Talk:Indigenous Aryanism: Difference between revisions
Skllagyook (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
Line 458: | Line 458: | ||
== Re Fringe Label == |
== Re Fringe Label == |
||
{{Ping|User:Azuredivay}} Regarding the sources for the fringe label, there are several. The theory is widely rejected by mainstream scholarship/outside the mainstream, and thus meets the definition of "fringe". It is not necessary that the word "fringe" explicitly be used, although it is explicitly used by Konrad Elst (see below). I think you may possibly have misunderstood the rfc. The inclusion of the fringe label, as far as I can tell, was the preexisting state of the article (before the rfc). The rfc seems to have been about whether or not it should stay, and the decision was not to modify it (i.e. keep the label). However, if unsure, the thing to do might be to ask some of those involved (such as [[User:Kraose]] or [[User:Mazca]] |
{{Ping|User:Azuredivay}} Regarding the sources for the fringe label, there are several. The theory is widely rejected by mainstream scholarship/outside the mainstream, and thus meets the definition of "fringe". It is not necessary that the word "fringe" explicitly be used, although it is explicitly used by Konrad Elst (see below). I think you may possibly have misunderstood the rfc. The inclusion of the fringe label, as far as I can tell, was the preexisting state of the article (before the rfc). The rfc seems to have been about whether or not it should stay, and the decision was not to modify it (i.e. keep the label). However, if unsure, the thing to do might be to ask some of those involved (such as [[User:Kraose]] or [[User:Mazca]]). In the meantime, it is best to avoid edit warring. |
||
Edit: The "fringe" label does indeed predate the rfc. The "fringe" label was added on January 24th 2020. The rfc was begun on Febuart 23rd 2020. |
Edit: The "fringe" label does indeed predate the rfc. The "fringe" label was added on January 24th 2020. The rfc was begun on Febuart 23rd 2020. Seemingly the decision of the rfc was to keep the label (by not modifying the text). See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/937316103 |
||
The sources in the note alone make clear that the indigenous Aryan theory is fringe and rejected by mainstream scholarship. Here are just those from the note (many others are cited in the rfc and elewhere in the article): |
The sources in the note alone make clear that the indigenous Aryan theory is fringe and rejected by mainstream scholarship. Here are just those from the note (many others are cited in the rfc and elewhere in the article): |
Revision as of 11:40, 7 January 2021
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indigenous Aryanism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 3 March 2007. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
Request for comment: IA/OoI is a fringe theory
Extensive discussion has been made whether the subject should be called 'fringe'. There is no consensus to modify the existing text. Kraose (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2020 (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 the article say in the lede that the Indigenous Aryans / Out of India theory is a fringe theory as in the suggestion below? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Following this addition, the IA/OoI is a fringe theory, and should be qualified as such in the lead:
The [idea of] Indigenous Aryans [theory], also known as the Out of India theory (OIT), is a fringe theory[1][2][note 1] which entails the belief[3][note 2] that the Indo-Aryans were indigenous to South Asia. It proposes that the Indo-European languages, or at least the Indo-Aryan languages, originated within the Indian subcontinent, from where they spread to Central Asia and Europe. While presented as an alternative to the established migration model, which proposes the Pontic steppe as the area of origin of the Indo-European languages, it is "largely neglected by Western scholars because it is regarded as incompetent."[5]
- Notes
- ^ Fringe theory:
- Witzel: "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."[1]
- Jamison: "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."[2]
- ^ Witzel:
- "Any immigration scenario is strenuously denied by [...] the autochthonists who try to show (or who simply believe in) an indigenous origin of the 'Aryans' in the subcontinent.[4]
- "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 [...] [those writings] must be clearly understood and described as traditional, (semi-)religious writings. Therefore they should be regarded and used, not as scholarly contributions, but as objects for the study of the traditional mind, -- uncomfortable as this might be for some of their proponents, many of whom combine, in facile fashion, an education in science with a traditional minds."[3]
- References
- ^ a b Witzel 2001.
- ^ a b Jamison 2006.
- ^ a b Witzel 2001, p. 95.
- ^ Witzel 2001, p. 28.
- ^ Fosse 2005, p. 438.
See also Talk:Indigenous Aryans/Archive 3#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory for additional scholarly assessments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Related threads
This RfC was preceded by the following RfCs and Administrator Noticeboard threads:
- Talk:Indigenous_Aryans/Archive_3#RfC:_the_"Indigenous_Aryans"_theory_is_fringe-theory (Result: the "Indigenous Aryans" proposal which is the subject of this article is a fringe theory according to Wikipedia guidelines. jps (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC))
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_45#Proposed_Hypothesis/Theory_as_fact (Result: Premature closure, see [1])
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive871#Massive_POV_pushing_problem_at_WP:FRINGE_and_Indo-Aryan_topics
This RfC was also preceded by the following related threads on this and related talk pages:
- Talk:Indigenous Aryans#"Theory" The thread immediately preceding this RfC.
- Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration#Shinde_et_al._(2019) Thread discussing recent (2019) genetic research
- Talk:Indigenous_Aryans/Archive_3#Questionable
- Talk:Indigenous_Aryans/Archive_2#Continuity_vs._immigration
- Talk:Indigenous_Aryans/Archive_2#What_does_Elst_conclude_regarding_OIT?
- Talk:Indigenous_Aryans/Archive_2#Re-ordering_to_fit_overview_of_arguments_and_scenarios
The topic of "Indigenous Aryans" or "Out of India" has appeared on at least the following threads on the Fringe Noticeboard:
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Scientific_Parallels_in_Hindu_Mythology
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Bulgars
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Return_of_the_Hindutvavadis
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_11#the_obligatory_Hindutva_intermezzo
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Out_of_India,_migrations_from_the_Urheimat_to_cyberspace
Survey
- Support - see also Narasimhan, Vagheesh M.; Patterson, N.J.; et al. (2019), "The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central Asia", Science, 365 (6457): eaat7487, doi:10.1126/science.aat7487, PMC 6822619, PMID 31488661, representative of the scholarly consensus, which leaves no room whatsoever for any consideration of IA/OoI as being within the bounds of scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Additional quotes
|
---|
The sources as quoted above are quite explicit. See also:
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC) |
- Support - It is obviously an unscientific theory based on blind beliefs and some junky arguments brought forth to buttress them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support. The essential argument is that WP:FRINGE has a broad definition of "fringe theory": In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. The numerous sources given in these threads and throughout the article clearly demonstrate that, under that definition, IA/OoI is a fringe theory. This is not only a consensus of mainstream scholarship, but it was also the consensus of Wikipedia editors during the last Request for Comment: [2]. Furthermore, I concur with user Erutuon from that discussion (in the Comments section) in that the term "fringe theory" is not a value judgment expressing the despicability, dishonesty, and ulterior motives of those who promote a theory. It is not a pejorative, it is not an insult. It simply reflects the level of acceptance of an idea among academics. For example, with regards to the Christ myth theory, I enjoy listening to Richard Carrier and I think that his ideas are intriguing, but at the same time, the article must characterize mythicist position as a fringe theory, which it thankfully does. To do otherwise would be a grave disservice to readers and give a false impression of the idea's position in scholarship. Likewise, we would be doing a grave disservice to readers to characterize IA/OoI as anything less than a fringe theory. BirdValiant (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support. As noted above, "fringe" is not a "value judgment", but an accurate description of how the mainstream academic community perceives the issue. Heiro 23:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Oppose. Description is more effective than labeling. Why is it considered 'fringe', who pushes it, etc.? Just calling it 'fringe' doesn't really tell me all that much. I suspect the sources more often describe as 'revisionist' and lacking rigor or non-scholarly. Is that 'incompetent' quote by Fosse often cited by others? Should be a pretty high bar to include such. with lots of others repeating and citing the quote. fiveby (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)My comment was focused on the details of the wording, striking so as not to detract from the consensus. fiveby (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Oppose - As absurd. No reliable sources have been presented to support the argument. Recent DNA studies by archaeologists and scientists support this theory, I would also say we need to improve coverage of this subject in context of Indian history. Shrikanthv (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Oppose [Statement by indefinitely blocked user] As I already noted in above sections, WP:VERIFY is the policy not Wikipedia's user's own interpretation of their personal feelings towards the subject. As such I oppose the RfC and redirect people to scholarly sources such as this from Cambridge, this from Oxford University Press, this by Routledge and many more scholarly sources where this theory has got significant attention as a contender or alternative theory. Fringe theories barely ever get attention other than their particular fringe circles. ML 911 16:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: User:My Lord has been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Support As I've not seen any mainstream scholarship supporting this opinion other than the Sanskrit nativists, who usually lack any type of formal education in the related fields.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose [Statement by indefinitely blocked user] - Violates WP:OR and none of the sources are verifying the word, nor other parts of the the lead. This theory isn't "presented as an alternative", but has been founding support since 18th century.[3][4] I also don't see any sense in WP:SYNTHESISING non-independent sources for the lead. You would be supporting the "mainstream theory" if it was as mainstream as "Out of Africa" theory, but it is very far from that and has been deduced to a much different conclusion than what it was proposed in 18th century - 20th century. Bharatiya29 14:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: Bharatiya29 has been blocked indefinitely by the Arbitration Committee. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Oppose, and I embrace all the argument of the opposers. Given the fact the Indo-European theories suffer from a relevant uncertainty ans mostly consist hyphothesis and speculations mostly based on even a hyphothetical artifically reconstructed PIE that often tries to identify itself as a borrower to non-Indo European langauges or cultures even on those timelines and ages that is heavily controversial. Hence, labeling a theory in such a determined manner could be indentified as a POV support for part of the Indo-Europeanist lobby, shall it be any direction regarding the hyphothetical location of origins, etc. Until the exact and uncontroverisal location of the Urheimat is not determined and there is no evidence of the common langauge ancestor, the whole question should be left open.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC))
Extended content
|
---|
