Talk:Aryan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

familiarity with the subject

...As the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language states at the beginning of its definition, "[it] is one of the ironies of history that Aryan, a word nowadays referring to the blond-haired, blue-eyed physical ideal of Nazi Germany, originally referred to a people who looked vastly different. Its history starts with the ancient Indo-Iranians, peoples who inhabited parts of what are now Iran, Afghanistan, and India."

This is an ignorant sentence, and obviously the reflection of someone who has never been to Iran, Afghanistan, etc., where people with light skin and blue eyes have survived to this day...--Sin cloro8 (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nazi legal definition of "Aryan"

I am replacing this sentence: "In Nazi Germany the principal legal meaning of "Aryan" was "non-Jewish"." since it is false and not supported by the source given (a book of Campt). The basis for the claim is the quoted portion of 1933 Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service which said "an individual descended from a non-Aryan (in particular Jewish parents or grandparents) where at least one non-Aryan parent or grandparent was present. This is particularly the case where one parent or grandparent belonged to the Jewish religion." (Campt, p143). However, the conclusion drawn here does not follow. The writers of the law wanted to emphasise the non-Aryan nature of Jews (in accordance with their obsession) but don't seek to exclude others. That's why it says "in particular". Lest this analysis be called Original Research, I hasten to add that Campt has the same opinion: "These laws were directed not only at Jews but at all individuals of alien blood...and alien races...as well as "racially less valuable" members of the German population."(same page) Campt's special interest (as the title of her book indicates) is black people and their treatment as non-Aryans by the Nazis occupies the book from cover to cover. So our sentence is not right. I hope my replacement is better. McKay (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(Continuing) This issue is discussed in "Racial Purity Laws in the United States and Nazi Germany: The Targeting Process", Judy Scales-Trent, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2 (May, 2001), pp. 259-307. There we find another translation of the Nazi law: "descent from non-Aryan, and especially Jewish, parents or grandparents, even though only one of the parents or grandparents was of the Jewish religion." The "and especially Jewish" plainly indicates that the definition is not restricted to Jews. As Scales-Trent writes later (p295), "Also, since Africans and Afro-Germans were considered 'non-Aryans,' all legislation which defined and limited the rights of the group 'non-Aryans,' similarly limited their rights." McKay (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence was not false. It clearly stated that the principal meaning was non-Jew, which is fully supported by the quotation "in particular Jewish parents". In fact the word Aryan caused problems precicely because there was no way of defining an "Aryan" in conformity with Nazi intention (if taken literally it would mean that someone of, say, Basque descent, should be excluded, while a dark-skinned person of Indian descent could have full citizenship). The word Aryan was not used in later legislation for just this reason, and part of that was to be sure that all non-white peoples would be excluded from full citizenship. At no point did the sentence state that no groups other than Jews were not considered to be Aryan. It said what is true - that the Nazis primarily directed the law at Jews; they were the only group mentioned specifically. Aryanization of Nazi-controlled Europe meant getting rid of Jews. The terms Aryanised and Jew-Free (Judenfrei) were used interchangably. The black population of Central Europe was miniscule. It was not an issue for the Nazis. They only adopted the word Aryan because it was a concept that explicitly excluded Jews, as 'Semites'. Paul B (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the NS definition is missing from the 20th century section! Its only indirectly alluded to there, and -- regardless of what exactly Campt etc said -- a mention in the lead is not an adequate substitute.

Secondly, precision is all very well and good, but with a little more circumspection please! The new sentence is out of context with respect to the preceding sentences, it does not follow to the next, and the paragraph to which the new sentence was added is now no longer coherent.

Third, because the definition of "non-Aryan" does not progress towards the conclusion, it is pretty much besides the point. The singular relevance of NS race theory is that the resulting pogroms ultimately led to the vilification of the word. In the lead, those pogroms can be adequately summarized with the term "[[Aryanization]] programs". In the lead, it is not necessary or meaningful to qualify (leave alone qualify exactly) who the subjects of those pogroms were. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with most of what you wrote here. But my main concern is that this is an article about the concept "Aryan", not about the Nazi persecution of the Jews. So while it would be fine to note that the Nazis used the charge "non-Aryan" first and foremost as a stick to beat Jews with, it would not be fine to ignore the question of who was an Aryan according to Nazi racial theory. No self-respecting Nazi would have regarded an African, or (with rare exceptions) an East Asian or a Slav as an Aryan, but at the moment this information is missing from the article. In the case of Slavs, this had fatal consequences for countless thousands, so it isn't just an academic point. This suggests that my replacement sentence "In Nazi Germany the classification of peoples as Aryan or not was most emphatically directed towards the exclusion of Jews." still needs work. McKay (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Slavs were Aryan and were perceived as such by Nazis. Alfred Rosenberg repeatedly stressed this. The Nazis used the word in their accounts of the area beyond the Ghetto (the 'Aryan district'). 'Aryan identification papers' included documents saying that you were a Pole, Ukrainian, etc. Yes, most Nazis thought that Slavs were inferior, and to be subjected to Germans, but that's quite quite different from saying they were not Aryan. Overwhelmingly, Aryan meant not-Jewish. Paul B (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong about Slavs. They were regarded as an Aryan race that had become corrupted and mongrelised (by the non-Aryan Mongols, among others). Similarly for Gypsies. If by "overwhelmingly" you mean "overwhelmingly in practice", I can agree. The issue seems to be the theory versus the application of the theory. Incidentally Yehuda Bauer agrees with you, so you are in good company :). McKay (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Between the two of you, you have said enough about 'Nazi legal definition of "Aryan"' to write a whole article on it. So, please do everyone a favor and churn out a paragraph on it in the '20th century' section? Please split those hairs in prose !!! -- Fullstop (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that there is sort of an article about it: Racial policy of Nazi Germany. McKay (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, and it's sort of a mess. Paul B (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

But wait, there's more: Nazism and race, Aryan_race. McKay (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewritten?

This article was recently rewritten, and a great deal of content has been removed. What happened??? There was no discussion on any of the talk pages at all (although by saying this, it is inevitable that someone will find some huge past discussion out of nowhere). Before it was a very thorough article about all aspects of the term "Aryan", but now it's really just focused on the recent Nazi connotation. Also, the rewritten version is kind of soapboxed.

What happened? Parthian Scribe 06:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Aryan (IPA: /'ərɪən/) is an English language loanword. As the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language states at the beginning of its definition, "[it] is one of the ironies of history that Aryan, a word nowadays referring to the blond-haired, blue-eyed physical ideal of Nazi Germany, originally referred to a people who looked vastly different. Its history starts with the ancient Indo-Iranians, peoples who inhabited parts of what are now Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India."[1]

The bold line could actually be rather incorrect. The indo-Europeans were the original Aryans, and they were a tall, fair warrior caste. The Indo-Iranians were then but a branch, who were originally of the same people, but then veolved into what they look like now due to their assimilation with the Asiatic natives of central Asia Hxseek (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see the scholarship of c1900 still going strong. Paul B (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. Well, replacing one incorrect fact with another doesn't serve well either Hxseek (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

189.175.219.116

Aryans are indo-europeans, the aryans in Persia were indo-europeans, they didn't look like the iranians did now. I don't see why this irrelevant definition should be there at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.118.172 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it strange that the first thing people see in the article is a counter-propaganda picture. Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that like having a caricature of Marx in the article about Communism?--189.175.219.116 (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, why have a propaganda picture of Goebels here, at the start of the article. As well as this, the article seems to have been rewritten by a ranting, ill-informed person recently. Please unlock this article. It is quite poor. 87.115.138.112 (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Arya

• I hail from Andhra Pradesh, south East India. The language spoken here (Telugu) is highly influenced by Sanskrit. If somebody (new) is supposed to be addressed respectably, Telugu people use the prefix "Ayya", derived from "Arya". Aryans were supposed to migrate from North India to South (where Dravidians lived) and have influenced the culture, traditions and languages there. Dravidians used to call them "Arya" which is now transformed to "Ayya". Even today this addressing is also used in parts of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. I would like to add this information to this article (or I would like somebody read this and add it.) Where and how should I add it? Veera.sj (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The article dedicated to this is at Arya. --dab (𒁳) 15:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

what is going on here

we used to have a stable, well-developed article here. In no little degree due to the patient vigilance of Paul B, there has of course been no lack of attempts to insert various ethnic or racial crackpottery. In 2009, this article has disappeared. What happened to the talk archives? I can retrieve Talk:Aryan/Archive 1, up to January 2007. The next one is Talk:Aryan/Archive 2009 February, which in fact includes all of 2007 to 2008. Then we have Talk:Aryan/Archive 2009 March and Talk:Aryan/Archive 2009 April which contain hardly anything at all. Except for the April one, which has the following unanswered post:

This article was recently rewritten, and a great deal of content has been removed. What happened??? There was no discussion on any of the talk pages at all (although by saying this, it is inevitable that someone will find some huge past discussion out of nowhere). Before it was a very thorough article about all aspects of the term "Aryan", but now it's really just focused on the recent Nazi connotation. Also, the rewritten version is kind of soapboxed. What happened? Parthian Scribe 06:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I would like to know. What happened? It appears that we are looking at a complete rewrite by Fullstop (talk · contribs) on 31 January.[1] I do have considerable respect for this editor, but this approach was ill-advised indeed. I have no doubt that valuable material has been added, but the total rewrite wasn't a good idea. There is also no trace of any iterative development of this new version in the talk archives. We have some standard idiocy of the KURDS ARE FIRST RECORDED type last answered by Paul on 28 January, and the following sections already concern image problems with the new version.

