fourth hypothesis - that it originated by creolization of several different languages over the area covered -though he suggests that these last two hypotheses have issues that some more compact area would seem to be needed for the origin of the language. He says
"The more careful members of the Indigenous Aryan school, at least, simply recognize that all that can be factually determined with the evidence available at present is that "the Indo-Europeans were located in the Indus-Sarasvati valleys, Northern Iran and Souther Russia". From this perspective, if the shared morphological and other similarities mandate that the Indo-Europeans had to come from a more compact area, that is, from one side of this large Indo-European-speaking expanse, most Indigenous Aryanists see no reason that it has to be from the western side" - Page 141 of "The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate" By Edwin Bryant
Perhaps a statement like that would be sufficiently neutral - maybe even that as a quote - to work here as a pivot around which to hang the rest of the arguments? Just an idea. Robert Walker (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Robert, historical theories cannot be "proven", they can be supported by evidence. And it takes experts to assess which theories have the strongest evidnce to support them. That is how a consensus develops and how theories become facts. The books you have found are fine, But they do not represent the mainstream view. They are an attempt by a hindu scholar (Bryant) to portray the two theories as if they are on equal footing. He is not a linguist and has no expertise in these questions himself - though his summary of the arguments is fine. His expertise is in the religious study of the Vedas. His own assessment of the standing of the argument is biased, and does not reflect the mainstream view. The part you are quoting is actually saying exactly that the most careful proponents of the non-mainstream view are merely suggesting that it cannot be proven with certitude whether the indoaryan languages originated in Indus or in Southern Russia. Please go to the [Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration_hypothesis#Some_Mainstream_sources]] and look at these sources, they will give you a better feeling for the consensus view in historical linguistics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Honestly this is getting ridiculous. At this point several good faith editors who have no expertise or knowledge of the field of historical linguistics but who ae simply assuming good faith from the wrong person are getting played by a single FRINGE pov pusher with a hindu fundamentalist agenda who is succeeding in making it appear that there is any reasonable doubt about the issue. I would suggest that everyone who is not a professional historical linguist step back and listen to those who are actually knowledgeable in this are. That includes editors like Taivo, Paul Barlow, Dbachmann, Angr and myself, all of whom have actual expertise in the field (Angr and Dbachmann have not commented yet so you can go ask them directly for confirmation). Then look at Bladesmultis edits and see how much of it consists in pushing a Hindu fundamentalist POV in science articles. It really comes down to this. Alternatively try to actually look at the sources he quotes, in each case it is either a clearly unreliable source (written by people with no credentials or published by religious organizations) or he misrepresents them as saying the opposite of what they actually says. For example when he quoted from the Bryant book above saying that the theory was "emotional" and "unscientific" the person quoted is actually talking about the indigenous aryan theory (i.e. the opposite of the Aryan migration theory), and when he quotes the DNA paper that paper actually states the exact opposite, namely that northern Indians who speak Indo-Aryan languages have more genes in common with Indo-European speakers which of course actually supports the migration theory.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I have not supported indigenous theory, but instead I am talking about the Wikipedia:FRINGE policy that tells you not to treat hypothesis as facts. Dbachmann had himself said in 2006 that all hypothesis should be at one page or their own pages, they shouldn't be brought outside. You are contradicting the policy on fringe and the current version of the article is not mentioning the Aryan race theory, that it is considered as pseudoscience. It is not mentioning the Aryan invasion theory, which was rejected by the end of 20th century, by just everyone. It is not mentioning that there is no genetic and no substantial archaeological evidence for supporting the hypothesis, nor it is mentioning the last DNA research. It looks like a one-sided puffrey piece. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You dont understand WP:FRINGE. And yes you have suppoerted indigenous aryan theory. Aryan race theory is an unrelated theory that is indeed pseudoscientific. It has nothing to do with the questions in historical linguistics that we are discussing. The DNA research yu keep ereferring to says the opposite of what you claim it says.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
How? And where I have supported it? DNA researches are not opposite, they clearly refutes the Aryan migration. Maybe that's why we don't see any advocacy for this hypothesis for over 3 years now? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@Robertinventor: Thanks for your efforts. Let me start by asking you a couple of questions:
If a creationist came and asked whether the theory of evolution has been "proved," what would be you answer? Or, you can imagine a similar kind of question for any scientific theory: gravitation, relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics or what have you.
You went and found two books other than those provided by Joshua and our linguist friends. Do those books support the assertion of Bladesmulti that Aryan Migration is a "fringe theory"?
You have read the reader's reviews on Amazon. But what about the professional book review provided by Joshua, published in the Journal of Indo-European Studies, the no. 1 scientific forum for this discipline? Did you read that?