You're still prsenting a theory without support in mainstream scholarship as an equivalent of the mainstream position. It may be your personal opinion that there is too much uncertainty about the steppe-origins of the IE-languages, but this certainly isn't the view of mainstream scholarship. Indigenism simply isn't a model which is considered credible, or even discussed, in the relevant scholarly discourse. There is no equivalent WP:RS for, say, Anthony's The Horse, the Wheel, and Language, Parpola's The Origins of Hinduism, or Narasimhan et al. (2019). The only sources presented so far are Bryant, and a few sources which superfluously mention the indigenist position, without any serious treatment of the arguments. The indigenist position is a non-issue in mainstream scholarship; it is simply irrelevant for the understanding of the origins of IE-origins. It only has relevance in Indian nationalistic discourse, as illustrated by Shinde, who had a publication in a relevant journal, then publicly dismissed his own research results and conclusions, and was publicly rebuked by his co-authors and other knowledgeable authors. That's the sad status of the indigenist position: annoying, embarrassing, and irrelevant. Fringe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
|
- Support per everything I and so many others have said before in all these related discussions. I'm not going to repeat it all here. WP:FRINGE is broadly defined, and it does not require that the source literally use the exact word "fringe"; they simply have to agree that it doesn't represent the scientific consensus. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Per KIENGER, I oppose and agree that majority of linguistics support Kurgan theory by saying that it wields the higher possibility than saying that the Kurgan theory is scientifically established. Agree with Bharatiya29 about sourcing of proposed wording. Kaweendra (talk) 11:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Oppose The sources are not supporting the proposed info as clarified above. Present lead of the article is good enough. Capitals00 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Support - The sources make it clear that it is not mainstream scholarship. —PaleoNeonate – 14:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - per Joshua Jonathan Idealigic (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Basically unsourced original research. As of now,
everymany countries (at least in Eurasia) claims to be the origin of Indo-European language, thus the subject is not surprising. Azuredivay (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Oppose. To begin with, for a theory to be deemed fringe in Wikipedia's voice, there needs to be a lopsided rejection of the theory amongst the subject matter experts. That has not been demonstrated at all. What has been advanced in the name of 'scholary consensus' in the course of this discussion are certain quotations from books that have been cherry-picked in order to reinforce personal prejudice. And even then, these cherry-picked arguments don't do justice to the inferences that had been drawn from them; something that a number of users have already highlighted above.Just to add to this: there is much debate within the relevant scholarly literature itself on the concerning theory, and one could find a plethora of views in favour of it, including from some of the eminent authority on the subject such as B. B. Lal[7] and Jim G. Shaffer[8] Clearly then, in view of this acceptance amongst the leading experts of this particular field, the label of 'fringe' would but be incompatible.In other words, in the face of this scholarly disagreement, we should follow the usual drill and cover the different viewpoints, rather than taking sides. Regards, MBlaze Lightning 07:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Oppose per MBlaze Lightning. As he pointed out, there is a not insignificant number of scholars supporting this hypothesis. I can certainly agree that it's a minority point of view, but the use of the term "fringe theory" is derogatory and doesn't belong in the intro without attribution. Indian historians advocating this theory have been called nationalists by some, but the fact remains that they do exist and they are credentialed historians, so, when it comes to the intro, we shouldn't call them "fringe" outright. However, I think we could directly quote another reputable historian who does choose to call them "fringe". IvoryTower123 (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Which scholars? Publishing which publications in which journals? Sources please, not unfounded statements. And which attribution are you missing? Who are those "credentialed historians"? Again, please provide solid sources for your statements. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support per BirdValiant and Joshua Jonathan. Puduḫepa 06:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Support, per the overwhelming consensus within contemporary scholarly sources. I could quibble with the wording; specifically, I think "fringe" is a Wikipedia-specific term that might be confusing in context; but the substance of this proposal, that the mainstream consensus among scholarly sources clearly opposes this theory, is supported by the sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, per KEINGIR and MBlaze Lightning. Theory isn't fringe (nor any sources say so) but one of the competing hypothesis. The sources above only show significance that this theory has attracted attention in serious literature and considered to be accurate by enough scholars, even if not most but then there is absence of a non-controversial theory about the subject. Yoonadue (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Support - The multiple reliable sources provided by nom clearly demonstrates that IA/OoI fits our definition of a fringe theory. Krakkos (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Current scholarly consensus holds that we don't enough info on history as to where did the Indo-European languages originated from. While enough agree with Kurgan Hypothesis citing linguistic evidence, but still there isn't enough info or clarity from sources (including those mentioned here) to name Out of India as fringe. I wouldn't name any of the current proposals as 'fringe' unless there are enough sources supporting the information. If we are creating our own meaning from the sources then it is just violation of WP:OR. Santosh L (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended discussion
- Notice of my formatting activity - I have reformatted the RfC, making it have a clear question. I have also added sub-sections for Related Threads, consolidated a Survey section, and made this Comments section. If anyone has any objects to me doing this, please feel free to revert.<br.
