Jump to content

User talk:WIN

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Govindk (talk | contribs) at 15:35, 27 May 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, WIN, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Machaon 14:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Hi WIN, unfortunately not all your edits are written in a neutral way and are also lacking references/sources. I do think that many of your contributions are interesting, but should be written more neutrally and with references. Please take a look at some other wikipedia articles to see how they are written and try to find and give more sources (for example books) for your contributions. --Machaon 13:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WIN, please understand that talk pages here are a place to discuss the articles and that they are not meant to be an internet forum or Usenet. (I mean the discussions and posts at Indo-Aryan migr. and AIT). As I said before, please take a look at other wiki articles to familarize yourself about wikipedia. --Machaon 12:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

welcome

Win, glad you finally joined wikipedia. Listen, talk pages aren't supposed to be spammed with 1000-word long posts about your feelings every other day. Please look at the Wikipedia conventions for talk pages, etc. Vvuppala 15:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of India project

You might be interested in joining the History of India project. deeptrivia (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language

How can you say that languages cannot be used as a valid basis for historical theory? What gives you the right to say that? A language is a central part of human culture and is just as valid as ancient buildings or pot shards. Your rejection of the AIT theory also has no basis. AIT is not a "rascist" theory. It does not state that the Vedic culture originated in Europe. Scholars believe that the Indo-Europeans originated somewhere around the Caspian sea, niether in Europe or India. Why can't you accept that people speaking similar languages share a common ancestral culture? It's been proved true everywhere else in the world!


Do not mis-understand me.I have always agreed that language can be used as some valid basis for historical theory. But , when only that one point is basis for Aryan Invasion ( AIT ) or Migration Theory ( AMT ) then it is not at all valid reason for any supposed AMT.There is some thing like going of Rig-Vedic people like Anu and Druhyu people from India in Rig-Ved and King Yayati ( who is called as very very ancient King in Purana - literally meaning ancient -during start of Indian civilization ) 's expelled 3 sons from North West to outer countries.So, when so called Aryans writing in Purana about their people going out of India during time predating any Aryan Migration is very logical point to explain any similarity of Indo-European languages with Sanskrit. There are many other against points for any AMT already written by me in talk pages.

If Aryan theory is right then why Max Muller proposed them first as Superior & cultured and termed original native Indians as Dravidians who were like nomad & uncivilized type people who were invaded by Militarily powerful Aryans. But , the same people's position totally reversed when Indus Civilization was excavated in 1921.Aryan became nomad type and Dravidian became very cultured , highly civilized town dwelling people of Indus Valley civilization. So, you can know that your whole original concept of cultured Aryan ( from Sanskrit Arya ) is reveresed then also to call this theory as some scientific is really silly in it's sense by the Aryan theory supporter. By this vast Indus Valley people were not having any minute scriptures and minute Aryan people were credited with vast Sanskrit scriptures !!! Read my points for much more details. WIN 07:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Aryan migration

Wikipedia is not a chat room or Internet forum. Please stop debating on the Talk page for the Indo-Aryan migration article. CRCulver 07:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can not give any logical answers to my points raised against Aryan Migration, then do not expect me to digest the lies and allow other people to believe in Aryan Migration theory. I want to make others to start thinking & realizing & doubting the very idea of any Aryan Migration in very civilized,large & populus Indian subcontinent by very small numbered nomad type some so called Aryans who are called as capable of changing linguistic & cultural map of ancient India. This is very strange to grasp who knows in detail about India. It will be very easy to walk in line like goat for Western people because they do not know about this points ( old or newly found ).I do not blame them but so called western Indologists who have done everything to discredit anything good about India & mis-guide the world with Eurocentric lenses. WIN 09:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place "to make others to start thinking & realizing & doubting" in the way you are doing. If you keep this up you may be banned. CRCulver 07:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then, try to answer to my raised points or stop spreading lies and mis-guide the world. WIN 12:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not our responsibility to answer your arguments, since that falls under original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. The purpose of the Talk pages is to reach consensus on what the scholarly community feels, and the vast majority of reputable scholars feel that the Indo-Aryan migration theory is viable. CRCulver 16:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same so called Scholars have interpreted from Rig-Ved during 1850s that original Aryans were civilized invaders on horsebacks who subdued original nomadic and black `dravidians' & pushed them to South India.But after Indus Valley civilization's excavations in 1920s , your same scholars had to turn Aryan as nomadic and original Indus Valley civilization people as civilized dravidians. And now same Aryan invaders have become migraters after recent ancient Rig-Vedic Saraswati river and other findings. Your same scholars have told in last century that Rig-Ved was composed in Central asia or Afghan area but not in India. Why your Same Scholars are always proving wrong that they have to always change their theory ?

