Jump to content

Talk:Aryan race/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2017

An alteration to the following line from the first paragraph, so as to switch the word 'misinterpretation' to 'interpretation'. Justification below excerpt.

It has been variously used to describe all Indo-Europeans in general (spanning from India to Europe), the original Aryan people specifically in Persia and India, and most controversially through Nazi misinterpretation, the Nordic or Germanic peoples.[1]

If the Nazis' application of the term 'Aryan' was indeed controversial (i.e. contested, disputed, etc.), then labeling that application as being the result of a misinterpretation presumes that the disputers of the claim are objectively correct, which is clearly in dispute and unsettled as of yet.

Thank you, P. McGavin 24.91.45.156 (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done--This is a major change.Please provide prominent WP:RS which claims or justifies the Nazi interpretation to be correct.Winged Blades Godric 10:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2017

The term scientific racism should not be capitalized in the lead. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aryan race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aryan race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Map "Present-day native distribution of Indo-European languages ..." needs clarification

It's nice to have such a map though its description is missing an explanation on the colours used in it, which renders the whole thing almost useless. Rbaleksandar (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2018

Harleyulric (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 Not done Please state the changes you wish to make. -NottNott|talk 14:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yamnaya or Yamna; the first Indo-European language

Mention analytically the Yamna. We have DNA data!

Watch: Yamna uctv YouTube — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4113:6C00:E915:B450:FF3D:AB2 (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Bizarre intro

As written, the article's lede states that the term 'Aryan race' was used to refer to those of European and West Asian heritage, which is profoundly weird: the 19th-century usage encompassed non-West-Asian Indians (at least, high-caste ones), for reasons that should be obvious, and equally obviously excluded Arabs, Turks, and the like, who were West Asian. The sole source provided is an opinion piece in a random magazine, where one would expect a scholarly source. EpochalMilk (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


- Agreed, this entire page is as riddled with cultural marxist lies as the negroid remake of The Little Mermaid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.44.77.60 (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

English Speaking People

This is the correct translation of the word (or `White'). For if for instance there were a typographical error, it would include the word Caucasian, similar to Asian; meaning Mexican or Oriental respectively. To be honest, Caucasians, according the aritcles originate from Mexico City, English is their second language. It is still unclear as to where Chinese people came from. Although it may seem rather vague, Earthlings do share one thing in common, none of them are Aryan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1301:86CB:791A:737F:CB6F:4F62 (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Aryan Peoples

This whole page is riddled with errors, Aryans are NON-European spanning from the Middle east,Africa and Asian sub continent. Despite the face measuring obsession of the 1800s to the Germans alien aryan propaganda..Like the Egyptians ,Aryans are heterogeneous meaning as a large settled peoples they have many phenotypes and are extremely old as a people so the 1800s isn't when they emerged .

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2019

Second paragraph

"It derives from the idea that the original speakers of the Indo-European languages and their descendants up to the present day constitute a distinctive race or subrace of the Caucasian race.[2]"

Change to

"It derives from the notion that the original speakers of the Indo-European languages and their descendants up to the present day constitute a distinctive race or subrace of the Caucasian race.[2]" 2600:8802:5800:5E92:494:D853:5336:F0C2 (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Þjarkur (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Issues

This article is an odd mix of several separate subjects. The concept of an "Aryan race" in Theosophy is given undue weight. The content in that section is largely forked from Root race#The fifth root race (Aryan). The bulk of the article is about the ideology of Aryanism. This ideology is a very notable subject in its own regard. Per WP:WHENSPLIT, i believe a separate article on Aryanism is warranted. This would enable this article to precision its focus on the historical race concept of an "Aryan race", which was quite prevalent among anthropologists in the early 20th century, as illustrated in the map from the Meyers Konversations-Lexikon and by the various sources used in this article. Krakkos (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2021

However, The Aryan Race has been considered a myth since recent studies show that European people do not have matching DNA with the people of the Indian Subcontinent. It was used as a conspiracy theory by the British Raj in India At one point of time when British Authorities wanted to De-Unite People of India by imposing a Tag of Aryan People of the North and the Dravidian people of the south. It is evident in the Vedas that Aryans have not come from the west. In Fact Any Person Not belonging to the Indian Subcontinent have been been considered as Mleccha people who are considered barbarians and Non-Vedic People. 110.235.218.89 (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hindutva narrative. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Zero references to Nazis

Isn't it strange that this article has zero reference to Nazi racial ideology? 69.113.166.178 (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, that does seem odd. Would someone please add something about the Nazi use of "Aryan"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
As a stopgap, I copied in some material from Nazi racial theories. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Aryan race

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Aryan race's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

  • From Ku Klux Klan: "Backstory: When the KKK paraded in Oak Cliff". February 28, 2017. Archived from the original on March 27, 2019. Retrieved March 17, 2019.
  • From Nazi racial theories: Harwood L. Childs (translator). "The Nazi Primer." New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1938. Page 34.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The correct reference is:
<ref name="auto">Harwood L. Childs (translator). "The Nazi Primer." New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1938. Page 34.</ref>
Pinging User:Beyond My Ken, you copied the text over from Nazi racial theories but left the reference behind. Thanks 92.5.2.97 (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Thank you,— Diannaa (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2021