If Fullstop wants to rewrite the Aryan article, let him use a {{workpage}} and outline his suggested toc changes as a proposal in best WP:CYCLE practice. --dab (𒁳) 15:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

from private communication, I understand that Fullstop was objecting to the connection with the *ar- of rta, ars, etc. It is true that this was presented unduly as a real possibility, while it is in fact universally rejected today. I have tried to fix this. --dab (𒁳) 13:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

After further exchanges with Fullstop, I have come to the conclusion that this article should best be split into the existing Aryan race (for the racialist meanings of the English loanword) and Arya (for etymology and meanings in Indo-Iranian languages). Aryan would just become redirect to Aryan (disambiguation). --dab (𒁳) 07:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

re [2], yeah, maybe an actual split or merge would have been advisable, but I am tired of talkpage monologues. --dab (𒁳) 16:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I actually got fed up with discussing this. Frankly I don't see what was fundamentally wrong with the article as it stood, nor do I see why it should be a redirect. As I said before when this was last raised, I think readers should have an article that lays out the meanings of the word and the history of its usage. Paul B (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Paul here. Personally, I really liked the drastic re-write into basically an etymological entry: I think that our readers could benefit greatly from such a general overview of the different meanings & mutations that this/these controvertial & often confusing word(s)/concept(s) has/have experienced through history. Consider it a glorified disambiguation page if you want. :-) Or consider moving the re-written entry to "Aryan (term)". – The main issue is that I don't think that our readers would get as clear a picture from reading through the different entries listed in the current disambiguation page, or from the Wiktionary entry. - Best, Ev (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a somewhat frustrating private discussion with FullStop on this, with the result that I am also fed up with discussing this at this point. I am fine with either solution. I just want to know which article has which scope so we can avoid {{duplication}} and {{contradiction}}.

my approach used to be like Ev's, building this into a comprehensive etymological discussion, but Fullstop seemed to be very unhappy about this, insisting that the Indo-Iranian word is discussed at Arya, and therefore the Indo-Iranian etymology needs to be laid out there. I don't care. Historically, Arya was created to take the meanings in contemporary Hinduism out of our hair here so we can discuss etymology in peace, but if we now want to make Arya the main article on the historical term that's fine too. I would just like to know which it is going to be. --dab (𒁳) 10:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please restore article version

I am in accord with Paul B and Ev above that an article is needed to sort out the mess that is Aryan. I liked the separation out of the Aryan race article, I like having the Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian and Jain spiritual interpretations at Arya. And most of all I like having a decent NPOV article at Aryan to help readers. I think that the current disambiguation page is acceptable as is, but that it is no substitute for an article here. --Bejnar (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur; that was a better article, complete with Madison Grant's map. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

well, I frankly don't have a clear idea left on what should be discussed where. I am open to a number of solutions, including three articles (Arya, Aryan, Aryan race) or just two (Arya(n), Aryan race). The problem is the perpetual confusion surrounding each article's scope.

I am mainly intersted in this: where do we put the detailed discussion on the historical opinions surrounding the term's etymology. If we have

• Arya: Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian and Jain spiritual interpretations
• Aryan race: mid 19th to mid 20th century scientific racism

What, exactly, is the scope of Aryan? Judging from the present version, "Etymology" and "History of usage". But the organisation of the "History of usage" is fundamentally flawed. Why is it separated into "19th century" vs. "20th century"? What happened at or around 1900 to justify this division? The main ambiguity between "racial" and "philological" in English usage isn't temporal. These two meanings were in parallel use, and their lifetimes are mostly coterminous. Presenting a list of examples of usage organized by year will just end up in a hopeless confusion of the separate meanings, and falsely imply that there is a temporal development in the term's usage. The actual cutoff point is in fact 1945, so that "history of usage" needs to distinguish:

• 1839-1945: the term is in use (both in the racial and in the philological sense)
• 1945 to present: the term has fallen out of use in either sense.

--dab (𒁳) 09:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is some change over time, I would think; the word got perceptibly darker and crazier after The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (publ. 1899). Apart from the Nazis and their predecessors, the term had an endemic problem: those who used it did not distinguish adequately between the racial and the philological senses, and I'm not sure we can do so either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• look, it depends entirely on who is using it: From the later 19th century, you have
  • those philologists who just continue to use the term as the designation for a language family
  • racial theorists who use the term in a racial sense, either bona fide to describe a supposed "subrace", or with "antisemitic" intent trying to make out the Jews are "racially foreign" to "Aryan Europe".
  • those who try to draw attention to the conflation of philology and racial theory
• that there was ongoing confusion was already entirely clear to those paying attention to such things from day one. It doesn't really matter what year your quote will be from, but whom you are quoting. It is true that the racial usage "got darker and crazier" after 1900, but that has nothing to do with the term and everything with the direction that scientific racism happened to be taking as a whole.
• we can safely say that the term has entirely fallen out of contemporary usage. All discussion of the term will be historical, and will need to give a context. The innocent philological meanings have been taken over by different terminology, i.e. Indo-Iranian and Indo-European, while the racial theories are obsolete in any case so that there is no contemporary term for what used to be called the "Aryan race" because there is no contemporary concept that would correspond to it. Let me say, in a nasal voice (think parrot sketch), this is an ex-term Any discussion will be one of historical interest exclusively. The latest attestation known to OED dates to 1943. --dab (𒁳) 15:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I presume you count Max Müller as a philologist; yet he spoke both of the Aryan language and the Aryan nation. So for the race theorists, who care about the Aryans as a race - and about the pure Aryan language.
  • Can they, indeed, be distinguished (except as the ends of a spectrum)? Martin P. Nilsson was a philologist, certainly, and yet he prattled about the blond Greeks as much as any of the crazies.
  • I agree it is an ex-term; but the OED does not prove that. They are interested in first citations; their last citation for Sudra is from 1910, but it's still around. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This article should be about the evolution of usages. It should point to the fact that the word has a specific origin and that it came to have a range of designations over time, which typically conflated ideas about race with ethnolinguistic models of human population movements. Yes, the Nazi era is the break point - after which the term "Aryan" comes to be merged in public consciousness with both Nordicism and Antisemitism. This should simply be explained. At the moment it is bizarrely truncated and gnomic for the general reader. Paul B (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Paul, Ev, Pmandersan. I.e. that the article be devoted to the history of the term.

• My previous call for disambig (here) was in the context of the mistreatment of "Aryan" as if it were a synonym of "Arya". I don't think they are synonyms, but dab apparently continued to do so. Ergo the only "option" was to turn the page into a disambig.
• As PaulB (and to a lesser extent PMAnderson) point out, the "racial" idea is due to ethnolinguistic models, i.e. the treatment of "race X" as sort-of shorthand for "speakers of X". They are originally the same paradigm. But -- like so much else -- I had already pointed this out (thrice) to dab, which makes his tenacious supposition that there are "[19th century] philologists who just continue to use the term as the designation for a language family" all the more annoying.
• Ditto "racial usage ... has nothing to do with the term". I had already explained that ethnic names are -- by definition -- racial epithets.
• Similarly "we can safely say that the term has entirely fallen out of contemporary usage", which is plainly absurd when the talk pages (and the rest of the internet) are riddled with "Aryan" chatter, and the previous lead identified contemporary usage in the second sentence. Imagining that it does not exist (cf lead of dab's reintroduction) is as artificial as the cherry-picking WP:Synthesis of a Sanskrit (!) dictionary from 1900 (!).
• The idea that "the actual cutoff point is in fact 1945" has also been repeatedly corrected before. As I had explained, the Nazi era is a cutoff point only insofar as it is due to the Nazi-era popularity that the term lost its academic value.(The cutoff point for this loss is also not "in fact 1945", but thats another story)
  I had also explained that the Nazis did not invent the "white" / "non-semite" meaning either, and that this had already existed in colloquial use by the late 1800s, thirty years before the Nazis. Even the first documented use in the "Deutsch, arischer Herkunft" sense is in a Vienna fitness club from 1887, and that too predates the Nazis by a long shot. Indeed, it was such appearance of "Aryan" in general, non-academic, usage "what happened at or around 1900".

