Talk:Indigenous Aryanism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Mediation closed as unsuccessful

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

Context and Fallacy

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

"This does not mean all Indigenous Aryanists believe that India was factually the home of all the Indo-Europeans. Of course there are certainly those who, perceiving the fallacies in many of the theories being promoted by their Western colleagues, nonetheless attempt to utilize similar methods and logic to promote India as a homeland. Perhaps this is understandable after being subjected to two centuries of unbridled European intellectual hegemony on the Indo-European homeland problem. But clearly an Indian homeland theory is as open to the same type of criticism that Indigenous Aryans have vented on other homeland theories. Most scholars simply reject the whole endeavor as irremediably inconclusive, at best, and "a farrago of linguistic speculations," at worst. The more careful members of the Indigenous Aryan school, at least, simply recognize that all that can be factually determined with the evidence available at present is that "the Indo-Europeans were located in the Indus-Sarasvati valleys, Northern Iran, and Southern Russia" (Kak 1994, 192). From this perspective, if the shared morphological and other similarities mandate that the Indo-Europeans had to come from a more compact area, that is, from one side of this large Indo-European-speaking expanse, most Indigenous Aryanists see no reason that it has to be the western side: "We can as well carry on with the findings of linguistics on the basis that India was the original home" (Pusalkar 1950, 115). In other words, by arguing that India could be the Indo-European homeland, the more cautious scholars among the Indigenous Aryanists are demonstrating the inadequacy of the linguistic method in pinpointing any homeland at all, rather than seriously promoting India as such."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead paragraph

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

Possible copyright infingement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indus Valley civilization link

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

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

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

Possible original research

This sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current litrature vs history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PCT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tripping Nambiar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MERGING

The theories of aryans in 2 different wikipedia articles are:

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

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

• Realistic article

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

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

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

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

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

Sanskirt Burrowed words

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

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

Edit request from 189.189.255.82, 4 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Change:

the superior court of the state of California

To:

the Superior Court of California

per the Court's own standards.

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

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree to the opinion of Sreekanthv.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7678538942425297587&q=vedic&hl=en I find that there are several points in this video unopposed in the Indo-Aryan Migrations. I think these can be added to the text. Presence of Shiva linga in Harrappan civilization and archeology of Dwaraka are some of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viswanath2006 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Human Genetic History

What business has this article in that project? The "science" in this article is thorughly debunked by both genetics and linguistics. It could however, be part of a WikiProject: WishfulThinking.Wogsinheat (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)wogsinheat

I encourage you to start such a project. I think it would be appropriately meta if the first task of the WikiProject: WishfulThinking were to create WikiProject:WishfulThinking. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete 2009 Harvard Study from Article

One of the authors of the 2009 Harvard paper:

Our paper basically discards Aryan theory. What we have discussed in our paper is pre-historic events. Data included in this study are not sufficient to estimate the time of ANI settlement. However, our earlier studies using mtDNA and Y-chromosome marker, suggests that the ANI are approximately forty-thousand year old. We predicted that the ASI are part of Andamanese migration, therefore they could be about sixty-thousand years old. Our study shows that the Indian populations are genetically structured, suggesting that they practice endogamy for thousands of years. Every population is genetically unique, but we cannot assign genetic information to differentiate whether he/she belongs to higher/lower caste. As one is aware, Jati/ caste has been introduced very recently. (Breaking India Appendix A)

He further states that the study 'supports the view that castes grew directly out of tribal-like organizations during the formation of Indian society'.(Breaking India Appendix A) So the jati structures emerged tens of thousands of years prior to any arrival of the Aryans into India.(Breaking India Appendix A) Furthermore, this jati structure was not one of higher/lower status but simply one of endogamy within a given community.(Breaking India Appendix A)176.67.169.146 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

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

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

There are also a number of what could be taken as pejorative terms when describing persons who do not subscribe to the Western theory, they are described as "Hindutva" or "Hindu Nationalists" which I would describe as ad hominum. Why not just discuss their ideas rather than try to label them. It seems more like "give a dog a bad name and then hang him." 18:19, 3 November 2014‎ User:Chandraputra

Only one specific instance: "an idea revived by the Hindutva sympathizer Koenraad Elst (1999)". You may have a point here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, WP:N requires showing both sides of an issue. I'm not sure I see the other side that is omitted in identifying the source of a theory. A major part of Elst's page deals with his political sympathies, and it is in the same section as describes his theory. The two are connected. Knowing that a theory is put forward by someone who pushes a particular political agenda that happens to be supported by the theory is a relevant detail in assessing and understanding that theory. There doesn't seem to be a problem with noting this in the appropriate place, as here. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

He is usually termed as Belgian academic. He is a proponent of number of theories. If there is anyone else, who has considered him "Hindutva sympathizer", let us know. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

He is not an "academic" as far as I know (never worked in an academic position). He makes his living by writing books for the Hindutva believers. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Kaultiya3, see http://vepa.us/dir00/interview1.htm by Rajeev Srinivasan. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The article on him calls him sympathetic to the movement, and gives a footnote. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 03:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Elst is not an academic - you don't become one just by getting a PhD, you have to have had a teaching or research post at a University - and not just for a few months or a couple of years. He's an author. Dougweller (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It was about how he is regarded by others, and I agree with this. Thanks for writing. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

RJC, I think Elst's current writings have gone considerably beyond being a "sympathizer". At this time, he comes across as an "advocate" or a "champion" for Hindutva. See this [2] for instance. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair?