- Also, I'm going to remove my signature from the question section. I added it to make it clear that I added the question. However, it falsely makes it look like I started the RfC in the first place, which I did not. So, I hope that this comment will suffice for documentation. BirdValiant (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Redrose64 and Joshua Jonathan: As stated here, I (BirdValiant) formatted the RfC and added sub-sections, including the Question section where I added a concise question with this edit here: [9]. I wrote the question since I'm pretty sure that RfCs are supposed to have a concise question; Joshua Jonathan technically did not write that exact question. However, as stated above, I was not the one to start the RfC, and I thought that having my signature on the question made it falsely look like I started it. I also thought that adding the question was more of a "formatting activity" than a "post" per WP:SIGNHERE, so I figured that my signature was distracting and unnecessary. On the other hand, I didn't want to make it look like Joshua Jonathan wrote that exact question, so I just decided to put it in italics. But, now it looks like Joshua Jonathan wrote the exact wording, so I don't know if that's good, either. BirdValiant (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Whilst the full signature is optional, the timestamp component of it is mandatory, otherwise Legobot doesn't know where the statement ends. If it can't find a valid timestamp within a certain length, it doesn't list the RfC correctly, and will not publicise it through WP:FRS. It's covered at WP:RFCST and WP:RFCBRIEF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. Joshua Jonathan's signature was so far down (after the references) that Legobot must've missed it. Well, I guess we can leave it up to Joshua Jonathan to determine whether I summarized the RfC in a way which reflected his intentions, and whether there should be a full signature there, or a five-tilde-style timestamp. BirdValiant (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Whilst the full signature is optional, the timestamp component of it is mandatory, otherwise Legobot doesn't know where the statement ends. If it can't find a valid timestamp within a certain length, it doesn't list the RfC correctly, and will not publicise it through WP:FRS. It's covered at WP:RFCST and WP:RFCBRIEF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Redrose64 and Joshua Jonathan: As stated here, I (BirdValiant) formatted the RfC and added sub-sections, including the Question section where I added a concise question with this edit here: [9]. I wrote the question since I'm pretty sure that RfCs are supposed to have a concise question; Joshua Jonathan technically did not write that exact question. However, as stated above, I was not the one to start the RfC, and I thought that having my signature on the question made it falsely look like I started it. I also thought that adding the question was more of a "formatting activity" than a "post" per WP:SIGNHERE, so I figured that my signature was distracting and unnecessary. On the other hand, I didn't want to make it look like Joshua Jonathan wrote that exact question, so I just decided to put it in italics. But, now it looks like Joshua Jonathan wrote the exact wording, so I don't know if that's good, either. BirdValiant (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment on RfC format - Is this RfC categorized into the appropriate topic? It seems to me that it should belong in rfc|hist and rfc|lang instead of, or in addition to, rfc|reli, because the topic concerns the historical place of origin of the Indo-Aryan languages. I'm not sure, though: can this be changed after it is added? BirdValiant (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've added the rfc|hist and rfc|lang categories. Feel free to revert if adding categories is not allowed. I don't see anywhere on WP:RFC that says this is not allowed, but maybe I'm missing something. BirdValiant (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment on wording of the proposed statement: I think that the bracketed [idea of] should be replaced by "concept of" as it is now, and that the bracketed [theory] should be deleted. I don't think that square-bracketed statements are esthetically pleasing in ledes. It's difficult to find a phrasing which neatly ties together both of IA and OoI together, but I think that making those small changes would be about as good as possible. BirdValiant (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment unrelated to the content dispute - the prose in this article is a tangled mess and requires improvement. All of the editors who are participating in the editing of the article should work together to simplify the prose in the lead paragraph in the first instance. I think that will assist others (whom you are seeking comments from) so that they can focus on the content issues you would like them to review. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Notice of editing another's posts @My Lord: In this edit, you edited my posts so that my citations were broken. I don't know if it was intentional or some kind of automated process, but please do not do that. BirdValiant (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is my browser setting, removes very unnecessary spaces. I generally turn it off. ML 911 18:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- @BirdValiant: I'm sure it wasn't intentional; there's simply no need for ML to do so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan: Don't strike comments by My Lord. We only strike comments by socks not by sockmaster even if the multiple accounts abuse concerned this page. Though sock comments can be removed as well but not master's. Capitals00 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I support the strikethrough. In this case, not only were the sockpuppets blocked indefinitely, but so too was the sockmaster. Does the opinion of someone totally banished from the website matter, when it comes to the activities of those who remain on the website? I don't think so. BirdValiant (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. ML is no participant anymore at Wikipedia, for good reasons; their opinions don't count here. But we can ask @Bbb23: should the comments of banned users be included in the conclusion of this Rfc? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Birdvalient: Sockmasters can be unblocked with or without convincing request but socks remain "