The only thing "fundamentally flawed" around here is not something related to content.

Be that as it may, ...

• A) as dab has himself identified his "main interest" as being one related to "etymology" (by which dab means word roots, not word history), and
  • A1) dab has himself suggested "let's keep the IIr etymology at Arya and discuss the term as used within English here". That is where "detailed discussion on the opinions surrounding etymology" already is.
  • A2) and "etymology" of the "term as used within English" is in fact already in the first paragraphs of the history section (which I will subsequently expand a bit for greater precision when I get a moment)
• B) and as Indo-Iranian "Arya" is a word in its own right, in a distinct language group, with its own history, its own sources, and there is no reason why the "Arya" article has to be restricted to "spiritual" usage (whatever that is) anyway
• C) and as the article was stable for four months, and was thoroughly referenced, its actually dab's turn to come up with reliable sources (sans OR of course) if he chooses to assert the contrary
• D) and as everyone seems to be in agreement that the words "Arya" and "Aryan" require distinct treatment,

... I've restored the article to the state it was in before the muddling was reintroduced. None of the reintroduced gunk is worth keeping (I can provide a sentence-for-sentence breakdown if necessary). Objections should be made here in a rational fashion, and not by making strawman assertions about "unencyclopedic" or "essay" content without having a informed, fact checked reason to do so. IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason.

The lead in the restored version should perhaps be shorter, and/or (as I have said before, and Paul also notes above) the article body needs to be fixed to properly describe issues introduced into the lead. But with a ratio of about one sentence per idea within the body, and touching on all the key developments (except NS usage), it still meets the requirements of WP:LEAD. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Curious quote

The OED does have a fascinating quote from the English translation of Chamberlain: Though it were proved that there never was an Aryan race in the past, yet we desire that in the future there may be one. This probably says less than it seems about the past (note the subjunctive), but it does deserve explication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

One of my favourite quotations on this subject, but really it's most approriate to the Aryan race article. Paul B (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

congratulations on improvements; suggestion on images

I visited this page several months ago, made some comments, but didn't feel justified in wading in. I believe that the current intro (25 June 2009) is much more valuable to most Anglophone users who will be looking up the word "Aryan" (given the reasons they might be doing so) and to Wiki editors who need to link. I understand the argument that "indigenous Iranian and Indian usage," as the article describes it, is different and perhaps free of racist connotations: but this is the English-language Wikipedia, and must reflect current usage of the word in Western Anglophone culture — certainly worldwide meanings of the word, too, but not in a way that seems to censor the most common English connotations. I know this has been very difficult, and I backed away when asked to help. I see from this talk page that some people are still committed to rehabilitating the word "Aryan" rather than providing an accurate summary of the word's usage in 20th and 21st century Anglophone culture, and I hope this doesn't escalate again to the article's detriment.

I can see the point, however, that the Goebbels cartoon may be unduly inflammatory or prejudicial. Could I make a suggestion? What if the swastika image (currently the second in the article) were moved to the top, and the Goebbels to the appropriate section below? The history of the swastika seems to me to represent better the history of the word "Aryan." It's certainly a sad comment on human nature that this ancient symbol was debased.

A further suggestion: the photo captions are too long. Captions shouldn't engage in an argument, but should simply identify the image as it relates to the text. If the relation of images to text isn't self-evident, one solution often employed is to create a new subsection with the needed content, and to place the image within that section. A hidden note could be used asking editors not to move the image from its associated text in the section.

Thanks to all working so long and with such commitment to an important article. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Goebells pic should not be in it at all. If you look at the edit history, it was re-added very recently by User Fullstop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fullstop) on the 22nd of June. Despite the picture being removed several times before. Somebody get on the ball 87.115.29.154 (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I made the image change. I'm a little unclear, though, about what this article seeks to accomplish that distinguishes it from Aryan race. I'm not interested in arguing with anybody; I made a minor contribution toward presentation. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

you are not alone in being unclear about what this article seeks to accomplish that distinguishes it from Aryan race. This is why it was turned into a redirect recently, but it has been re-instated for the time being. I am not sure what to do about it, see above. --dab (𒁳) 18:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Confusion

The word Arya confused many scholars. It might just be a compound word in Telugu [a Dravidian language] that is formed from Ari + Aiya = Arya which in Tamil and Malayalam [Dravidian languages] becomes Aryan. Ari means the outer limit or boundary and Aiya is a suffix to names. Arya thus means the man who guards the boundary of a village. The words Aiya, Ayya, Iah have the same meaning in Telugu a Dravidian language which is used as a suffix to male names as a mark of respect and or affection for example Subbayya or Subbaiah. Amma is suffixed to females as equivalent to Ayya. Ayya actually means father and Amma means mother. What is the meaning of the word Arya in terms of Telugu? The Telugu word Ari has the same meaning as that of Poli or Yella meaning the outer boundary limit generally with reference to a village boundary. Now Ari + Aiya becomes the compound word Ariya or simply Arya meaning that the male guard of the outer boundary of a village. This also means that male guards replaced female guards of village boundaries at some time during the development of Indus Valley Civilization that is Harappan culture. In Tamil language [and also in Malayalam] some words particularly names end with the alphabet N. Thus the name or title Raja in Telugu is same as Rajan in Tamil or Malayam. Thus the Telugu word Arya becomes Aryan in Tamil and Malayalam.

http://knol.google.com/k/dmr-sekhar/aryan-and-arya/3ecxygf1lxcn2/9#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayyanar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.249.45.143 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks for this demonstration of the usefulness of google knol. We should remember to point editors pushing content unacceptable on Wikipedia to that site. --dab (𒁳) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else find this objectionable

The article states: "Following the end of World War II and the discovery of the genocide that the self-styled "Aryans" had caused, the word 'Aryan' ceased to have a positive meaning in general Western understanding" The article intends to state that "aryan" lost a positive meaning to MOST as a result of its association with the Nazi party in Germany. However it is also undeniably true that many Westerners had a positive view of the word Aryan as associated with the KKK in the United States. Furthermore many other Westerners continued to have pride in Aryan roots, which produced "aryan" characteristics like the aforementioned blonde hair and blue eyes. Those Westerners, right or wrong, are marginalized by the above sentence, and they are a key part of Western history. Fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lz85 (talk • contribs)

the people who have a "positive view of the word Aryan" in the sense you imply are mostly the people who have a positive view of the Nazis. In other words, the statement amounts to "some people are evil morons". This is undisputed, I suppose, but these people are also, reassuringly, a tiny minority with zero credibility. --dab (𒁳) 08:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"general western understanding" is WP:WEASEL word-ish enough that we could use some citations, quotes, to point out that there is a majority view, and a poorly educated minority view, but should be handled without hitting WP:UNDUE. Yes, they're morons, but who actually said it was "general", and can we quote them? Is there better, quotable, phrasing? Ronabop (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"general western understanding" simply means "English usage". This is after all about an English word with English language semantics. Obviously there are cognates such as German Arier which parallel the development, but these need to be discussed separately. For example, the "Aryan pride" stuff is a phenomenon of the Anglosphere. You don't get *Arier-Stolz in Germany, the German Neo-Nazis are simply stolz, Deutscher zu sein and Arier does not have any sort of currency even in the vocabulary of this unsavoury clientele (although the adjective arisch may have). --dab (𒁳) 11:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

Resolved

• 12:33, 20 February 2008 Dbachmann protected Aryan ‎ (assorted sock attacks [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

As 18 months or so have passed I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. As well as welcoming the views of regular editors, I've contacted dbachmann, the protecting admin. --TS 06:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

as it tends to go with these pages, there is little harm in unprotecting. Then we'll get some anon vandalism for a few days, and finally somebody will re-sprotect. --dab (𒁳) 07:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't be so cynical. We may find that the level of vandalism is tolerably low. That would be a very positive outcome. --TS 07:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not cynical at all, I am completely serious, and I am talking from experience. As I say, there is no harm in unprotecting, so if for some reason you feel called to do it, go ahead. Once we are fed up with the vandalism, we will reprotect. No problem. --dab (𒁳) 08:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The request to lift the semi-protection on this page has been granted. If vandalism or sock issues resume, please re-request protection at WP:RFPP. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Aryan vs. Nordic

Re this, Fullstop appears to be unwilling to recognize the difference between the Nordic race and the Aryan race within historical racism. The "Nordic race" was indeed associated with the proverbial blue eyes and blonde hair. The Aryan race wasn't, excepting authors that specifically postulated the original identity of the two. Citing a jovial remark found in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as evidence for this identity isn't good enough. Also, the beeline connection of "Aryan-Nordic-Nazis" in the lead is inappropriate. Gobineau wrote in the 1850s. The Nazi party was founded in 1920. Yes, that's a 70 year interval, or a third of the entire lifetime of the term under consideration. dab (𒁳) 13:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've restored it. Not only was I trying to make sense of your uninformed blockheadedness (I could have just as easily have reverted), make your case in a reasonable fashion, and leave off the "unwilling" "jovial" crapola.