I would like to add to the History Sub-Title the references of Aryan in the Persian Language. I have an interview with a Iranian Historian who mentioned the usage of the word "Aryan" in the persian culture. Killorito (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2021

Revert vandalism by Wikieditor369, YourJudge, and WikiLinuz. BrookyTrusts (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Wikieditor369, YourJudge and WikiLinuz Justiyaya 08:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Not vandalism, just a content dispute. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Etymology

The etymology section doesn’t explain how the Sanskrit word āryan became a pan-Eurasian racial concept? Who was the first person to use the word in that sense. Where did it first appear? ChandlerMinh (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Critical race theory needed

In light of the genuine Indo-European migrations, an emphasis on the Aryan race as 1) limited historically only to Indo-Iranians and 2) not constituting a distinct biological group *in the context of critical race theory* is needed. This article has a lot of work left. Zagreus99 (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source stating that critical race theory has anything to do with this? Generalrelative (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The entire concept of the article is based on critical race theory in psychology. Not in the legal sense. I can’t revert my changes on the app for some reason but could somebody actually read what I changed before reverting it themselves. Would appreciate if somebody could revert those changes back. Zagreus99 (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Anybody reading this is going to see bias with the recent aDNA evidence. I made changes to avoid that Zagreus99 (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, you need to present sources and state specifically what changes you are seeking. I cannot even parse this request. Generalrelative (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m removing claims that *aren’t* sourced. Onus is to source claims. Zagreus99 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Debunked theory

@Ficaia: I suggest that you do your due diligence by visiting the sources at Aryan in reference to the "racial" interpretation of Aryans. Explain this edit. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 19:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@WikiLinuz: The article is already very clear that that the category is not scientific. "Debunked and obsolete" is redundant and bad English. Caucasian race, Negroid, and Mongoloid all use the form "X is an obsolete historical racial category". Ficaia (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Ficaia on this, as stated in my recent edit summary. Generalrelative (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Aryan race theories were major propellants in Nazism, Nordicism and scientific racism works by various writers; current lead doesn't give WP:DUE prominence to those details, given that "aryan race" predominantly used for such purposes. That's something distinct to be addressed in this article compared to Negroid or Mongoloid. Nevertheless, I will try to work on this if I could squeeze in some time. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 21:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree that it is right and proper to mention these things in the lead, especially since there is a section in the body about them. We can even just borrow from the main article Aryan, which does a good job discussing this aspect of the topic. But that's entirely separate from whether we use the term "debunked" in the opening sentence. Generalrelative (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
"Obsolete" and "debunked" do not have the same meaning. "Obsolete" means the term/concept is no longer in use or out of date. "Debunked" means that its falseness has been exposed/proven. (Definitions adapted from Google definitions from Oxford Languages.) Mirriam-Webster website says "Debunk itself often suggests that something is not merely untrue but also a sham; one can simply disprove a myth, but if it is debunked, the implication is that it was a grossly exaggerated or foolish claim." None of these shades of meaning are implied by the word "obsolete" so I don't see any reason why we shouldn't include both words.— Diannaa (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Diannaa: I agree. It's more accurate to include both terms. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 21:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Do any of the sources use the word? It was added to the first sentence recently without adding any new reference. Ficaia (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ficaia: I'm almost certain that you haven't looked over the sources. Let me quote the source that was already cited:

The myth [Aryan race] was the creation of German linguists and philologists, who confused language relationships with racial stock relationships [...] we cannot date the origin of the myth earlier than the nineteenth century because it was not until 1788 Sir William Jones [...] more enlightened philologists, Muller, in 1888, explicitly retracted his doctrine and admitted emphatically that language affinities are no evidence for racial relationships. By this time, however, the impetus which Muller's endorsement had given to the Aryan myth had carried it so far that his retraction could not undo the damage. In this book, he [De Gobineau] adopted the myth of the ancient Aryan race and attributed superiority to those descendants of the Aryans whose blood was least degraded by a mixture with inferior stock.
— Knight Dunlap (October 1944). "The Great Aryan Myth". The Scientific Monthly. 59 (4). American Association for the Advancement of Science: 296–297.

