Talk:Indigenous Aryanism

Mediation closed as unsuccessful

The mediator has closed this case. See: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-28_Indigenous_Aryan_Theory Buddhipriya 18:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Context and Fallacy

Apropos of this edit and the editorial comment on this revert, here is the third paragraph of Chapter 8 of Bryant(2001) in full:

"This does not mean all Indigenous Aryanists believe that India was factually the home of all the Indo-Europeans. Of course there are certainly those who, perceiving the fallacies in many of the theories being promoted by their Western colleagues, nonetheless attempt to utilize similar methods and logic to promote India as a homeland. Perhaps this is understandable after being subjected to two centuries of unbridled European intellectual hegemony on the Indo-European homeland problem. But clearly an Indian homeland theory is as open to the same type of criticism that Indigenous Aryans have vented on other homeland theories. Most scholars simply reject the whole endeavor as irremediably inconclusive, at best, and "a farrago of linguistic speculations," at worst. 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 Southern Russia" (Kak 1994, 192). 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 the western side: "We can as well carry on with the findings of linguistics on the basis that India was the original home" (Pusalkar 1950, 115). In other words, by arguing that India could be the Indo-European homeland, the more cautious scholars among the Indigenous Aryanists are demonstrating the inadequacy of the linguistic method in pinpointing any homeland at all, rather than seriously promoting India as such."

Apropos of this comment and this "rebuttal" (which forgets this from WP:NOR: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions."), consider the following example.

Suppose I claim that I was born and raised in New York City. From this claim, it can be infered that my mother must have been in New York City when I was born. But it does not follow that my mother must also have been born in New York City, nor that any of my more remote ancestors were born in New York City.

The fallacy in Bryant's "necessary corollary" should be clear now. But even if his argument were correct, it would still seriously misrepresent the Indigenist position, as I tried to point out elsewhere. rudra 02:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason we require peer reviewed material is because this is a very complex argument (as explained to Dab [1]). This is not straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions. Your argument overlook some very obvious issues. Some of the issues are: 1) how did IA loan words get in Finno-Ugric languages, 2) how did Mitanni (IA language) end up outside Punjab (quite close to where PIE started as per Anatolian), if Indo-Aryan was indigenous, 3) What did Renfrew say about which geographic area IA were formed and when, 4) Indigenous Aryan: what do they say where this group came from and when was Indo-Aryan language formed (most reasonable estimate we have are about 4000BC Sethna and 4500BC Lal).

If Indo-Aryan languages were indigenous to this region, only way to to get loan words in Finno-Ugric and Mitanni is to have migration out of this region. Hence, Bryant's "necessary corollary". WP:NOR also says introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article. Find a published material for your interpretation and I would have no objection.Sbhushan 13:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

everything in this article is referenced with insane precision now, thanks to your incoherent bickering in general. I think you can stop it at this point (and feel free to start reading with a minimal preparedness to follow an argument). dab (𒁳) 14:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Cites Bryant p.4 and loses "Aryan"; cites Bryant p.231 and loses "convincing" (with a priceless summary comment); and lo, cites Bryant p.4 again and this time finds "Finno-Ugric" and "Mitanni", with a homily on "OR" to boot! What a dust cloud. Maybe someone sufficiently clueless will be impressed. There's only one word for this preemptively incoherent style: masterdebation. It's a pity that WP Talk pages don't support bozo bins. rudra 03:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia does support bozo bins, it's just that you have to plod through WP:RfAr first. At this point, it may be worth the investment. dab (𒁳) 10:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually meant a personal killfile, not a global one. As if I could see a Talk page with his "contribution" - trying very hard to convey an impression that he knows something, babblegab for the sake of arguing, etc. - removed. He has nothing to say, and he's saying it here. rudra 01:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. It's the unpleasant underbelly of Wikipedia. There is no easy remedy, we just have to put up with it. But our policies do prevent this descending into the madness of Usenet, and as the site continues to grow, the standards of banning editors with quite obviously nothing to say and no interest in building an encyclopedia are becoming more strict. My experience is that the community is inert, but still essentially sane, and things end up working out somehow. dab (𒁳) 12:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Every single issue identified in Request for mediation is where the reference is incorrect. Putting more original research in ref does not make it correct, reference has to be for published material and not your arguments or your POV. I have explained it to you number of times now; you can not publish original research in Wikipedia voice.Sbhushan 14:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I've included tags for the lead paragraph - if the article says that a view is pseudohistory then a citation for this word or an equivalent phrase is required, not an explanation why an individual editor would consider this view reasonable. Also notes are not a forum for individual editors to express their views, preferably the only content of a note should be a {{cite book}} or similar. Addhoc 13:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyright infingement