totally banished from the website
". This is why I said, only comment of socks comments are removed. Capitals00 (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I support the strikethrough. In this case, not only were the sockpuppets blocked indefinitely, but so too was the sockmaster. Does the opinion of someone totally banished from the website matter, when it comes to the activities of those who remain on the website? I don't think so. BirdValiant (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan: Don't strike comments by My Lord. We only strike comments by socks not by sockmaster even if the multiple accounts abuse concerned this page. Though sock comments can be removed as well but not master's. Capitals00 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- @BirdValiant: I'm sure it wasn't intentional; there's simply no need for ML to do so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is my browser setting, removes very unnecessary spaces. I generally turn it off. ML 911 18:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Request to re-list - The discussion had grown stagnant for a couple weeks, with no progress. Legobot has apparently removed the RFC tag. I suggest that the RFC be re-listed, in order to gain more input. BirdValiant (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Question on full protection - Why have you fully protected the article? Other articles that are very high profile, such as coronavirus, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders only have extended confirmed protection as of posting. Bernspeed (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment on lack of responses - I notice that most editors who oppose the explicit qualification of the IA-"theory" in the lead have not responded to requests to substantiate their statements with reliable sources. The only sources mentioned are given by Shrikanthv, who refers to Shinde (2019), whose public contradiction of his own publication has been ripped to pieces; and by MBlazeLightning, namely Lal, who's opinions on this topic are neglected in the scholarly literarture; and Shaffer, who does not voice support for the indigenist position, and whose cited statement even contradicts the indigenist position. In lack of evidence for the supposed mainstream position of indigenism, the opinions of these editors should be weighted as such, namely personal opinions and beliefs, when concluding this RfC. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment on possible topic-ban - @Joshua Jonathan: You are mistaken with this note. I am not topic banned, see this. You may want to remove it. After all, per WP:FOC, you must not comment on contributors but only comment on content and refrain from speculating backgrounds of other editors per WP:ASPERSIONS even if they have declared it on their userpage. Capitals00 (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Calling my comment "speculating backgrounds" or an aspersion is incorrect; you were topic-banned, and asking if you're rightfully commenting here is relevant and reasonable. But, given the fact that your topic-ban was lifted, I'll strike my comment. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 24 April 2020 (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.
Given the above discussion has been closed as no consensus to make the change, the immediate disagreement seems to have been solved so I've dropped the article back to semi-protection if there's productive editing to be done. If the edit warring resumes, of course so can the protection. ~ mazca talk 19:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Citation cleanup
I count at least 33 Harvard-style citation errors in this article (as of this writing). This is a good reason to convert to normal inline citations with a single "References" section (and perhaps put them in a WP:LDR end-of-page block, for neatness). Harvard referencing (separate citations and bibliography sections) is only practical in stable articles that see very little editorial churn, whereas this page is probably going to be furiously edited by all kinds of random people for decades, and very few of them are going to understand the complexities of two-section referencing, so they're going to continue breaking Harvard-style citations again and again.
PS: If you want to be easily able to detect broken Harvard cites, add the following to Special:MyPage/common.js:
// Detect broken Harvard citations (docs at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors): mw.loader.load('https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Koenraad Elst says: "Of course it is a fringe theory"
I knew it: if it fits the purposes, even Koenraad Elst would be rejected as a source. Elst, of all persons. LOL! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Haha, that is funny.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- NB, regarding "WP:RSPS, totally blacklisted sources cannot be used as reference on Wikipedia," Swarajya is not "totally blacklisted," but "considered generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It is blacklisted on the spam blacklist, to avoid link spam. WP:RSP further says "context matters tremendously when determining how to use this list. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." It's quite obvious that this interview in Swarajya can be considered as reliable for a direct statement by Koenraad Elst, especially when he acknowledges that Indigenism is rejected by mainstream scholarship. There is no indication, let alone evidence, that Indigenism has any relevance in mainstream scholarly debate on the origins of the IE-languages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Koenraad Elst does not consider it a fringe theory in India, only out of India as mentioned in his quote itself attached to the article. He makes it clear it has the support of most archaeologists (not just some fringe "Hindu nationalists") in India.