Scholars repeatedly used the word myth. This accurately fits with the definition of "debunked". WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 01:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Nonetheless, the word was added recently, has been fought over in edits, and isn't in the sources. "Debunked" is an unusual and highly charged word. Without a direct reference I don't think it's encylopaedic to include it. Your defence of the word is the result of your personal interpretation of sources which do not actually use it. Ficaia (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Just because that very word is not used in the sources, doesn't mean we cannot use it, if it is le mot juste. There's sourced content in Aryan, starting at Aryan#Origin that is relevant.— Diannaa (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
It seems like the word might be better placed in a section discussing the history of the term as a "theory", but opening the article with "X is an obsolete and debunked..." is bad English and I don't think Flaubert would approve of our prose style. Ficaia (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
If you believe having those two terms within a single sentence makes it bad English, I can have "debunked" on the opening sentence and move "obsolete" below. I think that would resolve your concern, as the former best resonates with the sources and the article subject itself. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 04:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The stylistic problem is only one concern. I still think "debunked" is an unusual word: it's not used in any of the other wiki articles on racial categories, and it's not in the sources. The second sentence of the lead already makes it clear that racial categories are unscientific so introducing a new adjective is unnecessary and repetitious. Ficaia (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Other historical race concepts does not lade the same weightage as that of "Aryan race", be it 'obsolete' biological racial groupings such as Negroid, Mongoloid, or Caucasian race - because Aryan was strictly an ethnocultural self-designation of Indo-Iranians. The linguistic lineage of German and Sanskrit (and other Indo-European languages) were historically misemployed to construct a mythical race of "Aryan". That is something to be contrasted and articulated distinctly. And, "debunked" seems to be the only felicitous word that articulates the detail, as mere "obsolete" doesn't modulate that. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 07:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The mythologising of "Aryan" by the Nazis and their antecedents is only one aspect of this article. You added a paragraph to the end of the lead summarising this history, which is good. Perhaps you can work "debunked" in there; although the word itself still bothers me. If it's so "felicitous", you should be able to find a scholar who uses it. Either way, the article as a whole covers more than just the Nazi co-opting of the term so the word is inappropriate in the opening sentence. Ficaia (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The mere meaning of "obsolete" is inaccurate in this article. According to Lexico, obsolete is defined as no longer produced or used; out of date. For instance, travelling on the horses are considered obsolete because we now have cars. Or, we don't send postal letters to talk with our friends and families because it's obsolete and we use IMs. The nuance is that, being obsolete doesn't mean it is necessarily incorrect; rather, it's just out of fashion. Whereas debunk is defined as expose the falseness or hollowness of an idea or belief), which seem to fit here. Or, if you want less charged, confute, which is defined as prove (a person or an assertion or accusation) to be wrong, seems apt (which I'm considering). This is also something Diannaa mentioned previously. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 07:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
"Debunked" implies something sinister or deceptive about the idea. The Nazi use of the term is especially sinister, as you point out. But the broader misapplication of Aryan to the Proto-Indo-Europeans and their descendants as a racial grouping (long before the Nazis) is no different to the other obsolete racial categories. Ficaia (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Aryan isn't a racial grouping. It never was - the Aryan article clearly unfolds that. So I don't understand how using "debunked" is a broader misapplication. Also, where do you find Aryan as a racial category attesting to Proto-Indo-Europeans and their descendants? WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 08:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
To correct myself, the term was applied to the Germanic or northern European "strand" of the Proto-Indo-Europeans by Max Müller. His theory was disputed even in the 19th century. Ficaia (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. Sorry, but in fact, I fear your understanding of Aryan is fallacious here. The Sanskrit word "ārya" had been used by Indo-Iranians for 1000s of years as their self-designative identity; that fact doesn't change if a few well-known racists, antisemites, and pro-slavery writers misemployed the word during the 19th century for their vicious ideologies. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 08:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
To clarify my position: All race concepts are "debunked", yet not all are "obsolete". "Black" and "White", for instance, are still very much in use because their socially constructed meaning is very much a lived reality. "Aryan race", on the other hand, is only used today by FRINGE race realists who persist in an outdated conception of human race. That's why this is a "historical race concept" and why all our articles on such concepts refer to them as "obsolete". Generalrelative (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Generalrelative: The nuance that you're waving away is that, the term was already used by the Indo-Iranians, and it isn't a 19th-century invention like other historic racial groupings like I already pointed out previously. And, this edit of yours left out the important nuances. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 13:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The term "Aryan" was indeed used for thousands of years (and still is) in India and Iran. But that's why we have a separate article on the term Aryan. This article is about the historical race concept Aryan race, which was invented in the late 18th century.
Regarding my recent edits, I'm not sure what "important nuances" you're referring too. It seemed to me that I was sorting out garbled language, repetition, and excessive detail that did not belong in the lead of this article. Generalrelative (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
It's significant to explicitly mention that Aryan race is an erroneous racially-oriented interpretation of Aryans—originally an ethnolinguistic category—[...]. Aryan race is also used in justification (see Genocide justification#The Holocaust) of the Holocaust. These were important nuances that were edited out which I want to be added back. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 13:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The first bit that you want re-added simply repeats what is already stated quite clearly in paragraph 2. The second bit is simply too specific a link to go here. The "Aryan race" itself was not a justification for the Holocaust; rather it was part of a whole constellation of ideas surrounding white supremacy and "racial hygiene" which in turn served that purpose. If readers are interested in diving deeper into this topic, better to supply them with the main link for the topic, which in this case is Holocaust. See e.g. WP:PYRAMID. Generalrelative (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The very intention of "racial hygiene" is to not intermix "pure Nordic Aryans" with inferior "non-Aryans" - they thought the "pure Aryans" were responsible for various "advanced ancient civilizations" (eg The Passing of the Great Race), thus master race. The Aryan race formed as the principal base axiom of white supremacy and Nordicism. Nevertheless, the 2nd paragraph should be refined further, maybe for another day. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 14:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
We do not appear to disagree on matters of fact here. Simply about what good writing structure for an encyclopedia article looks like. I suggest we wait for some others to weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Pattanaik restoration