It is bit unfair that in the beginning of the article itself, it is defined by Witzel who is a strong critic of the theory. Come on! thats not fair! will you start an article by the reference from a critique only? And his statements give a very biased view for any reader hence it loses its neutrality. First you write what the theory is and what the people say about it in intro. One can mention that there are criticism and then in a separate heading at the last of the article write "Criticism" and write what Witzel says! We need to be fair not like this.

Sreekanthv (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There are extremely few academic linguists who hold the position that the Indo-Aryan languages are indigenous to India. Virtually all relevant experts agree with Witzel that they are not. So it is fair to let him define the topic, because Wikipedia is not unbiased: we are biased towards mainstream science.

Similar things can be said, by the way, about the view that Germanic languages are indigenous to Northern Germany, let alone Scandinavia. Both outdated and extremely fringe views held almost exclusively by radical nationalists nowadays (though the Germanic version is much less popular even among them) – and (as regards the Germanic version, no idea about the Indo-Aryan version) a handful of academics who (fallaciously) consider a lack of archaeological and genetic evidence for migration/discontinuity that is so bleedingly obvious as to be impossible to rationalise and explain away (like, say, the evidence for discontinuity in most regions of North America) to be evidence for continuity. On the contrary, I think it is safe to say that most languages and ethnic groups by far are not indigenous (not even the earliest remaining language/population in their respective regions) and arrived through migration instead, and that most ethnic groups are heavily mixed genetically. So "Indigenous XY"-type claims are generally met with suspicion in academia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

POI

The stqatement of the article, talageris view would be "within Hindu nationalism" is POI. His position is a refusal of the AIT and as that not nationalistic. If you have any work, which accuses him that way then you have to quote or at least to refer to the same. Otherwise please change the phrase to "within India".217.13.79.226 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Kurgan hypothesis

I wanted to add a link to the Kurgan hypothesis in this article, but thought it was better to ask before I do so, because a lot of people seem to object to my edits (and I want to avoid an edit war).—Khabboos (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Genetics section

@Joshua Jonathan, CorporateM, Bladesmulti, and AmritasyaPutra: WP: OR states "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article." Directly related is even bolded. None of the genetics studies mention Indigenous Aryans or Aryan Migration. Migrations occurring 40,000 years ago have nothing to do with Aryan Migration, which is a specific hypothesis with a specific timetable. Lastly, the well known academic books on Indian history don't discuss Aryan Migration/Indigenous Aryans using genetics studies.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This is also OR and Synth? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Vic is right here. The genetics-section is being used to argument against (is this correct English?) against the IA-theory (theory? ahem...) I've no opposition of course against providing some good arguments this kind of thinking, but it is indeed some sort of synthesis. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that the genetics study mentioned here is being connected to this theory not by scholarly analysis but independently by editors. There may be some recent study explicitly analyzing them together. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've reverted an editor who restored it. Thanks to Victoria Grayson. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Also the first few lines of the section Indigenous_Aryans#Pseudoscience_and_postmodernism are incorrect, see the book [3], pseudoscience has no mention. Then there is a quote, any traditional Hindu idea or practice..... which is not from Meera Nanda but Bharathi, and it is about some nuclear physics(relating to Vedas), not Indigenous Aryans, see [4]. Can be removed and section needs to be re-titled. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Just because it's not specifically spelled it doesn't mean it's not relevant. It's the same topic. The studies discuss contributions of Indo-European (=hypernym of Indo-Aryan, but equivalent here since there are no other IE migrations to the subcontintent) migrations to the gene pool. These are not migrations that occurred 40,000 years ago (haplogroups themselves are not that old). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not the way we work. It's your opinion that it's the same topic, but we need reliable sources stating that it's the same topic, not personal opinion. Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal opinion, really ? After 1 minute of googling: [5] [6], [7]. Genetics is the ultimate argument to refute all of the indigenous crackpot theories and it must be present in the article. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