I've removed the last part of the lead section because of concerns relating to copyright infringement based on this extract. Also the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the overall article. Addhoc 16:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What in blazes are you talking about? The author (Witzel) is identified, and his words are paraphrased. What did you want? A direct quote? Besides, Witzel's classification is as good as they come for the subject, making it eminently suitable for the lead. I think I'm seeing an application of Hanlon's razor here. rudra 17:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Calm down and try to be civil. Addhoc 17:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your non-answer. rudra 17:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Witzel's words are not being paraphrased. Frawley is not "mild" as per Witzel. Lal and Bryant are not included by Witzel.Sbhushan 17:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sbhushan, I guess that I should have been clearer that my concern is Garrett Fagan's words have been paraphrased. Addhoc 17:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The words paraphrased (or not paraphrased - whatever) are on p.217 of the book, as your link indicates. Fagan is the editor of the book, as the Title Page link on that Google Books page indicates. p.217 is part of the article from p.203 to p.232. This article is by Michael Witzel. It is titled Rama's realm: Indocentric rewritings of early South Asian archaeology and history. Please clarify your concerns, with respect to WP:COPY or any other WP policies/guidelines you deem relevant. Thank you. rudra 17:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - I didn't realise. If neither you or Sbhushan consider there is a problem, I'll reintriduce the text. Addhoc 18:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest we use Witzel's words. Witzel has put Frawley in 3rd category, the article puts Frawley in 1st "mild" category. I will remove the words that can not be attributed to Witzel.Sbhushan 15:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Indus Valley civilization link

I removed this reference there are several (mutually exclusive) decipherment claims of the Indus script as encoding a "Sanskritic" language; see also Indus Valley Civilization as there are few things wrong with this:

1. Sanskrit is Indo-Aryan language and NOT Indo-Iranian
2. On Indus Valley civilization page the reference is to A. Parpola - He is NOT proponent for Indigenous Aryan
3. A. Parpola has spent his life arguing IVC was Dravidian language - All his attempt to decode IVC script exclude Sanskrit language

Pleas provide verifiable reference.Sbhushan 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

There are number of reference tags in that article that identify original research. Please provide references to acceptable published material before removing tag.Sbhushan 21:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur - also, in addition to statements that could be original research or personal commentary, there are issues with phrasing - for example WP:WTA indicates the word "claim" shouldn't be used. Currently, the word is used for the Indigenous Aryan position, but not the linguistic theory, which could reasonably be considered bias. Addhoc 12:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible original research

This sentence:

“ The proposition of "indigenous Aryans" thus does not correspond to a single identifiable opinion, but to a sentiment that may result in various, partly mutually exclusive, specific claims united by a common ideology. ”

is possible original research. The supporting foot-note is:

“ Thus, Koenraad Elst postulates a Proto-Indo-Iranian Harappan culture, while Nicholas Kazanas argues that the Indo-Aryan Rigveda must predate the Harappan culture. The unifying ideology is apparent in that there is no academic controversy among proponents of "out of India" scenario aimed at resolving such contradictions. ”

which obviously isn't a reference to a reliable source. Accordingly, I propose deleting the sentence and supporting foot-note. Addhoc 22:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence and supporting foot-note should be deleted. K Elst also argues for Rigveda predating Harappan culture (same as Kazanas). The websites are down currently, but I will provide the link for this soon.Sbhushan 01:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is quote from Elst, Update on AIT - conclusion of chapter 2. Astronomical data and the Aryan question

The astronomical lore in Vedic literature provides elements of an absolute chronology in a consistent way. For what it is worth, this corpus of astronomical indications suggests that the Rg-Veda was completed in the 4th millennium AD, that the core text of the Mahabharata was composed at the end of that millennium, and that the Brahmanas and Sutras are products of the high Harappan period towards the end of the 3rd millennium BC. This corpus of evidence is hard to reconcile with the AIT, and has been standing as a growing challenge to the AIT defenders for two centuries.

