User talk:Indoscope
|
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
|
Hello! Indoscope,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! heather walls (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
|
Map
To help you a little bit. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
This Map shared by User:Joshua Jonathan map suggests that the Iranians and Vedic people came from Andronovo culture. Kazanas disagrees with this view. He states "The Avesta is post-rigvedic and the Avestan language full of losses, attritions and mutations.The relative earliest possible date for the Gathic Avesta is the period of the composition of the late books of the RV as many sensible scholars have pointed out (Hopkins 1896, Tovadia 1950, Humbach 1991, etc)."
"Finally, not only was there no Invasion or Immigration into Saptasindhu but, on the contrary, after the Vedic expansion to the West including Gandhara and Bactria, the Indoaryans moved even farther west in small numbers of wise men (5.10.6, 10.65.11) to spread the Aryan laws; or larger numbers of “heretics” distanced themselves from their “orthodox” brethren; or others left to explore and seek new opportunities. This northwestward migration would have progressed from Bactria rather than Saptasindhu proper. The date for these westward movements would be much older than is thought and naturally after the melting of the ices."[1] Indoscope (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- ^ Kazanas, Nicholas. "Vedic and Avestan" (PDF). Retrieved Jan 2015.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help)
Fringe
See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact:
- "There is a clear consensus among knowledgeable editors who are familiar with the literature that Indo-Aryan migration is the overwhelmingly predominant view among reliable sources in the field, that any alternatives – aside from religiously and nationally motivated ideologies – are indeed WP:FRINGE, and that the Indo-Aryan migration should therefore be presented as an established historical fact (subject, of course, just to the standard proviso that historical models, as a matter of principle, can hardly ever reach the same amount of certainty as natural laws in the physical sciences; the objection that an historical model isn't "testable" and therefore "not scientific" is an obviou red herring.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)"
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
By not inviting me for this discussion User:Joshua Jonathan has engaged in a highly objectionable behaviour and along with like minded editors engaged in WP:GANG in order to gate keep a WP:POV in Vedic Period article, the neutrality of which was disputed by me.Indoscope (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Removal of request for email
Interesting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes certainly removed from my talk page. But that is of no significance. I have not shared my email for personal contact with anyone. Anyone who wishes to contact me can do so on my talk page. Please stay on issues of facts rather than make issues out of nothing. Indoscope (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Your post on ANI looked more like a reply to Joshua Jonathan as he recently replied to your post. Just use the section that you had started in this case. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- No Bladesmulti I was making a larger point about what is 'fringe'. Was Galileo 'fringe'. I will rephrase my comments appropriately.Indoscope (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)