Not only do I know the difference between "Nordic race" and "Aryan race", I know exactly what "Aryan race" referred to, where it comes from, how it developed, and how it became what it became.

Be that as it may, I have fixed the third paragraph of the lead as well. Feel free to educate yourself there. Or virtually anywhere else for that matter. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

indeed. you just want to see "Nazi" in the lead. Why don't you sprinkle the article with a couple of swastikas, just for good measure. --dab (𒁳) 16:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Beyond trying to read my mind and speculate on my intentions, you haven't said anything worthwhile to respond to.

Regardless of whether you believe it or not, this article is about the history of the English word "Aryan". It so happens that "blond-haired-blue-eyed" is one of the meanings of "Aryan". It so happens that that meaning is also the current colloquial meaning in the English language.

Your continuing pretense to the contrary is not going to change the world. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, not to construct a ideal history in which nasty things don't happen. -- Fullstop (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I continue to agree with Fullstop that this article should best be {{split}}, and at the Aryan race article people will be free to discuss the Nazis to their hearts' content. --dab (𒁳) 13:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you could be agreeing with me since don't I think that the article should (or could) be split. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

well, you did back in June[3]. It will be difficult to agree with you on anything if you keep changing your mind on a monthly basis. --dab (𒁳) 16:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not change my mind on "a monthly basis". #1) that diff is for a redirect, the rationale for which is stated two talk sections above this one, and made in a context to a state that no longer exists. #2) You have been told at least five times, by three different people (including me), that "X language" and "X race" are historically the same paradigm. The are unsplittable in any discussion of the history of the word "Aryan". I have repeatedly told you of the unified paradigm in email (including its relation to the 'universal history' model), others have independently noted it here on talk, and it is mentioned in the second sentence of 'Aryan race'. It is high time that it sunk in. -- Fullstop (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes? I agree that "Aryan language" and "Aryan race" are "unsplittable in any discussion of the history of the word Aryan". Your point being? It follows that it is sufficient to have this "unsplit" discussion at the article Aryan race. The problem is that we also have the article Arya adressing points neither related to "Aryan language" nor "Aryan race" (but Hindu notions of 'nobility', and etymological points), which is why this topic is "split" even if we get rid of this article. I placed the {{split}} tag with the precise intention of turning this into a redirect to Aryan (disambiguation), which is exactly what you have argued for yourself. Whether your "unsplittable paradigm" will require us to also get rid of Aryan (disambiguation) is another question that can be addressed once we have decided what to do with this article. Your hostility is completely misplaced, and it is rather cheap to suggest I have a poor understanding of the issues involved just because I happened to disagree with you on certain points. --dab (𒁳) 10:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

1. It may have been more meaningful to say "Yes!" instead of "Yes?" when you have been asserting the opposite the whole while. But I am happy that you have at last come around to the fact that "Aryan (i.e. Indo-European) language" and "Aryan race" are unsplittable, and that the latter is not a product of scientific racism (FWIW: scientific racism == the "Aryan myth").
2. As far as I know, this is the first time that an "unsplit" discussion has been mentioned, and it cannot be "sufficient" to have such a discussion at 'Aryan race' when in fact such a discussion does not exist there. Moreover, your repeated addition of {{split}} tags is not exactly conducive to the idea that you had the opposite in mind. That said, it would seem that the term you are looking for is "merger", and if you wish to have an merger discussion, then feel free to initiate one. At this point I would be against a merger.
3. As I noted yesterday, my rationale for a redirect applied to a state of the article that no longer exists. Re-stating that "[I] myself argued for [it]" did not make it any more correct.
4. That "we also have the article Arya" is not a "problem". DO NOT MAKE IT A PROBLEM. Hindu notions of 'nobility' (i.e. arya-shudra dichotomy and the concordant "master race" ideas) do not belong in an article on "Aryan". Although these have their place in the universal history model (i.e. in William Jones's Mani-equals-Noah fantasy), and thus (vaguely) have a relationship to aryan-semitic dichotomy, the two issues are orthogonal to one another. Moreover, unless/until a reliable source has reviewed the impact of "noble"-"slave" dichotomy on aryan-semitic dichotomy in more than a few words, you may not do more than the same. (not to mention creating an OR magnet)
   The (well documented) impact in the other direction, i.e. of western racialist thought on the interpretation of Indian texts (the resultant feedback loop is another story) is beyond the scope of the history of the English word, and the existing one paragraph should be sufficient coverage as far as this article is concerned. This article is on "Aryan", and it would do well to stick to reliable sources on "Aryan".
5. My so-called "hostility" is a response to what you spew ad-nauseum. For one, your quick hand with ad-hominems and straw men arguments (ala "unwilling to recognize", "[mind-changing] on a monthly basis", "you just want to see ...", "why don't you just sprinkle..."). For another, there is what you call "somewhat frustrating ... discussion" (frustrating because you tenaciously make the same false statements over and over and over again, so provoking your "conversation" partner to object over and over and over again). Then there are your full-throated proclamations of "fact" that are not fact, e.g. most recently that de Gobineau's theory was from the 1850s when in fact it predates even Pictet, and predates the widespread use of "Aryan" for "Indo-European". Combine these issues with your refusal to be circumspect where appropriate, and you get so-called "hostility". In my case its not hostility. Its nausea.
6. The present list in the first para is quite good. I would change "informed" to "promoted" or the like (and not mention the actor twice). I would perhaps also add "This article is a review of these stages in the evolution of the word 'Aryan'." (or something to that effect) immediately following the list, so offsetting it from what follows, and defining what the article is about. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, Fullstop. The two of us quite obviously cannot come to an understanding no matter how we go about it. We need help from other editors who can perhaps mediate or come up with a solution acceptable to everyone.

For the moment we should just focus on what we can agree on, and let go the more derailed parts of this conversation.

• the word "Aryan" has two fields of application:
  • the pre-WWII history of the term, tied up with Indo-Iranian history, Indo-European studies, scientific racism and what have you, forming a single "unsplittable" topic to be discussed at a single article
  • the current, post-WWII usage, reserved for pop-culture images of Nazism ("blue-eyed, blonde-haired") and for "Aryan pride" in US Neo Nazism / white supremacy
• Sanskrit arya has strictly speaking its own history, but has been caught up in the history of the English loanword since the 19th century, so that it is impossible to discuss Hindu notions of arya today without making reference to the entire "Aryan" field I mention above (see Indigenous Aryans)
• we currently have three articles, Aryan, Arya and Aryan race. It has become painfully clear that this division is inadequate. The best solution may be to merge these articles into a single comprehensive article at Aryan and try to work on that, so at least we won't be plagued with the questions of division into separate "subtopics" that have stalled us for so long. Once we get a clean and stable article at Aryan, we might go back to discussing whether or how to split off sub-articles.

--dab (𒁳) 09:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "two fields of application":

There is no "post-WWII usage" that can be distinguished from pre-WWII usage. As I've said before, "blue-eyed, blonde-haired" does not originate with the Nazis. Although their popularization of it squeezed out other usage, they did not invent it. <quote>... this had already existed in colloquial use by the late 1800s, thirty years before the Nazis. Even the first documented use in the "Deutsch, arischer Herkunft" sense is in a Vienna fitness club from 1887, and that too predates the Nazis by a long shot.</quote>

It is simply not possible to identify two distinct fields of application. The word is irrevocably entwined with 19th century language-group theories, which were intrinsically racialist, and also created the contradistinction to "Semitic". This too has been pointed out before.