Elst doesn't postulate a Proto-Indo-Iranian Harappan culture, so this original research should be removed from the article.Sbhushan 15:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph: In its extreme forms, postulating....

The second paragraph In its extreme forms, postulating ..... is all original research. Witzel's statement below that is better classification. I suggest that second paragraph be removed and only statements attributable to Witzel be left.Sbhushan 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the current version isn't supported by the citations and therefore could reasonably be considered original research. Addhoc 17:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Current litrature vs history

Both Witzel and Bryant are publication from same time. So either we can move everything to "Historiographical Context" or leave both in lead.Sbhushan 14:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to move Witzel from the lead into historiographical context. Addhoc 22:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't see why. The point of the historiographical context is to establish why anyone would want to have histories written with a particular slant. As to the actual writing of such histories, Witzel is offering a three-fold classification. This is useful because the writers don't form a singular, "unified", school of thought, they are just roughly in the same region of an ideological spectrum. Since that's what the article is about anyway, Witzel's "typology" belongs in the lead (to set a scope), and the historiographical context section would cover, in more detail, the kinds of things that concern these writers. (Note: historiographical, not historical, as one erstwhile contributor seems incapable of grasping, given a complete non-sequitur on contemporaneity.) rudra 06:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Sbhushan, you've just demonstrated that you don't understand the word "historiographical". Wouldn't you agree that WP would be better served if your contributions were to subjects where you knew at least something, and you could keep up with the elementary concepts of the field? rudra 06:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we could rename the historiographical section if necessary. Personally, I don't think lengthy quotes should be in the lead section. Lastly, this page is for discussing changes to the article, not for personal remarks. Thanks, Addhoc 10:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Is your participation purely technical, or do you claim to have sufficient familiarity with relevant materials and literature to be able to judge issues such as undue weight, scholarly consensus and appropriate coverage? Beyond that, it doesn't seem that you're aware of the (politically motivated) contentiousness that attends articles like this one, especially when the contentiousness is practiced by gaming the system. It's a nice little game: tag any text that is not a direct quote (OR, fact, cite, whatever); when the article acquires a preponderance of quotes as a result, shift gears and start complaining about "excessive quoting"; when someone starts paraphrasing and/or summarizing, shift gears back and start screaming "synthesis! OR! Where is your citation?" again; and so it goes. It's particularly obnoxious with manifest ignorance in the mix, as even the free education in the subject goes to waste. rudra 10:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Guess what your "credentials" arent relevant.Bakaman 03:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the comment on your user page. However, I would clarify, this page is for improving the article, not for giving advice to other editors. Addhoc 10:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The assumption that every editor is interested in improving the article is, I'm sorry to say, not warranted by edit histories and talk page discussions. Another technique in this connection, btw, is the "reference bomb": take either a direct quote or a close paraphrase and plunk the passage (with the footnote "sourcing" it) randomly into a paragraph, thus compromising continuity and coherence. When someone removes it to restore minimal sense, whine loudly about the removal of "properly sourced material". If you're good at it, you may successfully entropize an article into total unintelligibility, at which point even an AfD might be in order. Mission accomplished. Simple, no? rudra 11:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of ranting and raving, do you want to offer constructive suggestions? It might be worthwhile looking at "collaborate". You care to explain why Bryant should not be in lead also, since what Bryant is saying is not much different than Witzel and also "sets the scope" and doesn't belong in "why" of historiographical. On your matter of expertise, I seriously doubt you have much understanding of the subject matter. You believe that your words should carry more weight than the published authors. Do you care to show where have you published in peer reviewed literature regarding this topic? Are you aware of current Wikipedia guidelines regarding credentials?Sbhushan 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already made the most constructive suggestion possible in your case. Here it is again, in the form of a request: please find a subject where you know something and contribute there. In the few related pages that constitute the entire range of your WP input so far, all you've done is quote Bryant, drop names, nitpick, and masterdebate. Your intent to reduce these pages to unintelligibility couldn't be any clearer. We get the message. Now, please go away. Thank you. rudra 18:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as you provide verifiable content, I don't have any problem with most controversial statements you can find. But if you want to use Wikipedia as a platform to push your POV, then I will insist on proper citations. Take a look at WP:ENC. On the Aryan migration page, the quality of evidence in support of Aryan Migration is very limited. How about you demonstrate your expertise by adding good quality content there? Let us see if you can walk the talk.Sbhushan 12:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Article move

