User talk:Kautilya3

Disruptive editor at Wikiquote

A disruptive editor keeps on adding non-notable quotes on Wikiquote just to promote hatred against non-Hindus like Muslims and Christians and their religions. Even if the quotes are non-notable it doesn't matter to him. Another editor with right-wing views keeps on supporting him. Can you comment on here [1] on Wikiquote's Administrators' noticeboard? Thanks. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't participated in Wikiquote. So I have no idea. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If the quotes are supported by valid references, why it shouldn't go in? Just because someone has chosen to be ignorant of facts, doesn't mean facts shouldn't be presented. Kautilya2018 (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Christophe Jaffrelot

I'm working at the CERI SCiences Po and I'm trying to ùodify C Jaffrelot's page at his request. I wrote the page on SPIRE so I am just trying to copy some of this page's elements on wikipedia and actualize the bibliography. Nothing much, so please be kind to make me able to do these modifications that C Jaffrelot who is my boss sked me to do. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuchieG (talk • contribs)

I am sorry. Wikipedia policies do not allow either Christophe Jaffrelot (or anybody else acting on his behalf) to modify his page. Please see WP:COI.

On the other hand, you are welcome to explain on Talk:Christophe Jaffrelot, what changes you (or he) want made, and let other editors handle the edits in accordance with Wikipedia policies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Arabic numerals

Hi, I see you have reverted my edit in the Arabic numerals article. I think there is a misunderstanding on your part here. The Arabic numerals article talks about the decimal glyphs (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), it does not talk about the Hindu–Arabic numeral system. The system did indeed originate in India. The Glyphs , however, are a pure Arab invention and has nothing to do with India. They were first invented by the Arabs of North Africa and Spain, and the source for that is already provided in the article. So I don't see what is your point of objection exactly? Viaros17 (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Viaros17, If you are trying to label the numeral glyphs themselves as an invention, I am not sure if the term "invention" is appropriate. Have any other numeral glyphs have been labelled as "inventions"? You also need to keep in mind that the term "Arabic numerals" in normal English means the numeral system, just as "Roman numerals" means the corresponding numeral system. So I think this is too contentious and not worth the trouble.

Secondly, it is not clear if the Western Arabic numerals have been developed independently or whether they were adaptations of Indian or some other system of glyphs. Traditionally, I believe the Arabs used to use letters for numerals, just like the Romans did (as per Al Beruni's writings). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, given the fact that these glyphs are the most used numerals in the world, one could argue that the invention is somehow "worthy". And it is true that there is a debate on the origin of these numbers. Still, the leading theory trace their origin into the Arabic alphabet. And it is indisputable fact that the numerals in their current form are North African in origin, which what matters here.

Anyway, I will leave my claim for now until I study the matter more thoroughly. Maybe i will re-add the category in the future after consulting the admins. Viaros17 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

In that case, this discussion should be copied on to the article talk page. I will do so now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the Labour Party

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the Labour Party. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop censorship

If you don't like what I'm adding, don't censor it. Irfan Habib isn't talking about any Aryan invasion, but simply a migration which is the topic. So I fail to see your problem.

If it's simply because of the interpretations about Dasas being dark-complexioned, you can add a contrary view. But you cannot pick and choose what to add or remove. It is unethical to only consider one reliable source as correct and censor another reliable source.

As for taking a break, I will not be cowing down to your threats or letting you get away with what you want. Reliably sourced and relevant content should be added MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it seems that you are back to square-A. Your wish. Don't say that I didn't warn you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You have been removing me over the similar things: The first - Aryan invasion, I already dropped it. The second - different color of Dasas/Dasyus. If you have contradictory opinions, you can add it. But it's clear, you are only removing content based on what you don't agree with. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Harappan, Vedic, Dravidian

Indus Valley Civilization, Late Phase (1900-1300 BCE)

File:Early Vedic Culture (1700-1100 BCE)

Dravidian

Never realised that the late Harappans were kind of split-up; sites had moved north and south, due to aridisation. See Giosan (2012) p.4. and Narasimhan et al. (2018). So, which Harappans moved south and mixed with the hunter-gatherers to form the Dravidians? Quite obvious, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really. If you are saying that Dravidian languages spread from the IVC, then it would have had to happen while the IVC was still flourishing. After it died, there is hardly any reason for its language to spread, because it didn't just spread, it replaced whatever languages were spoken earlier in South India. For that to happen, there would have had to be strong cultural/technological reasons that gave the new language dominance. After the IVC died, there were no such reasons.