@Diannaa: Regarding this edit, Devdutt Pattanaik is neither a scholar nor an expert in this subject. Given mid-day.com isn't reliable, to begin with, we tend to base these articles on academic scholarships. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 15:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment. He has a degree in of Comparative Mythology from Mumbai University, and has an extensive biography on Indian mythology topics.— Diannaa (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Please see WP:HISTRS. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 15:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Quotation marks

This article is now so full of quotation marks, in many places I'm not sure if they indicate a quotation or editorial sarcasm. Ficaia (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ficaia: The quotations were used to quote the authors directly from the inline-cited sources. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 07:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
This for example, is a direct quote and the translation of "Herrenrasse". It is to be in accordance with MOS:PMC and WP:SUBSTANTIATE. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 07:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure those parts of the MOS apply here, but I'll let the particular case of master race stand so others can discuss. I've removed quotation marks from the various historical race categories though. Ficaia (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with the removal of quotations from historical race categories; those were probably added by other editors in the past, which didn't catch my attention. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 08:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Further reading materials

Any long-existing errors don't translate to their existential relevance in articles, and can be WP:CHALLENGED anytime. The 3 works at the sections aren't academic scholarships, rather pseudohistorical works of Nazi-era authors from 1907 (see Race Life of the Aryan Peoples); additionally, they violate Wikipedia:Further reading#Topical. The section is ought to list reputable publications (see the relevant policies). Any further revert from your end is a violation of WP:3RR (and I hope we don't take this to drama-boards). WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  00:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

courtesy ping @Ficaia: WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  00:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
As currently written, this article is mainly about the history of the theory, so the books are appropriate as "historically important publications" per Wikipedia:Further reading#Topical. Perhaps we could include a sentence explaining that the books are historical rather than scientific, but I think that's already obvious given the wording of the article. Ficaia (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree with WikiLinuz here. The book provides the reader with no information on the concept that is of encyclopedic value. It is also super random to have 3 links to this one book when many were written about the concept. If we link to anything here it should be modern secondary sources that will actually inform the reader. See e.g. Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link, which encourages us to consider whether the content we're linking to is useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc. This book is clearly none of these things. Generalrelative (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The article is about the history and literature of the theory, so the links are useful and informative. Wikipedia:Further reading#Topical allows for "historically important publications" if they're topical. Ficaia (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Sure, it allows for it, but Wikipedia:Further reading is an essay. On the other hand, MOS:FURTHER reminds us that Any links to external websites included under "Further reading" are subject to the guidelines described at Wikipedia:External links. So what does Wikipedia:External links (which is a content guideline and therefore more authoritative than the previous two) have to say? Well, as I stated above, it encourages us to consider whether the information provided in the link is useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc. It also states that we should avoid Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. That last clause means that factually inaccurate books like the one we're discussing here are not absolutely out of the questions for an article like this one, but there is still a burden of proof to show that the link really adds something especially informative and I'm not convinced in this case that this one does. Generalrelative (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
My main point is that this article is directly about the viewpoints expressed in the links, especially Race Life of the Aryan Peoples. Given the large number of works and authors in this article, I think the further reading section was useful and informative, and should've been expanded not removed. We're not at risk of misinforming anyone, because the article makes very clear that these ideas are historical not scientific. But I seem to be alone on this, so I'll leave it be. Ficaia (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ficaia: You've effectively violated WP:3RR here. Please be mindful of our WP:EDITWAR policies, again, I'm repeating, I really don't want this to be escalated to the drama-boards. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  07:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@WikiLinuz: Ficaia self-reverted. And they've agreed in their comment just above to abide by our rough consensus. There is no need for drama. Generalrelative (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Generalrelative: I find this to be a flippant regard for the policies, even though I stated them prior. Honoring WP:BRD would be more constructive. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  07:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest that the more collaborative thing to do would be to accept both gestures (the self-revert and the agreement to drop the stick) gracefully. Generalrelative (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Can we remove the above 4 comments, so whoever else wants to can respond to the arguments for/against the further reading section and not to WikiLinuz's well-poisoning? Ficaia (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
large number of works and authors in this article - which large number of works are you talking about? The author Joseph Pomeroy Widney isn't even mentioned in the article, and his work barely had any reception per GS index. If you're talking about the article subject as a whole, there are multiple recent scholarly dissertations available on the topic that has had a more prominent reception than Race Life of the Aryan Peoples. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  07:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I mean that the main subject of the article is the history of the theory in the writing and thought of 18th, 19th and early 20th century authors - I count at least 12 Ficaia (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Why are you two still arguing? Generalrelative (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

German exclusivity of PIE

@Generalrelative: Regarding this edit; the first half of the sentence sources itself to a 130+ year old source. And, the second half is poorly sourced and written. It should be nuked to serve very little purpose, that is, German origin of PIE by Gustaf Kossinna, which is now discredited. But it hardly talks of "Aryan race" as in the subject of the article as a historical racial category. I'll copy-edit it sometime later. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  19:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Aha, that makes sense. I'll self-revert. Generalrelative (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the "Nazism" sidebar template would be more appropriate on the Aryanism article, which is specifically about the Nazi use of the term/theory. The majority of this article is about the pre-1930s history. In adding the new sidebar, the editor also removed the "race" sidebar which was more applicable here. So I'm reverting to the original sidebar. Feel free to discuss any proposed change here.