I moved the article to Theory of Indigenous Aryans in India as this a theory in relation to India, and a similar theory (at least in Iran) exists for the hypothesis that Aryans are indigenous to Iran, to conform with other such articles. Khorshid 02:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If we ever get a similar article for Iran, we could rename Indigenous Aryan Theory (India) or similar. For now either Indigenous Aryans or Indigenous Aryan Theory is what most English speaking readers would expect to find. Addhoc 14:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "Theory", it's a sentiment. I propose Notion of Indigenous Aryans in Indian politics, then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dbachmann (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree with Dbachmann that it is more sentiment than theory. However we cannot change names to suit our tastes. I feel this title is the best Indigenous Aryan Theory (India) --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous Aryans of India might work too. rudra 03:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

we have yet to see evidence that there is any notable "teh Aryans are indigenous to Iran!" meme. An actual ethno-linguistic theory wouldn't be called "Indigenous Aryans", it would be more pragmatic along the lines "Proto-Indo-Iranian evolved out of early Satem dialects in populations of Greater Iran" or similar. "Indigenous Aryans" does notably not mean "Indo-Aryan deveolped out of Proto-Indo-Iranian in the Indian subcontinent", it 'means' more or less "Aryans were always Vedic Hindu Indian nation!1! Nobody set foot across Hindukush since 50,000 years ago before evil medieval Invaders!!", which is ostensibly not a theory in any restrictive sense. dab (𒁳) 09:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest Indigenous Indo-Aryans.Sbhushan 13:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

precisely not, Sbhushan. No such term. "Indo-Aryan" is a purely linguistic term, coined to avoid ambiguity with this sort of racial notion. Being an Indo-Aryan basically means that you cannot pronounce /z/. There is no conceivable reason why there should be any ideological stake in proving that one's ancestors could or could not pronounce /z/. Your term would simply imply that the Aryans could still say /z/ at the time they entered India. dab (𒁳) 14:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am moving this to "Indigenous Aryans (India)" for the reasons expressed above: this is no "theory" but an ideological sentiment. Until we have an article on similar sentiment in Iran, Indigenous Aryans can be a redirect. All scholarly debate belongs on Indo-Iranians, not here. dab (𒁳) 12:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

PCT

I am surprised to see that there is no discussion on possible link between this article and PCT! --UB 12:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we dont even discuss PCT on its page either. Its simple, there is absolutely no literature available in english language about PCT. From its talk page, i could infer that some people have proposed that PIE was spoken before 80 Kya. That would mean the Y-chromosomal Adam spoke PIE or some of its variant.--nids(♂) 12:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

we are drawing parallels betwenn PCT and OIT, since both are semi-scholarly fringe. "Indigenous Aryans" is not even scholarly fringe, but simply a term of national mysticism. It does have overlap with OIT, hence the link there. dab (𒁳) 12:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

that should read, I used to refer to PCT in the OIT article. It appears somebody was unhappy with that. I cannot be bothered to add it back, since the comparison is gratuitous anyway (comparing cranks with cranks is unenlightening, ex falso quodlibet). dab (𒁳) 12:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a basic difference between PCT and OIT. Dates for PIE according to OIT vary from 3rd to 8th millenium BCE while PCT proposed dates between 80th and 30th millenium BCE.--nids(♂) 13:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

obviously there are fundamental differences. besides fundamental parallels. I doubt, however, that Alinei has the 30th millennium BC (!) in mind so much as, say, the 15th. That would be a factor of 2 compared to OIT, not a factor of 4 or more. As I say, comparing nonsense with nonsense is not particularly interesting. dab (𒁳) 15:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

TALK about extreme POV. Some ham handed theory dreamed up by German with vested interest is not psuedo science and the new "Out of India" theory is? We all know that theories can be laid out to support one's POV. I will not name names here but some posters have obvious intersts in lurking on wikipedia and such other outlets to stamp out any interest or support that Out of India theory may generate among lay people. These are really well known tactics, but unfortunately some people keep falling for it. Let there be a "scientific" discussion on merits of both theories. Frankly the jury is still out! Till then please refrain from using extreme POV and mouthing rhetoric.