Re: "Hindu notions of arya today":

The western-influenced Hindu/Iranian nationalist notions of "Aryan" are briefly described (one paragraph each) in the article. This too has been pointed out before.

Re: merging Aryan, Arya and Aryan race:

This article is (to quote PaulB) "an article that lays out the meanings of the word and the history of its usage". 'Arya' is about Old Indic/Old Ir usage, while this article is about the English one. Two different things. 'Aryan race' is specifically about race, while this article is (to quote Ev) "a general overview of the different meanings & mutations". Again two different things. I see no need to merge or split. This too has been pointed out before (not just by me).

None of this is new. It has all been said umpteen times before. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

then I don't see why you keep pointing out things that are undisputed. I was trying in good faith to find a way forward from the present impasse. As long as you just keep nitpicking about ways to misrepresent what I am saying, this will go nowhere. But maybe you have a suggestion on how to proceed. I hope it is undisputed that the present situation is highly unsatisfactory and something needs to be done about it. --dab (𒁳) 08:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As I and others have said (most recently in the immediately preceding post) the "present situation" is not unsatisfactory, ergo nothing needs to be done about it. -- Fullstop (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

in other words, you are happy to continue with ignoratio elenchi and to leave the articles tagged for cleanup indefinitely. That is fine with me, I'll just try to find somebody else to talk to then. It was sort of worth a try, in the spirit of WP:DISCUSS, to see if we can get anywhere after all. But I am not going to lose sleep over it if we cannot come to an understanding. --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So much irony in one comment can only be intentional.

• First of all, from your repetition of "points" ad-nauseum, all of which have to be addressed over and over again, I think its rather clear that it is you who is slightly hard of hearing.
• Secondly, it is you who tagged the articles for "cleanup" (your term for a split tag), even though it has been repeatedly been pointed out that there is no need to split it. In short, you are arguing that the articles should be split because they have split tags, and when they don't have split tags, you (and only you) add them so that the articles have split tags.

Since you have a problem with the split tags that you yourself added, I will remove them for you. -- Fullstop (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I invited you to snap out of your antagonistic mode and try to find common ground with me. You refused. I don't see any "irony". --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Antagonistic mode? There is nothing "antagonistic" in my previous comments. But...

Fact is, an accusation of IDHT is not an "invitation" (for anything).

Fact is, the IDHT claim accompanies the ad-nauseum supposition that a problem exists although it has repeatedly been pointed that there is none.

Fact is, the (ostensible) "problems" are your constructs.

Fact is, there is nothing that warrants a split/merge.

Fact is, you keep adding the split/merge tags without having a valid reason to do so.

Fact is, you are trying to justify a split/merge "because" the split/merge tags exists.

Fact is, you are now trying to make this a behavioral issue ("IDHT", "antagonistic mode", etc).

Fact is, that is all pretty darn lame.

I'm not antagonistic. At present, I'm just bemused. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

ok, look: we are both editing in good faith, and we both have good background knowledge on the topic. I also grant that you have Iranist background knowledge that I lack. There have been misunderstandings between us. I am trying to take a few steps back and figure out where we lost track, and on which points we can agree. I am willing to listen to what you have to say, and to be convinced by your view where possible. But this will require you to make an effort on your part, and the first part of this will be an attempt to read my objections charitably so you will be able to understand what it is I am objecting to. At the moment, this is purely about article scopes and organisation of content. Of course this involves my take on the nature and internal connection of the material presented. I am sure we can come to an understanding, and finally to a consensus, if such an effort is made. It was my impression that I offered you such a new start with a more charitable discouse, and that you rejected it, hence my "behavioral" points of IDHT etc.

I still see no sign of your trying to have a discussion, you still prefer to make points that are undisputed in the first place, and sprinkle them with the implication that I have no point ("your constructs", "nothing that warrants a split/merge"). You are basically saying "fact is: I am right and you have no case". Unsurprisingly, I disagree. And I am not going to repeat my explanation of why I am adding these tags before you show some sign that you are prepared to at least try and listen to what I am saying. How about we invert this. How about you explain to me how it is a "fact" that the Indo-Iranian etymology of the word must be discussed at Arya, and what exactly delineates the scope of the Arya article from the Aryan one. Apparently, in your world, the mere mention of Sanskrit is illegal in this article. I argue that your division of the material is unnatural, contorted, unintuitive, and contrary to the aim of a coherent explanation of the issues involved. But perhaps you can convince me. --dab (𒁳) 18:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

irano-aryan

if iranians are aryans or descendents of the people who called themselfs aryans shouldn´t the name of the language group iranian be irano-aryan like indo-aryan? i don`t seem to get this

proposed split

There's currently a tag on this long-vexed article suggesting that it be split into Aryan race and Arya. Now, I too do not understand why Aryan needs to be an article independent of those two, but I just wanted to point out the obvious: the two articles already exist. So perhaps the issues underlying the proposal should be explained a little more fully here. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

the problem here is that Werdnabot has archived a very much live section a week after the last post. This is apparently at the bidding of Fullstop (talk · contribs), who has thus invented a method of resolving disputes by bot.

The issues involved have been discussed in great detail, albeit not very constructively since Fullstop has taken the position that I have no case at some point and switched into "I can't hear you" mode from there.

The issues are all of scope. I am at this point resigned to asking that whatever people are going to do with this article, can they please be unambiguous about which article has what scope. Therefore, this isn't even a content dispute, it is me asking for clarification and Fullstop insisting that there is nothing to clarify.

Specifically, if this is the article about the term "Aryan" and its history, why is the discussion of the word's etymology at Arya#Etymology.

The problem here is that Arya was not originally created as a place to discuss Indo-Iranian etymology, but as a place to discuss the meaning of the Sanskrit term arya in Hinduism. It has turned out that this is impossible, since the term in contemporary Hinduism is irreversibly contaminated by the connotations of the English loan "Aryan", and people kept bringing up Iranian cognates and Zoroastrianism in the article that was originally intended to be strictly confined to Hinduism. So, in my opinion, the Arya approach didn't work. There are two possibilities,

• we scrap Arya and merge its content back into this article, or
• we expand the scope of Arya and make it about the etymology and history of the Indo-Iranian term in general.

The second approach will put pressure on this article here, because it will be unclear what its scope is supposed to be in relation to the enlarged Arya plus Aryan race and Aryan (disambiguation). The problem with this article is already that it is in essence a glorified disambiguation page. This is a problem: not a problem of content but one of distribution of content and article scope, whence the "merge/split" tags. --dab (𒁳) 16:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree that ARYA(actually Aarya) can be any Upper Caste that is Bramhin, Kshatriya or Vaishya and most of them are black skinned east Indians and those who accept Bramhinical caste dogmas of Bramhin Caste superiority are considered as Aarya. So Aryan needs to be discussed separately in a Racial , ethnic and cultural sense away from Hinduism's caste society and Bramhinical writings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.130.223 (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ariovistus is not "Swiss"

Ariovistus is not Swiss, if the "Swiss" even existed in the 1st century BC. The paragraph is punctuated so badly it escaped my notice that it was part of a direct quotation. But it is wrong, wrong, wrong to use a direct quote that propagates a blatant factual error; if Ariovistus is relevant (a point for which I would not care to argue at all), he should be accurately identified by his ethnic affiliation, which would seem to be pertinent. Ariovistus, his Suebi, and their confederacy of Germanic tribes were threatening to encroach on the area that is today Switzerland, specifically the part of it occupied by the Helvetii, who gave their name to Helvetia and who were, as far as we can tell, speakers of Celtic. In fact, the dominant scholarly view today is that the name Ariovistus is Celtic and was gallicized when it was conveyed to Caesar via his Gallic interpreters. The Helvetii were at any rate the "Swiss", if such existed; the Germanic Suebi were hostile to them. And if Calvert Watkins (the cited source) asserted that Ariovistus was 'Swiss', whatever that would've meant in the 1st century BC, I'll eat my dictionary. This point, which may be minor, casts doubt on the accuracy of the quote as a whole, or the purpose to which Watkins was putting it. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that the formatting of the paragraph has been improved now to show that this is a quotation. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A good starting point

J. P. Mallory's "In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth" (1989) should be cited in this article. Mallory concludes his study with an epilogue on "The Aryan Myth." Understanding the history of Indo-European speakers certainly needs to be separated from discussion of the now pejorative term "aryan." 173.3.202.11 (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Henry R. Rupp