You say that the book offers the two "main ideas" of India to Europe and Europe to India and then two others. Neither of these is the "main idea". The mainstream model is that the homeland of Indo-Europeans was in Central Eurasia (which I would regard as distinct from either "Europe" or "India"), and it is to the north of India, not the west. Yes, those people would have been white, if race is what this debate is supposed to be about. No sane scientist would ever propose that people migrated from India to Europe or from Europe to India in prehistoric times (a) because the distances were enormous and (b) neither India nor Europe knew of each other's existence. Rather it is the Central Eurasians that moved to the peripheral countries, including both India and Europe. The idea that there were such migrations is entirely logical. The Central Eurasians were nomadic pastoral tribes, highly mobile and living in low-rainfall steppes, and had to move to wherever the grass was green. If by chance they ended up near a settled civilization, they might move into it (or even attacked it) if they felt like it. This is what happened throughout the historical times, and there is no reason to suppose it would have been any different in prehistoric times.
Now, if some Indians want to propose that India could have been equally the homeland, all the power to them. Let them propose it, work out all the details, publish it and get the scholars' consent that it is a viable theory. Once they get their proposals accepted by the community as being viable, we will be glad to include it in Wikipedia. Until that happens, we can only ignore it or at best treat it as a fringe theory.
It is not our job to evaluate theories. The scholars need to do so. We only recognize whether the scholars evaluated them or not.
Our current architecture is a page on Indo-Aryan migration theory, covering the mainstream theory, where the Indian homeland ideas are briefly mentioned, and a separate Indigenous Aryans theory where the Indian ideas are covered. There have been discussions going on in the talk pages of both these pages. This is not the place rehash those discussions. Bladesmulti's "through the looking glass" inversion of the mainstream/fringe came out of the blue yesterday. He seems unable to comprehend that he has it completely backwards. Your help in persuading him would be highly appreciated. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
They do support that the hypothesis is not scientific, and the DNA researches shown negative results. The former(aryan race, aryan invasion) are considered as pseudoscience. But our page is not mentioning any of it. It looks very one-sided too. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Aryan race theory has nothing to do with this question and is indeed considered pseudoscience. "Aryan invasion" is an historical theory that states that the Indic languages (formerly called Indo-Aryan) arrived in India through military conquest, but which has nothing to do with the notion of an Aryan race,. Aryan migration theory is the mainstream view in historical linguistics of how the Indo-European languages originated in either Anatolia or the Pontic steppes migrating into Europe and the Indian Subcontinent. The "invasion theory" is controversial, but the migration theory is accepted by everyone except hindutva fundamentalists.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
We should mention its past as well and what it its current situation. Kazanas, Michel Danino, Edwin Bryant, etc. and whole scientific world are not "hindutva fundamentalists". Bladesmulti (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Kazanas is. Bryant is, if not a hindutva fundamentalist, at least highly sympathetic to that viewpoint, and like Kazanas or Talageri has no expertise in the relevant field. The current situation of the aryan migration theory is no different from its contemporary status. It is Aryan race theory that is today considered pseudoscience. I dont see why we would mention that in relation to this topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree there. Witzel, Mallory had praised the book of Bryant. Previously this page used to mention the Aryan race theory, later it was removed. If some reliable citations mentions these two along, and of course differentiate their changes by the time, we shall include them somewhere. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been reading through all this time-wasting nonsense and it is quite clear that:
Bladesmulti doesn't know what science is and is simply pushing his religio-nationalist POV without any reliable sources
There are a couple of well-meaning editors who are trying to participate, but who seem to be completely ignorant of the field. They need to back out because they are making a mess of this. This is a simple discussion if you know the field. Anthony, Fortson, and Malloy & Adams are not lesser works--they are peer-reviewed works that summarize and detail the status of the IE field. Cardona & Jain is the major handbook for the IA group of languages--it is authoritative.
Maunus and I (and perhaps Kautilya, but I don't know him well enough) are actually trained in this field and you need to listen to the two of us when we cite sources. We are giving you the sources that prove that there is no debate among linguists as to whether Indo-Aryan entered the subcontinent from outside origins--it did. There is simply no debate among specialists. The idea that Indo-Aryan (and, by extension, Indo-European) originated in India, or even the subcontinent, is baseless and has no credence among historical linguists. It is a religio-nationalistic fringe theory without any linguistic evidence to back it up. Indeed, the most common archeological horizon that I have seen associated with Indo-Aryan is the Andronovo complex of central Eurasia (east of Caspian Sea, north of Hindu Kush) (see Fortson book and the Anthony book, cited above in a couple of places).
Sorry to be so blunt, but this "debate" is a classic Randy in Boise situation. We don't need to be encouraging Bladesmulti in pushing the skeleton theory. There are simply no reliable sources, written by reliable historical linguists, to back up any claims that IE or IA arose in India and hundreds of sources, ranging over the last century right up to the present day, that state that IA entered the subcontinent from the northwest. --Taivo (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You don't know what you are talking about here. You have not even commented on migration or answered the actual question that was originally posted. We don't need your analysis when you cannot back it with some diffs. Anything that is supportive to science is not relgio-natiolist POV, or anything that you don't prefer to read.
You are citing one of the same author who suggests that the archaeological evidence is dubious.
This is second time that you have repeated your irrelevant comment, have you got something else to say? No we don't have to hear your beliefs but something that is on the subject. You are talking about the languages, which is not exactly controversial as the migration hypothesis.