So long as the sources mention indigenous Aryans or an Aryan invasion, I agree. But if they don't, no. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk It is not to be added. Are you making a new crackpot theory? 2nd one is self published. Other 2 don't mention indigenous Aryans. The reports you are talking about, they often criticized because of the poor research. Migration is not limited with one single event. Before you are into more SYNTH and original research, you should read Genetics_and_archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia, which is relevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they mention the Indo-Aryan migrations which is a topic directly antithetical to this one. Evidence for Indo-Aryan migrations is the criticism of Indigenous Aryans theory. The Indigenous Aryans theory is basically crackpot science not even worth a passing remark in serious publications, and that's the only reason why it's not more explicitly referred to. People publish research to prove the historical Indo-Aryan migrations, not to disprove the Indigenous Aryans theory. Just because the Indigenous Aryans theory is not explicitly mentioned, it doesn't mean that it's not related. The sources I linked are tertiary but they refer to papers that are relevant, and which fit into a bigger picture of Indo-Aryan migrations, together with archeological and linguistic evidence. The article in its current form lacks any counterarguments, aside from opinions of some opponents. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Still original research. Being relevant cannot really justify and it is just a matter of opinion. It is pretty clear that those genetic research have nothing to do with migration, and none these proposals claim to be first migration or last. It is not criticism if there is some more collection of any other theory, be it crackpot or more accepted. None of them have any universal acceptance, they are just hypothesis. They cannot be related with only one migrations theory, but all of them. That's why somebody had added the genetics section to almost every Indo-european migration articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources clearly and openly state that genetic evidence is supportive of Indo-Aryan migrations to India. That you, personally, are unable to comprehend English language and make the mental connection in that direction is really not my problem. There are no "many migration theories". There is only one, supported also by archaeological and linguistic evidence. It all perfectly fits together. We cannot delude readers into thinking that Indigenous Aryans is "just another viable theory", supported and accepted to the same extent as the Indo-Aryan migrations. We're not in India dammit. It smacks of creationist argument on how evolution is "just another theory". Jesus, are we really having this debate?! --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You have sheer competence issues with both English and basic understanding of citations. None of the so called evidence mentioned the Indigenous Aryans, and that's the only thing you have to know about, but you find it very hard to get. If I am not personally able to create a fairytale connection, that you actually wanted, it is still not fault. Lets get clearer, you don't even know what is the actual subject, next time, just read the title of the article before you are into any sort of synthesis or original research again. Some off topic POV discussion is simply waste of time. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Evolution-Creation is a false analogy Ivan. Edwin Bryant, undoubtedly a top expert, says he is "agnostic" about Indo-Aryan Migrations. He says "I find most of the evidence that has been marshaled to support the theory of Indo-Aryan migrations into the subcontinent to be inconclusive." Witzel himself acknowledges that "Denial of immigration into the area of an existing culture has recently been asserted by some archaelogists as well; they posit a purely local, indigenous development."VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that Out of India theory be merged into Indigenous Aryans. I think that the content in the Out of India theory article can easily be explained in the context of Indigenous Aryans, and the Indigenous Aryans article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Out of India theory will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support As nominator.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Keep in one place. Both small articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support connected/related article deserving to stay under one heading. --AmritasyaPutra^T 08:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support The same crackpot theory basically. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

(Please place any discussion on the merger proposal in this section.)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin Help

Request admin assistance in merging histories. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Merging the histories is out of the question, as the two articles have very different histories. History merging is only for cases where the history of what is effectively one article has been broken, most commonly as a result of a copy-paste move. Merging of the content of the articles, on the other hand, is something which any editor can do, and an administrator is no more able to do it than any other editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I can take care of the content merge, but as someone without expertise in this area, I expect some clean-up will be needed. I will do my best to contextualize info from Out of India theory, but any help will be much appreciated. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

When did they migrate?

In any "Indigenous Aryan" scenario, speakers of Indo-European languages must have left India at some point prior to the 10th century BC. I don't see how this works. According to Indo-European Languages, our speakers were in Antatolia in 4200BC, Tocharia 3700BC, Germany 3300BC, and so on. 10th century is too late. We can't put this totally fallacious argument in Wikipedia voice. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the languages. But the most comprehensive genetic study by Harvard dates the north Indian and south Indian populations to 40,000 to 60,000 years ago.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, our home-grown PIE speakers apparently didn't bother to migrate to South India, whereas they found it fit to ride their horses all the way to Germany. I can think of hundreds of reasons why this doesn't make sense. But the immediate point really is, that the 10th century doesn't cut it. We need an inline attribution to whoever said it. So, where does this date come from? Kautilya3 (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Witzel 2001 & 2005 gives dates: at least before 5000 BCE. Elst's map is funny indeed. The Dravidians must have been some sort of Asterix & Obelix, fighting off the Vedics for millennia ;) Vic, the migration theory is not about wild gangs invading India; it's about little groups of people who were organised in a client-system social organisation, which could easily accommodate new clients. Compare the knights & vasals system in medieaval Europe (not mere coincidence, I guess). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources

I'm afraid I'm going to read more on this topic, so I'm copying this thread from Talk:Vedic period#Issues of Dispute by Indoscope, to have more sources.