Japanese

Adolf Hitler declared them as "honorary Aryans". Should this be noted? Carowinds (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"honorary Aryan" was only an honorary title used by the Third Reich to describe a non-aryan person or people as good. Adolf Hitler never considered the japanese aryans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.190.31 (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"the "Aryans" themselves had originated somewhere in northern Europe"

This whole theory is of course now known to be BS. However, I was wondering, how did the proponents of this theory think this actually came about? Were they religious, and thought that God had specially created the "Aryans" in situ in N Europe? Did they have some sort of multi-regional evolutionary theory, where different human races evolved seperately from different groups of pre-human ancestors? Something else? Or did they just not think their theory through properly? Wardog (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an oversimplification, but in essence, they thought that language-history and archaeology could be combined to model the migrations of ethnic groups. In itself, this is a reasonable aspiration, but fraught with difficulties. They also thought that physical evidence about skull morpology formed part of the archaeological record, and that it could map these human migrations by linking them to physical types. If these physical types could also be identified in the modern world, then studies could - supposedly - determine their unique characteristics, on the assumption that physical types were also innately disposed to particular ways of thnking. It's not quite the "multi-regional evolutionary theory", since proponents merely clamed that distinct types formed a meaningful biological identity that could be measured both anthropometrically and psychometrically. In other words you could record the skull shape, map it onto personality and make generalised claims about 'races' and their 'achievements'. Paul B (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"blond-haired, blue-eyed" physical ideal of Nazi Germany

Does anyone have a source for this? Who says blond hair and blue eyes are the physical ideal of Nazi Germany? Did Adolf Hitler say that? If so, does anyone know of an exact quote of him saying that? I have seen numerous reputable websites saying that the goal of the Nazis was to someday have a world filled with only blonds, but I have never ever seen a quote from Hitler saying this. Maybe I'm just a bad searcher. Immakingthisaccounttohidemyipaddress (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

see Nordic race. Paul B (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure he said something like that. At the same time, someone told me that there is a peculiar looking group of people in India at this time who call themselves Aryans. I have no other source for it than that. Wowest (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

see Indo-Aryans. Paul B (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Hitler never mentioned anything specifically about "blond hair and blue eyes." He did, however, talk at great length about the Nordic race being ideal and they were classified as being fair in complexion - typically blond or lighter hair and light eye color. However, it is correct to note that it is very disingenuous to equate "blond hair and blue eyes" with "Nordic," even more so with the term "Aryan." While Nordics typically had lighter features, it was by no means criteria for being Nordic, as there are several more important morphological considerations. Nordic racial classification encompassed many different features, and one can have darker coloring and still be "Nordic." Keep in mind that the East Baltic race was classified by the Nazis as being blond and blue-eyed, but they, of course, were not considered ideal. I would think that Nazi eugenics would favor darker Nordics over blond East Baltics. So it is more about being "Nordic," on the whole, than about being blond. As for the term "Aryan," it does not mean Nordic and the Nazis did not use it that way either. Aryan was more inclusive and the Nazis legally classified most white Europeans (except maybe Slavs) as being 'Aryan'. I have encountered much ignorance over this subject, particularly when people assume that in Germany that all those who were not blond and blue eyed were somehow gassed or executed, and then say Hitler was a hypocrite for having dark hair. Hitler, of course, would have been classified as Aryan, and no doubt he had some Nordic qualities (lighter eyes, etc). Hair/eye color was not, necessarily, what determined race. This is what irks me when I read people saying that the Nazis wanted "blond/blue-eyed" people for a master race... no, they didn't.. they wanted people of Nordic race, who just happen to be more or less fair in complexion. This is why I think it more appropriate, when discussing Nazism, to replace "blond hair and blue eyes" with simply "Nordic." StacyMJC (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

English / Sanskrit

I should explain why this page historically refers to 'Aryan' as an English language word. This is to emphasise its difference from the Arya page which deals with Indian and Iranian usage. Its primary function is to show that this page covers the range of usages in English, which incldes the dominant colloquial usage, referring to Nazi racial ideology. Otherwise we get into irrelevant debates about the "real" meaning of Sanskrit. The point is that this is not about the use of a Sanskrit word in English. In English "Aryan" is essentially a construction derived from Indo-Iranian (not Sanskrit) usage to refer to an ethnic/linguistic identity. In fact the earliest use of the word derives from Iranian/Persian via Herodotus, long before anyone in the West knew anything about Sanskrit. Paul B (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Aryan derives from sanskrit arya; this is acknowledge by every independant scholars in the world. there are plenty of ref. And this must be precised... All dictionnaries, encyclopedia do that (they precise that it derives from sanskrit). Please provide ref (with inline citations) for Herodotus... The self designator theory for persians is a propaganda. This is not the case for indians/hindus (see Aryavarta)... Arya written and pronounced in this way is Sanskrit and the word Aryan derives from it... This is mentionned in every reliable books, encyclopedia, dictionnary. Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You make sweeping assrertions with no evidence at all. There are already references in the article. Take the trouble to read it! Your assertions about Persians are palpably false. Again, read the article and the references. Paul B (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The real descendants of the ancient Persians are the Parsis... And they have never called themselves 'airya'/'ariya'... This is the best proof that this word was not a real self designator... This not the case for arya, see aryavarta (abode of the aryas/aryans). Persia has never been part of Aryavarta.Rajkris (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is nationalist ideology which should have no place in Wikipedia. Who is or is not a "real" descendant of Persians is irrelevant. We are discussing history. Paul B (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Rajkris this source you use is unreliable, its from Man: embracing his origin, antiquity, primitive condition, races, languages ...by George Dallas Lind 1884 diff, please restore the article.Megistias (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty other refs... Don't worry. No need to change. Wikipedia is not place for propagnada. Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty in the article already and they contradict you. Copied from my talk page:

Herodotus uses the word Hdt. 1.1.0, "Μῆδοι δὲ τὴν αὐτὴν ταύτην ἐσταλμένοι ἐστρατεύοντο: Μηδικὴ γὰρ αὕτη ἡ σκευή ἐστι καὶ οὐ Περσική. οἱ δὲ Μῆδοι ἄρχοντα μὲν παρείχοντο Τιγράνην ἄνδρα Ἀχαιμενίδην, ἐκαλέοντο δὲ πάλαι πρὸς πάντων Ἄριοι, ἀπικομένης δὲ Μηδείης τῆς Κολχίδος ἐξ Ἀθηνέων ἐς τοὺς Ἀρίους τούτους μετέβαλον καὶ οὗτοι τὸ οὔνομα. αὐτοὶ περὶ σφέων ὧδε λέγουσι Μῆδοι. " in the 5th century BC to describe the Medes, so the word existed in the western world as an ethnonym prior to India being conquered or discovered. This does not show how much they used it themselves but the term and word existed.Megistias (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

English Translation, "The Medes in the army were equipped like the Persians; indeed, that fashion of armor is Median, not Persian. Their commander was Tigranes, an Achaemenid. The Medes were formerly called by everyone Arians,1 but when the Colchian woman Medea came from Athens to the Arians they changed their name, like the Persians. This is the Medes' own account of themselves."Megistias (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

First, let me assert that this is not a dictionary to "articulate about the English word Aryan". So when an article is written, even-though this is English Wikipedia, western POV has no place here. I shall say that User:Paul Barlow and User:Megistias is so biased beacause of their western POVs (Quotes: User:Megistias : "the word existed in the western world as an ethnonym prior to India being conquered or discovered" & User:Paul Barlow : "the earliest use of the word derives from Iranian/Persian via Herodotus, long before anyone in the West knew anything about Sanskrit"). The earliest instance of the word aryan has been without doubt established as from the Vedas written in Vedic Sanskrit; predating to any such instances in Persian. However, i agree that common proto Indo-Iranian descendence were responsible for the similiarity. Well, because this is English wikipedia and we are talking about a possible English representation of the word doesn't mean the origin of the word must be attributed to where the west came to know about the word Aryan. Arjun⁰²⁴ 14:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Arjun024, my Herodotus post was adressing part of Rajkris post here, User_talk:Paul_Barlow#ARYAN_wiki specifically this one; "the story of self designator among persians is more a propaganda; the Parsi (the real descendants of the ancient persians) never user used it. Thanks. The word started being used in the western world only after the conquest and discovery of India"Megistias (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not mean that Wikipedia should not use dictionaries! Secondly, it does not mean that it should not have articles about words. Indeed that issue has already been discussed on WikiProject_Linguistics [4]. We have many articles on words, where those words can be discussed encyclopedically. It is really rather amusing to be accused of "western POV" by someone supporting an editor who is objecting to the inclusion of Iran! If you reread the article you will see that the origin of the word is attributed, and always has been. Indeed the very use of the term "loanword" in trhe introduction clearly establishes the fact that it did not originate in English! The use of "Englsh" is to emphasise that it is the full usage of the word that is being discussed here, and to avoisd fights between Indians, Iranians, neo-Nazis and anyone else about who "owns" the word. Paul B (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Aryan" is an English adjective. It is an Indo-Iranian loanword, with a complicated history of influence of both Iranian (Persian) Indic (Sanskrit). I don't see why we should be expected to bother with random complaints of "western POV" and "real descendants" from people who quite obviously haven't even read the article. --dab (𒁳) 22:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"The earliest instance of the word aryan has been without doubt established as from the Vedas written in Vedic Sanskrit" --> This statement from Arjuna is very true but no direct ref of this in this article.