courtesy ping @WikiLinuz: Ficaia (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Ficaia's reasoning here. Generalrelative (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
There is still some work pending on the article text concerning the Aryan race as a "historical racial category". "Aryan race" (not linguistic Aryan) is rooted in Nordicism (an axiomatic ideology of Nazism), whose by-product is Aryanism. Btw, Ficaia, you could use active voice during discussions. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  00:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Note that the Aryan race article's entry is placed at Template:Nazism sidebar under "Racial ideology" per WP:SIDEBAR#2 and #3, since we should categorize the most specific category although "Nazism" is placed as a subclass within "race". WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  00:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
IMO the Nazism sidebar should replace the "Aryan race" entry with "Aryanism". Regardless, if we do decide to add the Nazism sidebar here, I think it would be best placed in the "Nazism and racism" section; and we should keep the race sidebar at the top. Ficaia (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Poles, Czechs and Italians

@WikiLinuz: Quote from the book where Grant describes Czechs, Poles and Italians as racially inferior to Germans in the book. FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race (1916), a best-seller in the U.S., was a virulent warning against the thinning of superior American "Aryan" blood (by which he meant the British-Scots-Irish-German settlers of the original thirteen colonies) through interbreeding with immigrant "inferior races," which for him included Poles, Czechs, and Italians as well as Jews-all of whom spoke Indo-European languages (Yiddish is a Germanic language in its basic grammar and morphology)
— Anthony, David W. (2007). The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-691-14818-2.

WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 02:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, we don't use WP:PRIMARY source, which in this case, the original book of The Passing of the Great Race (1916) by Grant. We rather report WP:SECONDARY scholarships on Wikipedia articles. Please read the relevant policies. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 02:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Does Anthony provide a source? The reason I am asking is because “Czechs” is mentioned once in the whole book without any reference to racial inferiority. Also, many Poles were regarded as being Nordic and the origin of the Nordic race was said to have originated in Germany and parts of Poland and elsewhere according to Grant.
I’m well aware of how to use sources and just because something is written in a book does not mean it’s necessarily factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
It's an academic dissertation written by a reputable scholar. If you think Anthony was wrong, cite a contrary source, or go ask Anthony himself. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 02:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
That’s a fallacious argument. It’s not up to me to verify the source, you have used it here so you should have no problems verifying what he wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Fact-checking academic scholarships of Anthony (or that of any other scholar) is not my job. That's what scholarly peer review is for. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 03:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language is a top-quality source: written by a respected scholar and well reviewed by the relevant scholarly community. It is very clearly reliable for WP:SECONDARY claims about Madison Grant. Generalrelative (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
In the book, the only mention of “Czechs” is the following: “These Avars and Magyars came from somewhere in eastern Russia beyond the sphere of Aryan speech and their invasions separated the northern Slavs, known as Wends, Czechs, Slovaks, and Poles, from the southern Slavs, known as Serbs and Croats.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: you claim to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the notorious racist book The Passing of the Great Race and ask us to trust your expertise rather than that of David W. Anthony to tell us what the book says? Generalrelative (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The full text of the book is available online. Don’t digress or evade my point. Also, don’t personally attack me. Anthony claims Grant was against Germans mixing with Czechs because he regarded the latter as racially inferior, but “Czechs” is only mentioned once and is not in relation to Germans mixing with Czechs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Look, it's fine that you don't yet understand all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There's a lot to learn. But if you had read e.g. WP:NOR you would be aware that, when I say Anthony's book is very clearly reliable for WP:SECONDARY claims about Madison Grant, I am neither evading nor digressing. I am addressing your concern head-on in the appropriate way. If you persist in arguing that your own research trumps that of a respected secondary source you will simply be ignored, and rightly so. Generalrelative (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with my “own research”. It’s an accusation that is not supported in the book at all. You can quite easily find the full text of the book online and search “Czechs” for yourself and see that what I am stating is factual - the word “Czechs” is only mentioned once and I have quoted it (see above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Grant defined Czechs as northern Slavs and clearly considered Slavs an inferior race. Anthony is summarizing Grant's book, and unpacks the definition of inferior races for readers unfamiliar with Grant's categories. Schazjmd (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Point Blank Misinformation

There are traceable blood lineages that show the idea of the Aryan race to be quite legitimate. It is easy to follow for even someone uneducated, with a visual description of course. I do not understand why someone who can not comprehend it is allowed to misinform the general public on this platform. 2601:7C0:C37C:3E10:4CFC:18CC:CAB1:59C0 (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of lead image (1)

Per WP:IMGCONTENT, I think the lead image (recently removed) does "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter": it puts the hypothetical races discussed in the article in visual context on a map. And it's topically relevant as an example of the kind of 'racialised academia' which the article speaks about. So I think it should be restored. As a compromise, if others think it is somehow misleading in the lead position, perhaps it can instead illustrate the Invention of the Aryan race section. Ficaia (talk)