Sources

Dating of the Vedic Period - The article mentions the date of vedic period as ca.1750–500 BCE. A note mentions that "Philological and linguistic evidence indicates that the Rigveda, the oldest of the Vedas, was composed roughly between 1700 and 1100 BCE, also referred to as the early Vedic period." This view is contrary to several other scholars' research which should also be included. Subhash Kak first in his 1987 paper in the Indian Journal of History of Science - "On the chronology of ancient India", put the presence of Vedic people in India in 4th millennium BCE. Subhash Kak in his later paper "Knowledge of Planets in the Third Millennium BC" puts vedic people prior to 3000 BCE. In fact a much later text Vedanga Jyotisha is dated to about 1350 BCE. Similar observation about dating of Veedanga Jyotisha is made in his paper "Astronomy of the Vedic Alters" Subhash Kak in his paper "On the Chronological Framework for Indian Culture" states "Several departments of the Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, Texas organized on September 19, 1998 a day-long debate to consider the question of the earliest Indian chronology, especially as it pertains to the nineteenth century notion of Aryan invasions. At the end of the debate the moderator concluded that there was no evidence for any immigration/invasion into India in the prehistoric period and the Indian civilization must be viewed as an unbroken tradition that goes back to the earliest period of the Sindhu-Sarasvati(or Indus) tradition (7000 or 8000 BC). Analyzing the astronomical evidence alone, Sengupta in 1947 came up with the following chronology for the references in the texts: the Vedic Samhitas, 4000-2500 BC; Brahman. as, 2500-1000 BC; Baudhayana Srauta Sutra, 900 BC; and so on. My own analysis of the astronomy gives three phases Rigvedic astronomy: 4000 - 2000 BC,The astronomy of the Brahman. as: 2000 - 1000 BC, Early Siddhantic and early Puranic astronomy: 1000 BC - 500 AD, The date of Vedanga Jyotisha of Lagadha is 1300 BC, thus placing it in the Brahmana age." S A Paramhans in his 1987 paper "A Fresh Glimse on the Date of Mahabharata" gives the 3102 BCE date for the Mahabharata War based on epigraphic evidence. Hence by conclusion Rig Veda cannot belong to 1500 BCE Subhash Kak in his paper "The Mahabharata and the Sindhu-Sarasvati Tradition" says: The Epic and Puranic evidence on the geographical situation supports the notion of the shifting of the centre of the Vedic world from the Sarasvati to the Ganga region in early second millennium BC. O.P. Bharadwaj’s excellent study of the Vedic Sarasvati using textual evidence12 supports the theory that the Rgveda is to be dated about 3000 BC and the Mahabharata War must have occurred about that time. The Mahabharata clearly belongs to a heroic age, prior to the rise of the complexity of urban life. The weapons used are mythical or clubs. The narrative of chariots could be a later gloss added in the first millennium BC. The pre-urban core events of the Epic[Mahabharata] would fit the 3137 BC date much better than the 1924 BC. But this would suggest that the Puranic tradition at a later time conflated earlier events with the destructive earthquakes of 1924 BC and remembered the later event accurately using the centennial Saptarsi calendar. The Indic kings of West Asia are descendents of Vedic people who moved West after the catastrophe of 1924 BC. Kazanas in his paper "The Rigveda pre-dates the Sarasvati Sindhu culture" states Brāhmaṇa explications of rigvedic brief allusions and the teachers lists in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad suggest the passing of very many centuries from the composition of the RV hymns. These postrigvedic texts can be assigned to the end of the 4th millennium on astronomical considerations and the beginning of the 3rd. Finally, the palaeoastronomical examination of star and planet allusions in the Mahābhārata suggest dates c 3000 or little after. All such considerations suggest a RV of many centuries earlier. Thus, since the SSC (=Sarasvati-Sindhu Culture) arises c3000 and the RV knows nothing of its important features, then its composition must be placed several centuries earlier. Since the river Sarasvatī was flowing to the ocean only before 3200, and the RV knows it as such, then its bulk must be assigned at c3800-3500. Kazanas in the paper "A new date for Rigveda" concludes:- The date 3100 BCE is the one given by the native tradition of India for the compilation of the RV. The tradition seems to be correct.I have also adduced Seidenberg’s independent evidence suggesting that the Mathematics contained in the Sulba suutras was known in the latter half of the 3rd millenneum. Many Scholars