- ""Of course it is a fringe theory, at least internationally, where the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) is still the official paradigm. In India, though, it has the support of most archaeologists, who fail to find a trace of this Aryan influx and instead find cultural continuity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldring234 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- And what does that tell us about Indian scholarship? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- It says that Indian archeologists does not always necessarily regurgitate what others say and do their own research and they are not afraid to question the dominant western narrative if it contradicts their evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldring234 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- If you are using his quote to justify your assertion that its a "fringe theory", Shouldn't you add that its a fringe theory outside India and not for Indian archeologists as the quote makes it clear ?Goldring234 (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Isn't that special pleading? Arguing that the standard criteria for science do not apply to Indian scholarship, because they deviate en masse from it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- That is your opinion. Koenraad's quote does not say that. Indian archeologists oppose Aryan migration theory using established scientific models. The fact you think they oppose it out of thin air without scientific basis shows your bias.Goldring234 (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Classical rhetorics: "that's your opinion." See the "opinions" of Witzel and Doniger regarding the (lack of) usage of "established scientific models" (I suppose you mean "methods"?; the Indigenist "model" is precisely not that, "established") by Indigenists in their opposition against establishd scientific methods. I'm afraid that your "own research" and "question the dominant western narrative" in practice mean that they propagate a 'political-religious' narrative which irreconciliably deviates from mainstream scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- The opposition to Witzel and Doniger by Indian archeologists and authors is precisely that they don't follow scientific models and suit their analysis to fit their ideological lens. The fact that these people accuse their Indian counterparts the same thing is like pot calling the kettle black. Talageri brought Witzel to his knees using the same scientific models which Witzel trumpet. What did Witzel do ? Initially came up with a half baked critique (which was again rebutted by Talageri using logical scientific method) and then ran away from the debate by appealing to authority. AMT thesis is a "Mainstream scholarship" only in entrenched "South Asian" academic cartels of the West. Not anywhere else and certainly not in India. In AMT debate, western "mainstream scholarship" AMT defenders act like the Church during Galileo's time trying to paint their opponents as devils instead of challenging the evidences of the OIT opponents on their own scientific merit.Goldring234 (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- So what you claim is that these Hindu nationalists, who rarely if ever any relevant education in the field, are more scientific than reputed scholars at the top of their field? Frawley, Talageri, Malhotra, Danino, and Rajaram are all non-scholars who have no proper training in any of the fields required for Indology. Elst and Lal still belong to the fringe of academia, and their work has been heavily criticized and had giant holes poked in them. If you need a refresher, read WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Koenraad has been labbled as a "fringe" not because his OIT thesis lacks merit but because his opponents labeled him as "radical anti-muslim". None of his opponents refuted his OIT arguments on their own merit. B.B.Lal was a distinguished archeologist and was Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India. He was anything but fringe in India. The fact that every Pro-OIT proponent is now being dubbed as "Hindu nationalist" is pure ignorance. Lal was actually Pro-AMT who turned Pro-OIT. Klaus Klostermaier, a Western academic himself had this to say in his book - A Survey of Hinduism. "This putative “Aryan invasion” was dated ca. 1500 bce, and the composition of the hymns of the Ṛgveda was fixed between 1400 and 1200 bce. The Aryan invasion theory was conceived on pure speculation on the basis of comparative philology, without any archaeological or literary evidence to support it. It was resisted as unfounded by some scholars from the very beginning. In the light of recent archaeological finds, it has become less and less tenable. Nevertheless, the Aryan invasion theory, recently downgraded to an Aryan migration theory, is still widely defended and forms part of many standard histories of Hinduism." Goldring234 (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- David Anthony's The Horse, the Wheel, and Language addresses much of the concerns that you cite from Klostermaier, which is again just rehashing the claims of indeginists that the scientific methodology of linguistics and archeology is just false. And that was even before the advent of archaeogenetics, which has been the final nail in the coffin for OIT. There is a reason I separated Lal and Elst from the rest. They are still academics, and I personally respect Lal for his archeological work, however his analysis has been heavily flawed and criticized. Chariotrider555 (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- David Anthony's does not provide anything new that Klostermaier or Koenraad Elst or Lal does not already included in their 'Pro-AMT' arguments which they then refute. Just because a book is relatively new does not mean the arguments and evidences are new. Its just rehashing the old arguments like old wine in new bottle. Even in archeogenetics, OIT has not been disproven. Like in linguistics, the AMT folks picked the studies which suited their already held views and ignored others which contradicted their views. Goldring234 (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- By refuting do you mean sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "La la la! Linguistics, archeology, and genetics are all wrong!" Anyway I am done here, as the community has already came to a consensus on the fact that the idea of Indigenous Aryans is complete fringe rooted in Hindu nationalism. Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. Refuting in the sense showing scientific evidence and linguistic theories which pro-AMT folks choose to ignore or discredit them not on the basis of their scientific merits but who is saying them. Goldring234 (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The amount of rhetorics, and refusal to acknowledge the obvious, is overwhelming:
- Ideological lens: it's not 'western scholars accusing their Indian counterparts of the same thing'; it is fringe authors accusing mainstream scholars (the overwhelming majority) of the same thing;
- Which publications by Talageri are you referring to, and how much impact have they had in mainstream scholarship on Indian history?