I'd be happy to restore the image if it's properly sourced and cited. I can hardly read the word "Aryan" in that image even if I zoom in. It says public domain but doesn't impart information regarding any recent scholarly material in which that particular image was used as a reference to a historic racial grouping in an encyclopedia from the 1850s. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 15:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The image is from the 4th edition of the Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, and it clearly illustrates the subject of this article: "Arier" = "Aryan". I'm not aware of any policy stating we must find a modern reference for every image we include in an article. Ficaia (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The original image is sourced from a German website (The Retro Library) here, but I'm dubious of the reliability of that source. I'll find any references to that 19th century's encyclopedia in any modern scholarship. I'm not saying every image should include a reference, but these historic images which claim to be from an encyclopedia should abide by our verifiability policy. I will re-add the image once I find any reliable source talking about that image from Meyers Konversations-Lexikon. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 16:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This (1) scan of the full page includes Meyers Konv. Lexikon in the bottom left. Ficaia (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Re-added in this revision. (I think it's more appropriate to place it under "invention of Aryan race" subsection). --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 05:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Goddess movement

@Ficaia: The sub-topic that I added previously talks about Indo-European migrations in general, and doesn't confine itself to "Aryan race"—the subject of the article as a racial term. It could be placed in the appropriate article, but I don't think it fits here. Because "Indo-Europeans" is not a synonym for "Aryan race", unlike in the 1900s. I suggest that we remove that sub-section. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 18:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@WikiLinuz: Looking at the source, the Goddess movement stuff is mentioned in the same paragraph as the Russian nationalists. I think it's fair to assume "Indo-Europeans" and "Aryans" are synonymous in this instance, as both the Russian fascists and the Goddess movement scholars have used those terms in a racialised way. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
This is the paragraph in full: "The problem of Indo-European origins was politicized almost from the beginning. It became enmeshed in nationalist and chauvinist causes, nurtured the murderous fantasy of Aryan racial superiority, and was actually pursued in archaeological excavations funded by the Nazi SS. Today the Indo-European past continues to be manipulated by causes and cults. In the books of the Goddess movement (Marija Gimbutas's Civilization of the Goddess, Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade) the ancient "Indo-Europeans" are cast in archaeological dramas not as blonde heroes but as patriarchal, warlike invaders who destroyed a utopian prehistoric world of feminine peace and beauty. In Russia some modern nationalist political groups and neo-Pagan movements claim a direct linkage between themselves, as Slavs, and the ancient "Aryans." In the United States white supremacist groups refer to themselves as Aryans. There actually were Aryans in history-the composers of the Rig Veda and the Avesta-but they were Bronze Age tribal people who lived in Iran, Afghanistan, and the northern Indian subcontinent. It is highly doubtful that they were blonde or blue-eyed, and they had no connection with the competing racial fantasies of modern bigots." 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Not exactly though. Marija Gimbutas, for example, is an acclaimed scholar for her Pontic–Caspian steppe dissertations. She isn't a racial fantasist and didn't synonymize "Aryan" with "Indo-European" or "Nordic race", unlike SS-affiliated scholars. It can be moved to Proto-Indo-Europeans or Indo-European migrations. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 18:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
But the source suggests she and others have used "Indo-European" in a racialised way, so I think it's relevant. -- "cast ... not as blonde heroes but as patriarchal, warlike invaders". This is clearly racial language, albeit negative rather than positive. It's also clearly a response to the glorification of "Aryan" and "Indo-European" by patriarchal nationalists. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
That text doesn't suggest that she used the term "Indo-European" in a racialized way, it rather says, they were not as blonde heroes but as patriarchal, warlike invaders—meaning, if you look at the previous sentence which says manipulated by causes and cults—she suggests Gynocentrism of Old European system instead of Patriarchy. Calling someone "patriarchal" doesn't associate them with a "blond, blue-eyed, dolichocephalic Nordic master race". --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 19:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The source is clearly saying that the Goddess movement scholars have misapplied "Indo European", and have imbued the grouping with certain negative immutable characteristics (if that's not "racialising", what is?), and that they have done this in response to the positive myth of Aryans as noble and heroic. I think the paragraph speaks for itself. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The Aryan 'race' was not synonymous with 'white' or 'nordic' or 'IE'

I wonder if this article needs some more context. The Nazi concept of 'Aryan' was rooted in some notion of an ancient race but it really did not mean 'white supremacy' as some parts of this article imply. Surely the idea of European or 'white' racial supremacy was operative in the period but it's not the same exact thing as 'aryan' supremacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ungitow (talk • contribs) 06:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The article is pretty clear about that. The self-designative identity ā́rya- (in its anglicized form "Aryan") of Indo-Iranians was misappropriated and seized by the earlier writers of scientific racism. The concept of the "Aryan race" is confined to racial (or Nordic) supremacy, like the article already states, original PIE speakers were thought of as a distinct, superior, and master human species by the racial theorists. Visit the Aryan article to comprehend the context of the tribal self-designation of Indo-Iranians. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Restoration of self-designation in lead