have concluded that Vedic is older than Avestan but article implies contrary view - The article mentions that "The Indo-Aryans were a branch of the Indo-Iranians... The Indo-Aryans split-off around 1800–1600 BCE from the Iranians. .. the Vedic people, [who] were pursued by the Iranians "across the Near East to the Levant (the lands of the eastern Mediterranean littoral), across Iran into India." Kazanas in his paper "Vedic and Avestan" concludes "In this essay I examine independent linguistic evidence, often provided by iranianists like R. Beekes, and arrive at the conclusion that the Avesta, even its older parts (the gāθās), is much later than the Ṛgveda. Also, of course, that Vedic is more archaic than Avestan and that it was not the Indoaryans who moved away from the common Indo-Iranian habitat into the Region of the Seven Rivers, but the Iranians broke off and eventually settled and spread in ancient Iran. Talageri in his book "The Rigveda and the Avesta: the final evidence" concludes that Avesta belongs to late Rig-vedic period. "The evidence of the Avestan meters confirms to the hilt the conclusions compelled by the evidence of the Avestan names: namely, that Zaraθuštra, the first and earliest composer of the Avesta, is contemporaneous with the Late Period and Books of the Rigveda (notably with the non-family Books), that the Early and Middle Books of the Rigveda precede the period of composition of the Avesta, and that the ―Indo-Iranian‖ culture common to the Rigveda and the Avesta is a product of the Late Rigvedic Period." Kak in his paper "Vedic Elements in the Ancient Iranian Religion of Zarathushtra" states: The chronological framework presented by the parallels between the Zoroastrian and the Vedic systems is in consonance with the idea that the Vedic people have been in India since at least 5000 BC, as confirmed by the astronomical references in the Vedic texts and the absence of archaeological evidence regarding influx of people into India after that time. The Pur¯an. as speak of the Vedic people in Jambudvıpa and beyond the Himalayas in the north in Uttara-Kuru. It appears that subsequent to the collapse of the Sarasvati-river based economy around 1900 BC, groups of Indians moved West and that might have been responsible for the Aryanization of Iran if it wasn’t Aryanized earlier. This movement seems to be correlated with the presence of the Indic Kassites and the Mitannis in West Asia. The Evidence of Sarasvati - Vedic Indigenism. Sarasvati was the most important Rigvedic river. Harappan civilization also flourished along this river. Sarasvati is believed to have dried up in 1900 BCE in India. This places both the Vedic civilization before 1900 BCE and in the N-W region of India. Several scholars have written about this but the conclusion from their research is missing in the article. It should also be included to make the article balanced. Danino in his book The Lost River: On The Trail of the Sarasvati, published in 2010, presents numerous pieces of evidence from topographic exploration, geological and climatological studies, satellite imagery, and isotope analyses, to support the view that the dried up riverbed of the Ghaggar-Hakra was indeed the legendary Sarasvati River mentioned in Rigveda and that this river once sustained the great Indus Valley Civilization, which flourished between 3500 and 1900 BC. A V Shankaran in his article "Saraswati – the ancient river lost in the desert" mentions Rig veda describes it as one of seven major rivers of Vedic times, the others being, Shatadru (Sutlej), Vipasa (Beas), Askini (Chenab), Parsoni or Airavati (Ravi), Vitasta (Jhelum) and Sindhu (Indus)1,3,4 (Figure 1). For full 2000 years (between 6000 and 4000 BC), Saraswati had flowed as a great river before it was obliterated in a short span of geological time through a combination of destructive natural events. K S Vaidya in his article The River Saraswati was a Himalayan-born river and not simply a monsoon born river on this foothills of Shivaliks. Regarding drying up of Sarasvati he states "Changes that have taken place and are taking place on the surface of the Earth, are not all due to the increase and decrease of rainfall resulting from climate change. Rainfall is not the only decisive factor. There are equally, if not more powerful, factors that are working such as tectonic activities. The Saraswati domain experienced recurrent neotectonic activities, often very powerful. " Indoscope (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC) References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Though I do agree with Witzel that it may be a "torturous task"... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I will pray for your sanity!