Just think that some thousands people from central asia can not change linguistic & cultural landscape of highly civilized India in max. 500 years via migration model. There were many Central asian INVASIONS and not MIGRATION in historical times like Shak, Hun etc. but instead of imparting any cultural or religious or linguistic thing to India, they themselves were colored with Indian paint. So, it is simply illogical to credit some `Aryan' people from central asia to possess high intelligence as shown in Vedas. How some thousands of people can change language of millions of people via peaceful migration for which there are not any single record in any Indian scripture. Try to think it logically and read Aryan Theory opposers' points logically. You can read this http://www.boloji.com/history/019.htm for more details.And, there are many Scholars who now oppose previous interpretation of Rig-Ved. WIN 08:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See? Now you're just rambling on here. I don't care what your personal opinions are. I don't care what you think is right and wrong in archaeology. The sole task of Wikipedia is to mirror the state of scholarship. As it is, the theory of a migration of Indo-European speech into India is dominant. It is dominant whether you agree with it or not. It is dominant whether you think it is fair or not. Other theories can be mentioned, no one is stopping you from giving a small mention to Indian nationalist theories, but the dominant theory must receive the most space according to the rules of Wikipedia. If you don't like it, you can go start your own free encyclopedia project. But as long as you are here on Wikipedia, why don't you abide by its rules. If you continue this pointless and totally masturbatory debating on Talk pages, I will take you to RfA with a view towards having you banned. CRCulver 01:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The points raised by me are not only mine but AMT opponents which includes many Indian and Western scholars who have come to oppose this theory based on many scientifically proven factors which I will not elaborate here. So, DO NOT IT AS JUST RAMLING.WIN 06:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Allright please listen win, you dont understand what wikipedia stands for.I understand your emotions with regards to the matter.And I agree with you personally that the AIT is wrong and does a lot of harm to an entire country's cultural reputation. But you are spoiling a resource for billions for the satisfaction of a few.The truth is there isnt enough published work to disprove the theory.All evidence has been circumstancial to date.Dont worry I have read Frawley's book.And I dont agree with everything he says - neither should you. If more people do what you are doing ,then such a beautiful resource as wikipedia is, will be lost for all.Do you really want that - for your personal satisfaction do you want to mess up something thats this great an idea? I want to help you with this project and maybe in a few weeks we could work together to fix this article up? I am going to see one of my lecurers who is a specialist in south asian archeology - shes suggested a reading list for me to study the indo-aryans, and its a big list of books.Once ive read them and talked to her personally it might be easier to get published evidence.What do you say? In the meanwhile you have to stop with the blogs.Im a friend so please try to listen to some sense ~ The Mystic 13th May.

You can read many articles on http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/en_index.html which is written by N Kazanas, Athens, Greece who is Sanskrit professor and logical person who has taught students about 20 years about AIT but now the same person is against any AIT / AMT. Why ? Then read the articles in detail to understand. Win 05:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Win, Im sure you have found resources to back up your argument and you are familiar with the topic you are talking about here. Just because a few scholars have writtern against AIT it is not enough, to disprove all the other ones who have. You cant just pick one viewpoint which you like and then stubornly say that this and only this is right - can you be a hundred percent sure about something that happened so long ago? No you cant, so you have to represent all the ideas and viewpoints in a nuetral way. It would be never ending to respond to your arguments because you freely falsify findings, quote out of context and simply dismiss realms of testimony.Unlike a true scholar you have little if any respect for data or evidence.Your commitment is to an ideology and your 'findings' are shaped to support it. If you feel your said web site has good points then why dont you rewrite a small section based on the findings of this author, and also write articles about the authors themselves. Again that is just one author. To turely appreciate all sides of the controversy you have to read all viewpoints - only then can you try to convey a nuetral message to the world. Tell me why should people 'listen to your logical points' if you are being selfish and not doing the same. The problem is not with what you are saying its how you are saying it. The Mystic

WIN, CRCulver is right: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or a web chatroom. There are many places on the internet where you can discuss your opinions. On Wikipedia, we are asking you to refer to academic opinion. This means that you have to go to a library, and read articles in academic journals, and if you want to make a point, come back citing your reference. Since it is obvious that you have no background knowledge of the involved disciplines, I suggest you read also a few introductory books . You even misunderstand the "AIT" itself. It is of course undisputed that Vedic culture was influenced by a strong IVC substrate. Try to understand a point before you argue about it, and argue about it on discussion fora and not on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 11:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, I may not have read each & every articles from library in this matter but they are very old as this topic's aspects are changing every now & then. So, this theory should be always viewed with respect to newer findings & not with old parameters.See, now you are also telling that Vedic culture was influenced by a strong IVC substrate which no Western Indologists have agreed in their AIT/AMT books from last 150 years.So, how nomadic aryans could spread their Sanskrit language on most of ancient India in complete totality when Sanskrit grammer is very hard to remember if your mother tongue is not Sanskrit.If you really know Sanskrit then you can understand my very logical point.Then, there is no meaning in reading that age-old books on AIT which says about invasion with pure speculation. After IVC excavation Aryan becoming nomads & IVC a dravidian civilized. Rig-Ved composed not in India at all. I do not want to read that baseless & purely speculated Aryan theory from that age old books since they can not answer AIT/ AMT opponents any single points which I have raised and I know what's extract of it those books very well. That's why I have raised many points which no supporter is able to answer.Read properly http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/en_index.html which I have already sited above as reference. WIN 06:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Again win this is not about being a supporter or not being a supporter. Think about your reasons for being a supporter or not. Wikipedia is a resource for intelligent people, who would like to read and understand for them selves all sides of a controversial topic. The Mystic

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WIN&oldid=55427014"