It is crystal clear that you have not read any of the sources that I have posted. Language is not independent of some form of migration. While the Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from Central Asia's Andronovo complex did not necessarily completely replace the previous population, it is undisputed by actual scientists that there was a migration. You simply have no actual scientific evidence otherwise. Manaus has clearly shown how you have misquoted and misused every source that you have cited except for the unscientific pseudoscience that pushes your religio-nationalistic POV. You are simply using a classic debate tactic often used in American political discourse by other unscientific religio-nationalistic fringe pseudoscience pushers--flood the discussion with misquotes, demands for proof, and then refusal to acknowledge the irrefutable proof that is given. David W. Anthony, The Horse, the Wheel, and Language (2007, Princeton) has an entire chapter devoted to the cultural procession from north of the Caspian, through Andronovo and Petrovka complexes into the Pre-Vedic cultures just north of the Indian subcontinent. Anthony's primary data are not linguistic, but archeological. Combined with the linguistic evidence, it is simply irrefutable that there was a cultural and linguistic migration from north of the Hindu Kush into the Indian subcontinent in Pre-Vedic and Vedic times. I'm not going to quote the entire chapter--get the book and read it. --Taivo (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You have misread my comment just like he did, I was talking about these hypothesis since other one wasn't even related and continuously brought up. His primary data was based on linguistics but also comparison of archaeology(of different cultures(citing Owen 1991)). Why we are even bringing linguistic similarities when they don't even offer any credibility in this discussion about migration hypothesis that should be based on DNA, genetics. It is actually refuted by the scientist,-- you can yourself find many. The book you are mentioning is not even before these scientific researches or even mention it. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So this is an interesting article in part because there is absolutely no discussion of the two possible alternatives: high altitude weather balloons on the horizon or lenticular clouds. The flight path's orientation in roughly the direction of the sun is a telling one. However, the dearth of credulous sources about this case makes me wonder how to edit it. Help?
This has the obvious issues - a highly critically-acclaimed film, but with a crank message at its core, it makes for a delicate balancing act that the article currently misses by a mile in favour of the film. Don't think for a second it's intentional. Adam Cuerden(talk) 03:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone. There has been quite a bit of activity at the Conspiracy theory entry recently, all from one editor. I reverted some stuff as it was a big addition and asked in an edit summary to take it to talk to no avail. I am not sure about the material, so I would appreciate a few eyes on. Thanks! Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Now, this year the text from the body and lede were drastically shortened. I think it was shortened too much for the lede. If the lede is shortened it could say "Nature described TCM as fraught with pseudoscience, and said that a possible reason why it hasn't delivered many cures is that the majority its treatments have no logical mechanism of action." For the body I don't see a logical explanation on the talk page why it was drastically shortened. I don't understand how this bold edit improves the page. See Talk:Acupuncture#Rewording Nature citation. QuackGuru (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't mis-lede editors when you're trying to canvass. That source isn't talking about acupuncture at all (it's about drug discovery from herbs), so it's kind of ridiculous to have it in the lede. I mentioned this both in my ES and at talk. Read either; I think that criticism of acupuncture's prescientific "mechanism" is obviously fine, when we use proper sources.
I disagree that the source isn't talking about acupuncture at all. The particular sentence being referenced is referencing TCM as a whole, not just herbology. jps (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I note that most independent journalists and scholars who have looked carefully at acupuncture claims have found pseudoscience to be a feature of the subject: , , , , , , , , etc., etc., etc. Honing to a single source is silly. There are hundreds if not thousands of sources written by MDs, journalists, scientists, researchers, and experts in CAM (Ernst, for example), who can confirm the characteristic pseudoscience in acupuncture argumentation. jps (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course there are lots of such sources! And I agree, why hone to one. That's why I'm saying this editorial , being about herbs, is a poor choice for acupuncture (especially in the lede!). I'm fine with keeping the wording (left side of diff ) at the TCM article, because it's a properly-weighted source that supports the claim. But we should use better, germaine sources at acupuncture (cf. bottom of diff ).
The thing is -- and others who have edited with QuackGuru may have noticed this -- he doesn't like paraphrasing and summarizing. He tends to argue, tenaciously, that it's OR and SYN. So he pushes for sources whose "letter" aligns with his wishes even when their "spirit" -- the context -- doesn't support the claim. (A noteworthy example here). --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 22:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
So what do you think of the sources I just linked, Middle 8? How would you summarize them? Write a summary and we'll see if we can agree. jps (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I'll be happy to have a look. To save me a little time, do any of these criticize the "qi mechanism" as implausible, and if so which? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 23:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think they all do, though some only by implication. jps (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
A dispute regarding commentary in this article has come up. This article is about the daughter of AIDS denialist Christine Maggiore who died ostensibly of an AIDS defining illness, and a dispute over the cause of death. A report by fellow denialist Mohammed Al-Bayati was commissioned and released by Maggiore, despite the fact that Al-Bayati is not an MD and not trained to determine cause of death. Properly sourced commentary that described Al-Bayati as not trained has been removed from this article due to being "too negative" about Al-Bayati. Members of this noticeboard may want to weigh in on the appropriateness of this removal. Yobol (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)