The Dhavalikar article, Dhavalikar, M. K. (2006). "Archaeology of the Aryans". Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 87: 1–37. JSTOR 41692043. which you are yet to get from me, says this: "If the Harappans were Aryans, they would certainly have depicted it on their seals which otherwise show the entire animal world including even such gruesome creatures as rhinoceros and hippopotamus. The fact that horse is conspicuously absent on Harappan seals settles the issue and we can be sure that the Harappans had no horse." He identifies the Rigvedic Aryans with the Cemetry H culture and dates it to 2000-1500BC.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 25 January 2015

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Jamison's quote

"The Indo-Aryan controversy" is about the revisionist/Indigenous Aryans scenarios. To state "no mention of indigenous aryans" is factually correct, but misses the point. The book itself is, so the review is too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Vedic Sanskrit conserves many archaic aspects

This looks like OR to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have certainly seen this mentioned. You can tag it with "citation needed" and I will fill it in when I find the reference. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Scenarios

Section

So, what's wrong with this section? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the citation, he is not claiming revisionism of any Aryan theory but Ashokan scripts. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You have the source for this article and can't find mention of the Aryan theory? That is surprising. But there are other articles where Witzel gave the same classification. I will dig one up. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Found it. {{sfn|Witzel|2001|p=28}}. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It has mention of these names but not actually interpreting like it is suggested here, and a little bit out of the scope when we are talking about revisionist scenarios. Also he is an opponent of this theory thus he is NPOV or going to measure both sides. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bladesmulti.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 12:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Blades, it's not clear to me what you mean. The reference is correct. And "NPOV"? You're suggesting Witzel is biased because he's doing his job as a scholar? Wikipedia is based on RS, remember? Tagging any criticism of "indigenous Aryanism" as NPOV is not an argument, but derailing the discussion with non-arguments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see any evidence that Witzel is predisposed to be an "opponent" of the theory. In fact, he even says on the page I cited that all the European countries have been subjected to the same kind of invasion/migration by the Indo-European tribes that India has experienced, and wonders why Indians should feel so hard done by it. I don't see anything in his attitudes that might affect his rationality. So, as far as we are concerned, he is a scholar and expert. If he has genuine scholarly disagreement, that is not an "opposition." Kautilya3 (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

And, if I might add, this is a completely different ball game from India's Leftist historians engaging in Hindu-bashing in the name of "secularism." There, you can call it an "opposition," and I would agree. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks synthesis and he is not the best citation to talk about this theory because he is the opponent, and Elst says that Witzel has misinterpreted stuff.[8] If it is about reliability, then a lot of times, Witzel has not supported mainstream but made his own speculations and discarded others. Klaus K. Klostermaier also described[9] that.[10] So there is little credibility in what Michael Witzel is saying, that's why basing much of the article on his analysis is not neutral and it would look like an attack page instead. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: We are not going to censor Witzel just because some people don't like him, but we are not stopping you from editing the article! Feel free to add other points of view coherently following the ground rules of Wikipedia (using reliable sources). One tricky bit here is that Indo-European Studies is based on linguistics and archaeology. According to Jamison, linguistics is primary and archaeology plays a supporting role. So, Hinduism scholars are no good for the enterprise, Klaus Kostermaier included. Bryant is borderline. He is not a linguist, but he seems to have at least some basic exposure to it. The Kazanas debate is a big boondoggle [11], and I don't want to get into it. You should stay away from non-peer-reviewed articles.

What I mean by coherent is that you and your sources need to answer the kind of questions that I raised. If PIE reached Anatolia in 4000BC and India is supposed to be the PIE homeland, what were these PIE speakers doing in 4000BC? Why did they bother going to Anatolia while they were living in IVC, which was an economic superpower of the times, and while South India and even Gangetic plains still remained to be explored? If your sources don't have answers to such basic issues, they are basically selling snake oil. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not censoring to remove sythensis per a policy. We can insert him at criticism but not analyze in his words because he is major opponent of the theory, and such view is being discussed. If his views are supported by any other scholar of the same field, we can insert them instead and not the yahoo group weblink that you have provided. Right now the article clearly misinterprets the cited citations. None of them offers any of those 3 scenarios, neither Witzel himself says that this theory misrepresents IAM as IMT, he only says that they 'nearly' redirect to invasion theory. Klaus is a scholar of Indian religions. Neither of the theories of hypothesis have any acceptance, because there is no firm evidence of migrations and that is what others usually agree with. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to argue synthesis, please feel free to state what has been synthesized, and leave out issues about Witzel and credibility. And, remember too that synthesis is not prohibited, only synthesis that constitutes OR is prohibited. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Blades, but Elst has no reputation whatsoever, and Klostermaier is dubious too. And to state that "Witzel has not supported mainstream but made his own speculations and discarded others" and "there is little credibility in what Michael Witzel is saying" - Witzel defines the mainstream! It's the other way round: if Witzel criticises Kazanas and the likes, it's relevant.
And to state "Neither of the theories of hypothesis have any acceptance, because there is no firm evidence of migrations and that is what others usually agree with" is nonsense. The IAMt is widely accepted. Read Anthony "The Horse, the Wheel and Language" for a detailed overview, and Witzel's 2001 and 2005 criticisms of the indigenous Aryans thesis. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Edwin Bryant criticizes Witzel's logic in the book Indo-Aryan Controversy, for example on page 477, 480 etc.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Bringing down other scholars in order to push another favorite scholar is largely unhelpful and not a good justification, it is still not adhering to Wikipedia:BIASED, you think of inserting these stuff, OR and synth in regards to Michael Witzel, a controversial writer that cannot be actually considered as an authority and happens to be incorrect at times. His book is not even as recent compared to Klaus. It is also obvious that majority of the scholars neither accepts Indigenous Aryans or IAM when they are talking about Vedic period. Also the last BBC article clarifies it better that the non-controversial model is better than the controversial, most of the scholars don't believe in any of these two hypothesis for maintaining historicity or origins, they provide that it is one of the widely accept idea but not a universal idea. They are rather talking about the acceptance among other theories. E.g. Upinder Singh writes that IAM is the most accepted hypothesis in the field, but also says that it is still uncertain and scholars need to establish a lot better methodology before coming up. We don't even know a single name of a person from these events and you actually happen to believe on these hypothesis if they are facts? Bladesmulti (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Blades, I'm afraid that I have to agree with Florian Baschke that your understanding is too limited here.