And what "German with a vested interest" would that be? There is a scientific discussion of the merits of both theories. Paul B (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How many such germans do you know? On other hand, you may know many. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.92.51 (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Tripping Nambiar

TN, you have shown erratic behaviour at other Hindu topics, but if you now stoop so low as to tout "Indigenous Aryans", you have lost any shred of credibility you may have had left. We have been through lengthy disputes with editors who tried to depict this thing as something other than Hindutva national mysticism. The result is up for anyone to see: "IA" isn't a single "hypothesis", but a sentiment including a range of positions that may rank from eccentric fringe views on the sane scale, to unmitigated jingoist pseudohistorical propaganda on the other end of the scale. The "OIT" is a hypothesis, albeit an utterly discredited one, but you will note it has its own article. --dab (𒁳) 15:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok I didn't realize the OIT had a separate article. Please target the edit content and not the editor. Trips (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

the content is fine. Your revert-warring is the problem. --dab (𒁳) 07:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

TN, what part of WP:DR, WP:CONSENSUS do you find difficult to understand? This is an article with some history. You seem to thing that the definition of the IA meme given in the lead is "undue". Care to back this up with anything resembling a coherent statement? If we couldn't cite Witzel's characterization of IA as an idea in Hindu nationalism, there wouldn't be any grounds for having this article in the first place. This article documents a sad case of confused national mysticist propaganda. Every religion has these guys, see Islamism or Christian fundamentalism. The Hindu zeaolts are not an ounce better or worse than their counterparts of other faiths. Nor do I believe for one minute that all or even most Hindus are national mysticist morons. These people are a minority, ok? I am sure most Hindus are nice and rational people. We nevertheless need to document, neutrally and encyclopedically, the existence of the unpleasant underbelly of religious faith, and this article is one such instance. Now please stop blanking references, and, if you can, stop associating yourself with this stupidity by giving the impression of defending it. Crackpots like Purushottam Nagesh Oak give a bad name to whichever group they are trying to tout. Trying to defend such cranks instead of documenting them as an isolated lunatic minority makes this worse. Trying to portray Oak as a sane Hindu author does the same to Hinduism as trying to defend Herbert W. Armstrong as a sane Christian author would do for Christianity, ok? If you do not think PN Oak was a Hindu fundamentalist, I would very much wonder who you would let in to this term at all. dab (𒁳) 11:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I will ignore the rant at a strawman. I removed a massive quote entirely talking about politics and Indigenous Aryans, but this has disproportionate weight in the article. Its like repeatedly quoting Koenraad Elst on Aryan Invasion theory or other articles which has been removed swiftly. Witzels views were also grouped and moved from the header as there is only so much a linguist can be quoted on his views in this case, especially one that supports the "Japhetic race" claim and evangelism. I also slightly expanded the arguments section. Since I know you wont read the changes before reverting, Bergunder views were already summarized before the massive quote, which is what I removed.Trips (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

um, we agree, of course, that this is an article on a topic of Hindu nationalism? It is all about politics. What, do you propose, is the topic of this aritcle if you take away the "talking about politics and Indigenous Aryans"? What is a "Japhetic race" and who do you suggest "supports" it, and what does this have to do with anything? TN, have you even read this article before you started your blind revert-warring? --dab (𒁳) 12:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There you go, apparently theories concerning history are all about politics. Trips (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Can a version be formulated first at the talk page, Then all parties should have their say and then it should state if they accept it. There are policies on this and how to arrive at conclusion that is acceptable to all. Talk page is meant for that - list the disputed items and lets iron it out first before editwarring. Wikidās ॐ 16:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Witzel supports the 'Japhetic race' and 'evangelism'? That's a new one. Get a grip. Paul B (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"[O]ne that supports the "Japhetic race" claim and evangelism." Alright I think we are done here, hopefully this page won't sink in to further silliness. Dance With The Devil (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't restore any "scholarly cited content" you idiot, because I didn't remove any. This is typical edit-warring, you have reverted me on the basis of perceived motive alone. Do you know anything about the article topic to even argue on what grounds you are reverting my relatively minor edits? Trips (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

look at the quote you removed. Simple. Dance With The Devil (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The quote is large and overstates one point of view in the article. Additionaly, Bergunders views have already been summarized before the quote. I am acting on precedent, there was a situation like this, where user:Soman removed a lengthy Elst quote in a short article, I forget which. Trips (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