- The AMt is not 'mainstream scholarship only in entrenched "South Asian" academic cartels of the West'; it ìs mainstream scholarship, worldwide, except for some scholars and authors whose impact is mostly confined to India and an alternate universe at the internet (ironically, the best-known voices of the Indigenist camp are westerners...;
- Most AMT-scholars don't pay any attention at all to Indigenists, simply because they are utterly irrelevant, lacking "scientific merit" worth responding to;
- Elst has given an overview of an OoI-model, but doesn't seem to take it very serious himself; Lal's latest publication on Indigenism is completely ignored in the scholarly debate; and Klostermaier is the sad black swan among credible scholars who has voiced support for Indigenism, though he too does not seem to be widely cited in his views on Indigenism, but rather neglected;
- Anthony's The Horse is an overwhelming book, incomparable to Elst, Klostermaier or Lal. Klostermaier's few alinea's on the origins of the Aryans don't adress Anthony's arguments at all;
- Archeogenetics isn't even interested in Indigenism; what authors in this field deem to be disproven is Renfrew's model. But that Reich and Narasimhan and their co-authors don't leave any room whatsoever for Indigenism is abundantly clear; and explicitly stated in their responses to Shinde's public turnaround discrediting his own conlusions in the infamous Rakhighiri-study (augh..... how low can you go throwing away your scientific reputation?)
- Which "scientific evidence" and "linguistic theories" are ignored? Did they have impact? Or are you running around in a circle? "Evidence" and "theories" which are ignored because they are irrelevant and useless, and their authors being ignored for this reason?
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
AMT supporters themselves indulge in rhetorics of their own even while accusing their opponents of the same thing. And then they try to ride the high horse.
- OIT is not a fringe among Indian archeologists, academics and Archeogeneticists. Anglo-American academic cartels assume their opinions are the norm in the whole world. They are not. Its like labelling Hindus as "fringe" religious group because their numbers are insignificant in the West while turning a blind eye to the vast number of them in India.
- AMT/OIT topic itself is a fringe topic outside of India. Only in India, people have interest in it. Lal, Talageri, Koenraad, Klostermaier, Kazanas - these are well known names in Indian academic circles. Every one in India who is interested in AMT/OIT debate reads their books as a rule, even those who disagree with them. To say they have no impact on Indian mainstream scholarship is ridiculous. Western Pro-AMT academic cartels are not "mainstream". Their opinions on AMT are considered fringe among large sections of India. Not because Indians are against them for ideological reasons as AMT folks try to portray. But because the AMT folks have ignored Pro-OIT folks, labelling them while not debunking their thesis on scientific merits.
- David Anthony's book did not make any difference to the AMT/OIT debate. The people who champion it are already convinced about AMT. Its like eco chamber preaching to the choirs. The people who needs to be convinced - their critics were not convinced by his arguments and evidences as they are not new but old wine in new bottle.
- Archeogeniticists were dragged by AMT folks into the debate because they thought that will seal the debate in their favor. But what it did was to create more questions. When Shinde did not agree with them, he suddenly became "fringe" for them. Infact Reich himself was confusing interpreting his own results. AMT folks quote him to show Steppe ancestry for Indo-European languages with Indians and Iranians being one branch. But Reich is quoted as saying Iran or Armenia itself as the origin of Indo-European languages. See his attested quote here under "Indo-European origins" section.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reich_(geneticist)
- Russian Archaeologist Dr. Alexandr Semenenko' work on Chariots and its relation to the AMT/OIT debate promises to be as pathbreaking as those of Talageri's on linguistics. Anglo-American Pro-AMT academic cartels led by Witzel, Doniger et al who were unable to rebut Talageri's books on scientific basis tend to ignore him as his work goes against their well entrenched position. I would have loved to see them demolish Taligeri's work on scientific merit. I wonder what excuse these Anglo-American academic 'South Asian" cartels will find to ignore Semenenko's work.Goldring234 (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's still not clear to me what debate between Wiztel and Talageri you're referring to. You mean Witzel's devastating critique of The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Witzel did critiqued Talageri's book 'The Rigveda- Historical analysis'. But it was not devastating. Like most AMT folks, he mostly rehashed his original arguments. Talageri's arguments were largely unaddressed. Talageri rebutted Witzel's lame critique of his book in his next book - 'The Rigveda and the Avesta'. He also rips apart the arguments of another AMT ayatollah Hans Hock. Goldring234 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Talageri is not even a fringe author, because he has no academic credentials. This is the main problem with the Aryan nativist group in general. They say Indian academicians were too westernized, when they have an actual education. This is their only argument. An argument, which is not taken seriously by western (and Indian) scientists.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Witzel did critiqued Talageri's book 'The Rigveda- Historical analysis'. But it was not devastating. Like most AMT folks, he mostly rehashed his original arguments. Talageri's arguments were largely unaddressed. Talageri rebutted Witzel's lame critique of his book in his next book - 'The Rigveda and the Avesta'. He also rips apart the arguments of another AMT ayatollah Hans Hock. Goldring234 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