• Witzel is a top-scholar, and a major authority on this topic;
• Klostermaier is of a less calibre; as a Dutch writer wrote (paraphrased): 'someone who speaks about the usage of iron and domesticated horses at 30,000 BCE, can't be taken to serious on other topics either';
• It is completely obvious that the majority of scholars accepts the IAMt, that is, the migration of Indo-European out of the Pontic steppe; the only other srious contender is the Anatolian hypothesis. Mallory & Adams (2006), The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World:

"Currently, there are two types of models that enjoy signiWcant international currency (Map 26.1). (p.460)

There is the Neolithic model that involves a wave of advance from Anatolia c. 7000 bc and, at least for south-eastern and central Europe, argues primarily for the importation of a new language by an ever growing population of farmers. (p.460)

Alternatively, there is the steppe or kurgan model which sees the Proto-IndoEuropeans emerging out of local communities in the forest-steppe of the Ukraine and south Russia. Expansion westwards is initiated c. 4000 bc by the spread from the forest-steppe of mobile communities who employed the horse and, within the same millennium, wheeled vehicles." (p.461)

• I don't read Flood mentioning anyhting about "controversial", or "most of the scholars don't believe in any of these two hypothesis." He does notice, though:

"There are two sources of knowledge about this ancient period - language and archaeology - and we can make two comments about them.

Firstly, the language of vedic culture was vedic Sanskrit, which is related to other languages in the Indo-European language group. This suggests that Indo-European speakers had a common linguistic origin known by scholars as Proto-Indo-European.

Secondly, there does seem to be archaeological continuity in the subcontinent from the Neolithic period. The history of this period is therefore complex. One of the key problems is that no horse remains have been found in the Indus Valley but in the Veda the horse sacrifice is central. The debate is ongoing."

• Singh's comment, "IAM is the most accepted hypothesis in the field", does make sense.
• Your comment "We don't even know a single name of a person from these events and you actually happen to believe on these hypothesis if they are facts?" is nonsensical, for two reasons:

• There are names from these events, in the Rg Veda, namely Indo-European and non-Indo-European. it shows that the Vedic people were a socially "open group," which allowed for the inclusion of new persons. They were accepted when they adhered to the Vedic rituals and social organisation, as explained by Anthony. This is also an explanation for the question why small groups can have a strong influence: because their social organisation is more succesfull.
• I don't "believe" that hypotheses are "facts" (the hypothesis itself is, of course); I understand that theories provide an explanatory framework, from which hypotheses can be derived which can be tested; and I find, personally, that the hypotheses of the IEMt and the IAMt are convincing, in contrast to the IAt. And I note, and that's not a matter of believe but simply a matter of fact, that the IEMt/IAMt, including a migration from a non-Indian "homeland", is the accepted framework, whereas the IAt is completely rejected by the academic mainstream.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Florian didn't even know that I was reading the book that he had referred, he got it later.

Witzel is not an authority in this field, he is experienced but we cannot base every matter according to him. Where did that Dutch writer said it? Provide a link if there is any credibility. IAt is completely rejected which was often described and still described with IAM. But IAM is not universally accepted and seems to have been losing it. Gavin Flood doubts and alerts against the Indo Aryan migration, where he represents no dispute against the other model that remains non-controversial. Thus most of your quotes have to do nothing with Wikipedia:BIASED, or Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS, use your own words and make relevant on the subject. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Edwin Bryant criticizes Witzel's logic in the book Indo-Aryan Controversy, for example on page 477, 480 etc.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The disciplinary framework

Since Joshua is making a serious effort to explain what is going on in this debate, I am going to add my two cents too, this time regarding how the academic disciplines play a role here (because I work in a University and interact with people from a variety of disciplines and know something about how they work).