My feeling is that the IVC-Dravidian connection is a red herring. I think the IVC people just stayed where they were and mixed with new people that came. They were a settled civilization, not nomads like the Aryans were. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Narasimhan eta al. (2018) p.14:

the ASI and ANI were both largely unformed at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE, and imply that the ASI may have formed in the course of the spread of West Asian domesticates into peninsular India beginning around 3000 BCE (where they were combined with local domesticates to form the basis of the early agriculturalist economy of South India (40)), or alternatively in association with eastward spread of material culture from the Indus Valley after the IVC declined (41). Further evidence for a Bronze Age formation of the ASI comes from our analysis of Austroasiatic-speaking groups in India such as Juang, who have a higher ratio of AASI-to-Iranian agriculturalist-related ancestry than the ASI (Fig. 3, Supplementary Materials). Austroasiatic speakers likely descend from populations that arrived in South Asia in the 3 rd millennium BCE (based on hill cultivation systems associated with the spread of Austroasiatic languages (20)), and our genetic results show that when Austroasiatic speakers arrived they mixed with groups with elevated ratios of AASI- to Iranian-agriculturalist-related ancestry than are found in the ASI, showing that the ASI had not yet overspread peninsular India.

And Razib Khan (january 18, 2018), The Dravidianization of India:

The reason that the ratio of Iran_N to Steppe_EMBA does not decline monotonically as one goes from west to east along North Indian plain is that Indo-Aryans were not expanding into a Dravidian India. Dravidian India was expanding only somewhat ahead of Indo-Aryan India, and in some places not all at all.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Note that Narasimhan et al. are ambivalent about the linguistic connections:

A parsimonious hypothesis is that as Steppe_MLBA groups moved south and mixed with Indus_Periphery-related groups at the end of the IVC to form the ANI, other Indus_Periphery-related groups moved further south and east to mix with AASI groups in peninsular India to form the ASI. This is consistent with suggestions that the spread of the IVC was responsible for dispersing Dravidian languages (42-44), although scenarios in which Dravidian languages derive from pre-Indus languages of peninsular India are also entirely plausible as ASI ancestry is mostly derived from the AASI.

Dravidian language map

I don't doubt that agriculture spread from the IVC. The "tale of two continents" map shows it spreading between 3500 BC and 2000 BC. But this is an impressionistic map. The spreading is most likely to have happened by sea when the IVC was its peak and they had plenty of ships. The farmers would have settled in the coastal regions first and gradually spread inward.

But the problem is in the assumption that this spreading carried with it a language which replaced the earlier language of South India. If that is so, then how would you explain isolated tribal Dravidian languages in the midst of Indo-Aryan regions? Why would the forest-dwelling tribes come down to learn the Dravidian language of the agriculturists, but then refuse to learn an Indo-Aryan language afterwards? A more reasonable hypothesis is that they were speaking Dravidian languages from the beginning (whatever the "beginning" might be).

The agriculturists could have added a layer to the Dravidian language, as i mentioned earlier. I would hazard a guess that the anna language is what got added by the agriculturists (whom I call "Mesopotamians" rather than "Iranians") whereas the thambi language is the older one (a reasonable guess based on the fact that anna means elder brother and thambi means younger brother.) Moreover, this layering could have happened within the IVC itself, before it got carried to South India. All said and done, I guess I am claiming "indigeneous Dravidians". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And the recent phylogenic study says:

We find the general congruence across models on a median root age for the Dravidian language family of around 4000–4500 years ago including similar 95% HDP ranges supportive of a positive evaluation of the dating results. Nevertheless, the uncertainty on the root age is large, especially for the best-fitting analyses featuring a relaxed clock. Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that the root of the Dravidian language family is 6000 or 6500 years old.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Judicial Watch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Judicial Watch. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Good faith reminder

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Unsubstantiated and spurious accusations like this are to the detriment of this spirit. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I wasn't born yesterday. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trump–Russia dossier

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Today's chuckle

[2] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Fascinating. Vanamonde (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)