The actual word Aryan (and its meaning) in English/Western literatture is derived from the Sanskrit Arya (which means Noble/Lord); that's why this word became famous in the western world, people were attracted because of its noble meaning. For example: the Aryan race means the race of Lords... I do not say that this article does not mention the Sanskrit origin but it does not give enough importance to it whereas it is the main origin (that's why i want to put it in the first line of this article).

I'm not objecting to the inclusion of Iran, just telling that some people are giving too much importance to the use of the word Aryan in Persia (for me this is propaganda). Word Airya/Ariya do not occur more than 10 times (even 5!) in the whole ancient Persian literature. The Parsi who descend from the ancient Persians (they practice the ancient religion of Persia, ethnically they are very closed to the ancient Persians because of the caste system in India), did not and do not call themselves airya/ariya... That's why I'm telling that contrary to what some people claim, this word was not a real self designator, was not significant to the ancient Persians. In india it was and is widely used and it is 'sacred' word.

This article gives equal importance to the Sanskrit and Persian (there are even more ref to Persia than India) whereas Aryan derives much more from Sanskrit (both spelling and meaning). If it would have derived from the Persian Airya/Ariya, it would have been written Airyan/Ariyan... In my opinion, this article is not accurate. Thanks... BtW, Megistias, Herodotus used Ariaoi and not Arians.Rajkris (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

please read the article again. You are almost at a stage where you have understood what we already do cover. My advice is, check out the etymological discussion in OED. Please do not bother to comment any further before you have read and absorbed what OED has to say on the question. What Rajkris does illustrate, however, is that we gain nothing from keeping the Arya article separate. The confused editors will only get more confused. --dab (𒁳) 09:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OED ??Rajkris (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

wow. click here. --dab (𒁳) 09:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have read it, I will read it again, I will also try to have a look on OED. I'm also doing some research. I will submit you the results. It may take some time because I'm a very busy person. Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked OED (the full, complete version) & here is what i found: "Aryan from Sanskrit Arya 'Noble'" I have other refs such as Britannica, etc. I will add them. Thank you.Rajkris (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Aryan and politics behind it.

Rajkris' comments regarding the Aryan seems very valid to me. The fact is this word or its variant "Arya" was not a designator to Iranians, and has never been used, at least in this context by the ancient Persians either. In fact there is no trace of this word in any Persian or Arabic writing, till early to mid 20th century. The Aryan theory was used as a backing for pro Nazi propaganda in Iran, during WWII, as the king Shah was pro German, and exiled to Africa by allies during the war.

After the war the sentiment remained within the ultra nationalist Pan-Iranist Party and the theory used in government run education system as a solid fact till revolution toppeled the last king whose title was "Aryamehr" .

The revolution against the Shah derailed to be an islamic one, so this theory was abandoned during the first two decades of Islamic Republic. However after the Islamic revolution this Aryan race theory became the corner stone of "Nationalistic" propaganda, in opposition to the theocratic system. No need to say use of this theory has a reverse effect in a multi ethnic Iran. It works as an alienation factor for many non Persian ethnic groups, such as Turks, Arabs, Turkmen and Baluchis.

Thanks. Mehrdad (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly do you think the word Iran comes from? Paul B (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul, In Persian/Farsi litreture, the names Iran and Turan are used in the Shahnameh epic as the names of legendary places. The same text has a story that these lands are named after the names of Īraj and Tur, the sons of Fereydun. Through the mythical stories told within the Shahnameh Iran is the country that wins the most of the battles and Turan is on the receiving ends. In 16th century The Safavid dynasty, trying hard to stay out of the Ottoman empires influence, used the name Iran for the first time as a name for their domain, in their country building effort. Mehrdad (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

so, you would exclude the Safavids from the class of "any Persian or Arabic writing"? Look, this is English Wikipedia, and Aryan is an English adjective. It was used for what is now called "Indo-Iranian" in the 19th century. The article provides full details on this fact. THe Safavid, or indeed anyone in the 16th, 17th, 18th or 19th centuries can hardly be responsible for anything that may or may not have happened in the WWII period. --dab (𒁳) 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There are extensive scholarly articles on this issue and there is no need to comeup with psueodo-theories to satisfy political needs.

Here is a recent one in the Bactrian Iranian language:[5]. Excerpt: "The opening lines refer to Kanishka as "the great salvation, the righteous, just autocrat, worthy of divine worship, who has obtained the kingship from Nana and from all the gods, who has inaugurated the year one as the gods pleased". Then comes the significant statement: "He issued(?) an edict(?) in Greek and then he put it into the Aryan language". In principle, any of the Indo-European languages of Iran or India could be called "Aryan"; but when Kanishka refers to "the Aryan language" he surely means Bactrian, the language of this inscription, just as Darius meant Old Persian, the language of his inscription, when he wrote: "By the grace of Auramazda, I made another text in Aryan, which previously did not exist". It is difficult not to associate Kanishka's emphasis here on the use of the "Aryan language" with the replacement of Greek by Bactrian on his coinage. The numismatic evidence shows that this must have taken place very early in Kanishka's reign, quite possibly in his very first year. "

It has been used in Old Persian at least twice times as the name of the language and lineage and in the Elamite language Ahura Mazda is called the God of Aryans[6] And also extensively in Avesta: [7]

Arya/Aryan has been used extensively in Iranian languages: Parthian, Old Persian, Bactrian, Avesta.. See here for details:[8] [9][10] In Arabic and Persian literature, the name Iran/Iranian has been used although Hamzeh Isfahani also mentions "aryan" as the name for the country (in the 10th century). The name Iran has been used long before Safavids.. mainly it is on Sassanid inscriptions and coins and has been used by numerous poets and writes before Safavids.. It has nothing to do with Safavids. An example of Sassanid era coin [11] and anyone familiar with Middle Persian: "Ardashi shahan shah eran". Or Sassanid inscriptions [12]. Thus the first writer of this subtopic has not done his history research or perhaps is intentionally distorting history. The country of modern Iran has mainly Aryan (Indo-Iranian) languages (Baluchi is one of them too), however there are Turkic and Semitic languages. But the name Iran itself goes easily back to the Sassanid era through numerous inscriptions and has been used extensively by writers and poets before the Safavids.

Also unlike Indian languages/Sanksrit..in the Iranian languages Parthian, Old Persian, Bactrian, Avesta.. the name Aryan is clearly a ethno-linguistic identifier as noted by the eminent linguist emil beneviste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.206.178 (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Aryan in Iranian Usage

This information keeps getting deleted by some nationalists (possibly Indian or Turkish or otherwise). I have pasted it here for reference:

In Iranian literature

Unlike the various terms connected with the Aryan arya- in Old Indian, the Old Iranian term has solely an ethnic meaning and there can be no doubt about the ethnic value of Old Iran. arya (Benveniste, 1969, I, pp. 369 f.; Szemerényi; Kellens). The name Arya lives on in the ethnic names like Alan, New Persian Iran, Oss. Ir/Iron.

The name Iran, Iranian is itself equivalent to Arya/Aryan, where Iran means “land of the Arya”. The name Iran has been in usage since Sassanid times.

The Avesta clearly uses airya as an ethnic name (Vd. 1; Yt. 13.143-44, etc.), where it appears in expressions such as airyāfi; daiŋˊhāvō “Iranian lands, peoples,” airyō.šayanəm “land inhabited by Iranians,” and airyanəm vaējō vaŋhuyāfi; dāityayāfi; “Iranian stretch of the good Dāityā,” the river Oxus, the modern Āmū Daryā. Old Persian sources also use this term for Iranians. Old Persian which is a testament to the antiquity of the Persian language and which is related to most of the languages/dialects spoken in Iran including modern Persian, Kurdish, Gilaki and Baluchi makes it clear that Iranians referred to themselves as Arya.