@Beyond My Ken: Aryan_race#Racial_association_of_the_term_Aryan reads The term "Aryan" was used as an ethnocultural self-designative identity of the Indo-Iranians and the authors of the oldest [...]. I don't understand how you think it isn't redundant to saying The terminology derives from the historical usage of Aryan, used by modern Indo-Iranians as an epithet of "noble". If you want the "Indo-Iranian" philology of "Aryan" to be written in the lead, it is more accurate to say The term Aryan derives from the historical usage as an ethnocultural self-designative identity of the Indo-Iranians, and the meaning "noble" is relatively new (5th–4th century BCE), and does not accurately represent the historic usage by the Indo-Iranians. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 02:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The lede summarizes what the body of the article says, and as such statements in the lede will often be close paraphrases of statemennts in the body. That's what the lede is for -- see WP:LEDE We DO NOT remove statements from the lede because the same -- or equivalent - statement is made in the body. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I do know what a lead section is; I'm not asking for an explanation about the definition of a lead. I specifically mentioned that the current revision is historically inaccurate. Please re-read what I wrote. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 04:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2023

In the Nazism section, in the first paragraph and second sentence, the word "bought" needs to be changed to "brought".

Below is the sentence I am referring to...

However, a definition of Aryan that included all non-Jewish Europeans was deemed unacceptable, and the Expert Committee on Questions of Population and Racial Policy of 1933 bought together important Nazi intellectuals Alfred Ploetz, Fritz Thyssen, and Ernst Rüdin to plan the course of Nazi racial policy, defining an Aryan as one who was "tribally related to the German blood and descendant of a Volk".[83][84] SaltyKrakker (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, done. Thanks. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 06:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

H. G. Wells

@Beyond My Ken: Didn't you read my edit summary? I said the material you restored does not cite any reliable source and thus cannot be verified. YOU restored the material, so YOU bear the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate verifiability. If YOU cannot demonstrate how H. G. Wells material would fit in "Racial association of the term Aryan" or how it is relevant, I will revert it back. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 16:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

FYI, the pagagraph is not reliably sourced, the material you restored violates WP:PRIMARYSOURCE#4.
See WP:SECONDARY for the relevant policy. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 16:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
If you need further clarification, the paragraph you restored contains two references [47] and [48].
[47]: Reference points to Wells's 1920 book and self proclaims as "bestseller" and it further analyzies the source itself, rather than reporting it (which constitute original research) so it violates WP:PRIMARYSOURCE#4.
[48]: Reference again points to Wells's 1922 book which is based on same outdated theory:

In these regions of the earth wandered a group of tribes mainly of the fair and blue-eyed Nordic race, sufficiently in touch
— https://www.bartleby.com/lit-hub/a-short-history-of-the-world/the-primitive-aryans/

So this reference cannot be used because it is outdated and violates our policy. Read WP:OLDSOURCES.
The paragraph should be removed. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 16:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • WikiLinuz seems to believe that once they edit something, that's the end of it, but, in point of fact, the material is well-sourced and relevant. As part of the article's WP:STATUSQUO, when its removal is disputed, the removal requires WP:CONSENSUS from discussion here. I urge WikiLinuz to stop edit warring and reverting to their preferred version, and wait until they have a consensus before attempting to remove this material from the article again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    How about you stop speculating on what you think I believe and address the policies I mentioned above? I left the above note two days ago on why it should be removed, but you completely ignored it - it's YOU who isn't interested in discussing and resolving the dispute, so I urge you to stop WP:STONEWALLING. You keep on repeating that the paragraph is well-sourced but doesn't care to address the policy it violates on the note I left; you CANNOT use a primary source for this type of article. If you still don't get it, you cannot analyze and interpret An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races original work when writing about Gobineau's ideas in this article, in An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races or any other article. If a material is part of the article for quite a while doesn't implicate that it cannot be removed by others.
    Here is what the policy on original research says:

    4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
    — WP:PRIMARYSOURCE

    The entire paragraph that YOU restored violated this policy, so you bear the WP:BURDEN to fix it, not the editors who remove it. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 06:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent reverts by Beyond My Ken