How does an IE origin in the Caucasus disprove AMT? ChandlerMinh (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Shaffer
Shaffer is often presented as a supporter of the idea of indigenous aryans. Ironically, while arguing for cultural continuity, to explain the similarities between sanskrit and western languages, Shaffer (1984) proposed that Sanskrit has non-Indians origins, and was taken over by Indians, together with a new kind of societal organisation, which was codified in the Vedas in this non-Indian language. Not the kind of argument ever repeated by indigenists... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Correction required
"Yet, Shaffer also notes that the Harappan culture was not extensively tied to this network in the third century BCE, leaving the possibility that.." in this sentence, should it be "third millennium BCE" instead of "third century BCE"? __Chaduvari (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Chaduvari: you're absolutely right; I've corrected it. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Re Fringe Label
@Azuredivay: Regarding the sources for the fringe label, there are several. The theory is widely rejected by mainstream scholarship/outside the mainstream, and thus meets the definition of "fringe". It is not necessary that the word "fringe" explicitly be used, although it is explicitly used by Konrad Elst (see below). I think you may possibly have misunderstood the rfc. The inclusion of the fringe label, as far as I can tell, was the preexisting state of the article (before the rfc). The rfc seems to have been about whether or not it should stay, and the decision was not to modify it (i.e. keep the label). However, if unsure, the thing to do might be to ask some of those involved (such as User:Kraose or User:Mazca). In the meantime, it is best to avoid edit warring.
Edit: The "fringe" label does indeed predate the rfc. The "fringe" label was added on January 24th 2020. The rfc was begun on Febuart 23rd 2020. Seemingly the decision of the rfc was to keep the label (by not modifying the text). See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/937316103
The sources in the note alone make clear that the indigenous Aryan theory is fringe and rejected by mainstream scholarship. Here are just those from the note (many others are cited in the rfc and elewhere in the article):
"Romila Thapar (2006): "there is no scholar at this time seriously arguing for the indigenous origin of Aryans".[101] Wendy Doniger (2017): "The opposing argument, that speakers of Indo-European languages were indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, is not supported by any reliable scholarship. It is now championed primarily by Hindu nationalists, whose religious sentiments have led them to regard the theory of Aryan migration with some asperity."[web 1]
Girish Shahane (September 14, 2019), in response to Narasimhan et al. (2019): "Hindutva activists, however, have kept the Aryan Invasion Theory alive, because it offers them the perfect strawman, 'an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument' ... The Out of India hypothesis is a desperate attempt to reconcile linguistic, archaeological and genetic evidence with Hindutva sentiment and nationalistic pride, but it cannot reverse time's arrow ... The evidence keeps crushing Hindutva ideas of history
Koenraad Elst (May 10, 2016): "Of course it is a fringe theory, at least internationally, where the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) is still the official paradigm. In India, though, it has the support of most archaeologists, who fail to find a trace of this Aryan influx and instead find cultural continuity."[4]"
Skllagyook (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- The rfc-question was if the fringe-label should be added, but the existing text indeed included the fringe-label. Which is correct; Indigenism is indeed a fringe-"theory" in all the meanings the trrm has. Anyone with some basic knowledge of Indo-European history and linguistics, and the intention to build a reliable encyclopedia, knows that Indigenism is totally incompatible with the facts, and plays no role whatsoever in the scholarly debate. None. And I'm still waiting for the solid sources, instead of the wiki-lawyering and the attempts to game the system, to prove me wrong. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:IDHT, I won't repeat my message which I already added here, that the RfC was about whether the term "Fringe" should be included and there was no consensus to include it. This was the version during the RfC.
- It is ironic that you want to avoid edit warring while you are edit warring over a silly label that has no support from the sources and you are WP:CHERRYPICKING Koenraad Elst who you would otherwise reject as a source. You seem to have omitted the quotation of Elst who also said that "But anyway, this ‘fringe’ aspect doesn’t impress me at all. When Copernicus put the sun rather than the earth at the centre of the solar system, he was in a minority of one, very ‘fringe’ indeed; but he won the day." If you don't agree with this, then at least don't cherrypick. Rest of your sources don't verify the term. There is criticism towards every other proposed Indo European origin. Azuredivay (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Bullshit. Scholarly consensus is that IE-languages originated ate the Pontic-Caspian steppes. And now please provide the sources which show that Indigenism is a credible theory in mainstream scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- B-Class India articles
- Mid-importance India articles
- B-Class India articles of Mid-importance
- B-Class Indian politics articles
- Mid-importance Indian politics articles
- B-Class Indian politics articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject Indian politics articles
- WikiProject India articles
- B-Class Pakistan articles
- Mid-importance Pakistan articles
- B-Class Pakistani politics articles
- WikiProject Pakistani politics articles
- WikiProject Pakistan articles