TN, your changes lend legitimacy to a completely discredited idea, please explain. Dance With The Devil (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Be more precise with what you want an explanation for? Trips (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Presenting the proponents disputation of the Aryan invasion theory as fact instead of as their views. Dance With The Devil (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

this article isn't about "theories concerning history". If it was, we'd delete it as ridiculous fringecruft. It is, instead, an article on a particular brand of national mysticism, revived by Goel and friends in time for the 1999 election and touted for the duration of BJP rule 1999-2004, to a point where serious scholars felt it necessary to debunk it, but utterly discredited and exposed as a propaganda stunt by 2005. As such, it is a topic of Indian politics and religious fundamentalism of the past decade or so. If you would read the article instead of trolling it, there wold be no need to point this out to you. It concerns "history" about as much as Space opera in Scientology scripture, Vril, Vimana or Atlantis. dab (𒁳) 09:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what you are trying to make it look like. Again you probably aren't acquainted with any of the work, you don't know what arguments it consists of, only that it is involved in Hindu nationalism, which you have repeated time and time again.Trips (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

you have not, in fact, read any of the past debate on this talkpage, have you. That we are dealing with pseudohistory is perfectly well documented in the article, and not disputed.

Let it go Bachmann. The edits included are accurate and barely tread on your POV. Trips (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

MERGING

The theories of aryans in 2 different wikipedia articles are:

• Indo-Aryan migration, a very common and crude supposition that the Indo-Aryans migrated to India displaced the native Dravidians to South India.

• Indigenous Aryans, another crude theory that holds that the Indo-Aryans are native to India. This view arises because the Ido-Aryan peoplew don't want to be spoken as foreign elements to the soil.

• Realistic article

I want to create a new realistic article to merge these two articles into a single the Indo-Aryan article with a theory which holds that the Indo-Aryans are mix of migratories and native Indians. Considering an analogy for the purpose of justification of the theory : When the Islamic invaders came to India, they captured most of north India. This does not mean that the existing people were pushed to the south - this is quiet obvious today because Hindus are still a majority in North India. Similarly, when the Aryans came long ago, they also captured Northern India and the natives were not pushed south in this case either. The confusion in theory comes because the Aryan invaders adopted Indianism and Mughals did not. (Here I am not mentioning adopted Hinduism because it was a period when there were no boundary lines of "RELIGIONS". Only when Pentium 2 came, a postfix of 1 is added to the first pentium release and before that it was just Pentium. Similarly the people just believed in Gods, there were several local deities, Gods, etc. There was no concept of another religion. So, it was Indianism that was adopted).

A realistic thought would lead to a conclusion that the Indo-Aryans are a mix of both natives and migratories, but they belong to different castes as of today. What can well be said is that the so-called Dravidians are pure natives to India. Again I use the word so-called because the word was generated because of external elements entering India. Before that, there were only the natives isolated from all sides of the continent.

The policy of Wikipedia is to provide reliable and correct information to the possible extent. All information posted require citations and references. Here there are 2 articles Indo-Aryan migration and Indigenous Aryans. Both are long articles and have reliable citations and yet contradict each other in the basic idea itself. So it is evident from this that one or both of these articles has to be deleted when speaking about correctness. And if we speak that there is a theoretical contradiction, then, the realistic theory that I have mentioned is another possibility.

So my request is to consider merging Indo-Aryans as a single article or create an article with the realistic theory. Vayalir (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan migration, a very common and crude supposition that the Indo-Aryans migrated to India -- I take it you have not in fact read the article. --dab (𒁳) 16:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sanskirt Burrowed words

I think the article speaks to much of Indians, and there is very little evidence supporting their claims. The Indian sanskirt language has many burrowed words from the ancestor PIE language, making it not the home of the "Aryans" or PIE's This is associated with the steppe theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the article speaks to much of Indians, and there is very little evidence supporting their claims. The Indian sanskirt language has many burrowed words from the ancestor PIE language, making it not the home of the "Aryans" or PIE's This is associated with the steppe theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 189.189.255.82, 4 October 2010

Change:

the superior court of the state of California

To:

the Superior Court of California

per the Court's own standards.

189.189.255.82 (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)