The term "Ariya" appears in the royal Old Persian inscriptions in three different context: 1) As the name of the language of the Old Persian version of the inscription of Darius the Great in Behistun; 2) as the ethnic background of Darius in inscriptions at Naqsh-e-Rostam and Susa (Dna, Dse) and Xerxes in the inscription from Persepolis (Xph) and 3) as the definition of the God of Arya people, Ahuramazda, in the Elamite version of the Behistun inscription. For example in the Dna and Dse Darius and Xerxes describe themselves as “An Achaemenian, A Persian son of a Persian and an Aryan, of Aryan stock”. . Although Darius the Great called his language the Aryan language, modern scholars refer to it as Old Persian due to the fact that it is the ancestor of modern Persian language.

The Old Persian and Avestan evidence is confirmed by the Greek sources”. Herodotus in his Histories remarks about the Iranian Medes that: “These Medes were called anciently by all people Arians; “ (7.62) . In Armenian sources, the Parthians, Medes and Persians are collectively referred to as Aryans. Eudemus of Rhodes apud Damascius (Dubitationes et solutiones in Platonis Parmenidem 125 bis) refers to “the Magi and all those of Iranian (áreion) lineage”; Diodorus Siculus (1.94.2) considers Zoroaster (Zathraustēs) as one of the Arianoi.

Strabo, in his "Geography", mentions the unity of Medes, Persians, Bactrians and Sogdians:

The name of Ariana is further extended to a part of Persia and of Media, as also to the Bactrians and Sogdians on the north; for these speak approximately the same language, with but slight variations.

— Geography, 15.8

The trilingual inscription erected by Shapur's command gives us a more clear description. The languages used are Parthian, Middle Persian and Greek. In Greek the inscription says: “ego ... tou Arianon ethnous despotes eimi” which translates to “I am the king of the Aryans”. In the Middle Persian Shapour says: “I am the Lord of the EranShahr” and in Parthian he says: “I am the Lord of AryanShahr”..

The Bactrian language (an Middle Iranian language) inscription of Kanishka the founder of the Kushan empire at Rabatak, which was discovered in 1993 in an unexcavated site in the Afghanistan province of Baghlan clearly refers to this Eastern Iranian language as Arya In the post-Islamic era one can still see a clear usage of the term Aryan (Iran) in the work of the 10th century historian Hamzeh Isfahani. In his famous book “the history of Prophets and Kings” writes: “Aryan which is also called Pars(Persia) is in the middle of these countries and these six countries surround it because the South East is in the hands China, the North of the Turks, the middle South is India, the middle North is Rome, and the South West and the North West is the Sudan and Berber lands”

The re-invention of Aryan-ism in 20th century Iran

For the detailed reasons behind the aryanism in Iran and its relation to modern Iranian identity please refer to a well written article by Reza Zia-Ebrahim as "Iranian Identity, the 'Aryan Race,' and Jake Gyllenhaal"[13].

The inferiority complex in dealing with colonial powers has a lot to do with this fascination with mythical Aryan race. --Mehrdad (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article:

"In spite of many attempts to force ariya into Aryanist assumptions, recent scholarship -- in particular the work of Gherardo Gnoli -- has shown that ariya was not quite a racial category. According to Gnoli, in Achaemenid times, ariya was a cultural and religious term to evoke the kings' origin, like a title of particular nobility." --> Interesting to notice that Gnoli does not consider Ariya in a racial sense wheras some Iranian are using his articles, books as refs on wikipedia to defend their vision of Iran based on a so called 'Aryan race/ethny' identity... See the falsification, manipulation...

One remark: "Observe how the German football team is even now welcomed in Iran, occasionally with enthusiastic collective Nazi salutes." --> see here: [14]

Rajkris (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please mind WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM. Any unrelated comment violates wikipedia rule. Wikipedia works by using WP:RS sources and not PBS frontline. Gnoli is also very clear: "There can be no doubt about the ethnic value of Old Iran. arya (Benveniste, 1969, I, pp. 369 f.; Szemerényi; Kellens)."."[15]. I quote him again: "this evidence shows that the name arya “Iranian” was a collective definition, denoting peoples (Geiger, pp. 167 f.; Schmitt, 1978, p. 31) who were aware of belonging to the one ethnic stock, speaking a common language, and having a religious tradition that centered on the cult of Ahura Mazdā."[16]. This issue has nothing to with Nazism, Germany, Aryan invasion of India and etc. Please mind WP:RS sources. And here is another article by Gnoli: "The "Aryan" Language, Gherardo Gnoli, Instituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, Roma, 2002. " [17] If it had no ethnic value then that would not be a title of an article discussing a language. Gnoli has a whole book called the "idea of Iran" and discusses the ethnic value of Arya (Er, Eran..) in detail. So if some PBS person misquoted him, that is not the problem of Gnoli. A recent (expert) source on origin of Indo-Iranians states the same thing [18] pg 371: "'Arya' was the self-designation of different Indo-Iranian peoples (Indo-Aryans, West Iranian-Medes and Persians).. However Beneviste, Gnoli and etc. dispute the ethnic meaning in the Indic context. But that needs to be worked in its own section. I think Mallory and Gnoli are well recognized names in scholarship. Not PBS frontline and random websites. Please read WP:RS carefully as materials should be incorporated that uses scholars specializing in the area from the modern era (those that are alive). Keep the WP:SOAP, WP:FORUM somewhere else and normal wikipedia users are not qualified to comment on Gnoli or Encylopaedia Iranica (whose editor is by the way of Jewish ancestory and it was Gnoli who wrote the article with this regard). His credentials are well established [19] as that of Encylopaedia Iranica (whose veracity can be ascertained by the number of google books, and google scholar reviews). We don't use random websites and books by scholars who do not specialize in history (specially ancient Iranian history). Gnoli, Mallory, Szemeenyi, Kellens, Beneviste are household names in this area. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You are using old articles, books from Gnoli for your propaganda. Gnoli recent articles do not tell that. Anyway, sooner or later somoeone will provide recent articles from this author. Ethnicity is a recent concept and cannot be applied to the ancient world.Rajkris (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please mind WP:ATTACK or else you can be reported. Old articles? You mean articles from 1990s and 2000s are old? A recent book I quoted is about Indo-Iranians and published in the last 3 years [20]. The authors are well known as well. The Iranica article is also very recent. So is 2002 article. So what do you mean by old? As per ethnic value, Gnoli partially agrees with you that in Indic literature, the term "Arya" had no ethnic value. This is a 2006 article by Gnoli..I quote some parts of it: "The Old Persian and Avestan evidence is confirmed by the Greek sources: Herodotus (7.62) mentions that the Medes once called themselves Arioi; Eratosthenes apud Strabo (15.2.8) speaks of Arianē as being between Persia and India; . Rhodes apud Damascius (Dubitationes et solutiones in Platonis Parmenidem 125 bis) refers to “the Magi and all those of Iranian (áreion) lineage”; Diodorus Siculus (1.94.2) considers Zoroaster (Zathraustēs) as one of the Arianoi. The ethnic, linguistic, and religious import of terms connected with Old Pers. ariya and Av. airya is therefore borne out by a lot of different evidence, over a span of time that goes from the Achaemenid to the Seleucid and Parthian periods and in Iranian and non-Iranian sources. Besides Greek, the non-Iranian sources include Armenian, as in the expression ari Aramazd “Ahura Mazdā, the Iranian” in The History of the Armenians (sec. 127) by Agathangelos (de Lamberterie, p. 243; Schmitt, 1991; Gnoli, 1993, p. 19)." Or Trinlingual inscription from Shapur in Greek, Parthian and Middle Persian [21]... Yes the article uses Gnoli, Mallory, Mackenzie and well known authors. That is called following WP:RS Ethnicity is also not a recent concept. Iranian (as an ethnic term which was called Ajam by Arabs, Tat by Turks), Arab, Greeks,..are ancient concepts. What is a modern concept is identity based upon a national state. That is citizenship identity.

However, Gnoli does partially agree with you that the term "Arya/Aryan..." did not have an ethnic meaning in the Indic literature. This issue is mentioned by Beneviste also. So that is a separate section of the article that can be researched. In other words, the terms could have taken totally different meanings in the Indic and Iranic context. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)