@Beyond My Ken: Per WP:BADREVERT and WP:ES, you must have a reason to revert multiple constructive edits to Wiki. I don't need anyone's permission or approval to improve articles here. You are exhibiting WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR by disruptively reverting improvements without a valid reason to justify them. Your revert neither stated the reason nor rationale for removing large, constructive edits. Nothing in my changes needed consensus, and if you have problems with any changes, quote the exact WP:DIFF and the problem HERE. I am a regular editor of this article with a history of constructive discussion about this topic with other editors, so please do not edit war per WP:3RR rule. --WikiLinuz {talk} 06:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not the case. You have made significant changes to the WP:STATUSQUO of the article, and I have disputed that change, for the simple reason that I don't believe they necessarily improve the article, and I also don't believe that they will get WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page. That is more than enough reason to revert, and by WP:BRD, since your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached.
This is the Wikipedia way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
As for OWNBEHAVIOR, it is you who are exhibiting it: "I am a regular editor of this article". Indeed you are, with edits beginning in July 2021, and that appears to have given you the impression that you can make any changes you want to at any time, which is not the case. Having written 81% of the article, you're certainly entitled to feel STEWARDSHIP in regard to it, but you cannot stop other editors from being involved and expressing their views about the article.
Please make your arguments regarding why you feel your changes are justified, so that a consensus discussion can take place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
What exactly is the problem? Quote me the exact WP:DIFF and your problem. You are still not stating the issue here. As I already said, I regularly edit this article and edit the topics whenever I find time and need. You have to have a reason to revert edits; failing to do so is a violation of WP:BITE and WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR.
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason. --WikiLinuz {talk} 06:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I never said IDONTLIKEIT, I said that they do not improve the article. Please make your arguments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a work in progress. Articles evolve over time; they change their size and shape.
appears to have given you the impression that you can make any changes you want to at any time - You cannot prejudicially revert my edits just because I happen to edit this article regularly. There is no such policy. If you have read WP:WIP you would have realized that articles evolve over time. And some editors dedicate time and energy to some articles over others.
Everything I added is sourced from academic journals and peer-reviewed dissertations. If you have a problem with the edits, state your problem.
And why exactly do you think those aren't improvements? --WikiLinuz {talk} 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, WP:BRD-NOT says BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, which is clearly what your doing here. It is your own opinion that the material is not an improvement. It does not apply to good-faith efforts to improve articles.
So BRD does not bind here. --WikiLinuz {talk} 07:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" says discuss first or no consensus is not valid reason to revert good-faith edits. I think mass-reverting with such a reason really discourteous good faith editors and I'm pretty sure this is not the goal of this Project. I will be opening a new topic for explaining changes my edits below. --WikiLinuz {talk} 07:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Consensus to restore revision 1152101176

On a series of diffs, I made the following changes to this article page:

  1. diff 1 - The paragraph interprets and analyzes a 1920 WP:PRIMARY source, so following advice WP:RESPTAG and policy WP:OLDSOURCES, I added {{Primary source inline}} tag because such an analysis does not abide by WP:OR guideline. A tag was placed because the removal was contested here by Beyond My Ken.
  2. diff 2 - I copy-edited the subtopic to include additional context on Volksdeutsche, complementing the previous sentence that introduces Volksdeutsche, added how different racial groups are interpreted in Nazi doctrine and added a citation to a journal article for verifiability.
  3. diff 3 - I added further context into the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft, compliment both previous sentences on Volksdeutsche and subtopic that talks about Connotation of Aryan in Nazi theories, and added citation to Britannica and peer-reviewed dissertations.
  4. diff 4 - I modified Britannica citation to {{Britannica}} template since templated citations are preferred over raw text citation for consistency.
  5. diff 5 - I copy-edited and removed "indeed" because it was an unnecessary adverb here.
  6. diff 6 - I split the paragraph to remove the overcrowded section for ease of readability.
  7. diff 7 - I added a bibliography to a peer-reviewed dissertation that will be used in {{sfn}} (and in diff 8)
  8. diff 8 - I remove duplicate citation and used {{sfn}} to add page numbers on inline citations.
  9. diff 9 - To remain consistent with other numeric figures, I changed "six" to 6, added figures to "disabled people" data, and added "among others" indicating other Holocaust victims and linked to the respective article.
  10. diff 10 - I removed redundant links and added a link to another per MOS:SEEALSO.
  11. diff 11 - I added further context into the role played by ethnic Germans who lived outside the German Reich in the Holocaust, complimenting diff 2 and diff 3.
  12. diff 12 - I copy-edited the sentence to make it better reflect the cited material (Weikrt 2013) and wrote a better sentence.


All of the above diffs were mass reverted by Beyond My Ken in this diff and further by Czello in this this diff for the same reason, with the edit summary stating to get consensus first; they further cited WP:BRD. Beyond My Ken stated in their edit summary (diff) that none of those above 12 diffs are any improvements to the article. However, I made all the above diffs in WP:GOODFAITH and in an effort to further improve the article (the reasons are stated for each diff above). I do not believe any of the improvements/changes to the article through these 12 diffs are contentious or controversial changes. Everything I added and copy-edited is from reliable sources (such as academic journals and peer-reviewed dissertations) that meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP policy. None of the sources are WP:QUESTIONABLE. This is one of the articles that I regularly edit, gragually trying to improve it over time. But I believe my recent good-faith contributions were mass reverted prejudicially without consideration.

Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" states that avoid reverting with edit summary saying only discuss first.

Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling states that Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good faith discussion. Such stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change – or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo)

Since the other involved editors cited WP:BRD, this is what WP:BRD-NOT states (3) BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle. (2) BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page. This also goes against WP:BADREVERT.

I spend my volunteer hours and try to improve and contribute to the Wikipedia Project sparingly whenever I find time. Given that I have explained myself in detail, this type of behavior creates a hostile environment and is discourteous to good faith editors like myself, which goes against the spirit of this Project.

I hope the involved editors and those who watch this talk page can provide input on whether my good-faith edits warrants mass-revert. If this consensus is stonewalled, I think taking it to dispute resolution is the way to move forward.

I vote to restore my last revision in lieu of current revision for the reasons stated.

Thank you, --WikiLinuz {talk} 09:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aryan_race/Archive_3&oldid=1252666177"