• Natural sciences have developed a high degree of rigour soon after the Italian Renaissance. The other disciplines, which tend to be called, arts and later humanities, don't have such rigour, partly because the subject matter itself is "subjective" or because collecting evidence to test hypotheses is too hard or impossible. They end up using ideas like "interpretation", "analysis", "synthesis" etc. to promote theories, which are essentially points of view, but the proponents are usually required to provide as much evidence as possible in support of their theories. Multiple contradictory theories exist side by side and they succeed or fail over time based on the natural selection of ideas in the academic enterprise.
• However, by mid 20-the century, a few subfields of humanities have developed new methods of rigour and eventually turned into what are called "social sciences." Economics is a great example of this phenomenon, but the dividing lines between the subjective side of the discipline and the rigorous side of the discipline are not always clear cut. They use labels like "political economics" and "econometrics" to distinguish the two sides. History and Archaeology show a similar distinction. Languages and Linguistics are similarly divided. Religious studies or Cultural studies on the one hand and Sociology on the other are equally divided.
• The subjects that have a bearing on the Indo-European Studies are linguistics and archaeology, both of which are highly technical disciplines which require serious study and training. I see people from Religious Studies or History or Languages often dabbling in it, but they don't really understand enough of the technical side to do anything serious. The scholars in the Indo-European Studies are often dismissive of them (not because they dislike them but just because the humanities people don't know enough to say sensible things).
• Linguistics, especially Indo-European linguistics, apparently starts with our own Panini. Indians should have been at the forefront of linguistics because of their natural advantage. But apparently they got disheartened as soon as it was discovered that Sanskrit wasn't the "queen" of Indo-European languages and gave up studying it. So, at the moment, Indians are at a serious disadvantage for saying anything sensible in Indo-European Studies. They are "linguistic dilettantes" in Edwin Bryant's words.
• Edwin Bryant did his PhD on the Indo-Aryan Migration Debate but, surprisingly, didn't follow it up. I don't see any publications by him in the area. By 2001, when the Indigenous Aryanists invaded the Internet, it seemed opportune for him to publish his PhD work. But there is no original research there, just surveying the field and summarising. There aren't any more publications by him after 2001 either. He doesn't seem to be either a linguist or an archaeologist. So, it is not clear what he can do in the field either.
• The Indigenous Aryanists are surprisingly amateur. Retired engineers, blank clerks, unemployed PhD's, and what have you. Their theories don't even make a beginning. They can't get anything published in scientific journals. But they have millions of Hindu nationalists cheering for them and promoting them on the Internet. So they think they can bulldoze their way into the world by "muscle" rather than by brain power. Intelligent Indians and Hindus, like me, are truly embarrassed by this state of affairs. Hindu nationalists simply don't realize how they are making total fools of themselves. If they have something interesting to say, they should do the hard work by studying the fields at issue, getting PhD's, and publishing their ideas in scientific journals. Science will never allow itself to be defeated by pure muscle power.

Kautilya3 (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum. You are ignoring every other scholar who has refuted Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis this is not the way to reach some agreement, neither evaluating that how much 'studies' they require. I ask you to make relevant conversation that we cannot explain a hypothesis as a fact because Wikipedia:FRINGE says that "It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact." There is no science in a hypothesis that is based on linguistics, nor you can see a single scientist who believes in these hypothesis. Misinterpretating IAM hypothesis as science for giving extra push is unhelpful. While former,[12] Aryan theory from and Aryan Invasion theory are considered as pseudoscience, science(DNA tests) actually disapproves the AMT hypothesis,[13] probably that's why there is no mention of this theory or claims that it is legitimate since the end of 2011.[14] The main point is that why we are misinterpreting Witzel and even using him as a citation when he is the major opponent of this theory, it is a violation of Wikipedia:BIASED. Can we find something better? Bladesmulti (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand most of what you are trying to say. Hopefully, Joshua understands it and gives you a response. But I will pick up one point: You are ignoring every other scholar who has refuted Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis. Show us a scholar that has published in the Journal of Indo-European Studies or the Indo-Iranian Journal (the primary fora for research about Indo-European issues), and we will take them seriously. As far as I know, Kazanas is the only one that has attempted to do so (Journal of Indo-European Studies Volume 30, 2002). His paper was so whacky that J. P. Mallory decided to accept it for publication without peer review, and invited 6 other people to give responses. All of them dismissed it (Bryant mildly so), and nobody ever referred to it again. So, he didn't even make a dent in scholarly consensus. We are supposed to describe scholarly consensus here. That consensus has to be generated by your scholars, not by us. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Again this is not a forum. It is clearly understandable that what I am talking about. I was talking about your misinterpretation of a hypothesis as a science for providing it extra push which is actually against the Wikipedia:FRINGE policy about interpreting unscientific theories/hypothesis. Publications by Routledge, ABC - CLIO, Oxford University, etc. speaks enough, and since you have already found one scholar who published in that journal, I wouldn't bother finding more because it serves no purpose for higher credibility. Can you find the citations instead of telling stories and answer the above issues? Bladesmulti (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven't written anything in this article. Joshua is writing it and you are disputing it. And, this article is not about Indo-Aryan Migration anyway. So what are you on about? In the other article on Indo-Aryan Migration "hypothesis" (as the article is currently titled), he never said that it was a "hypothesis" because none of his sources that it was a hypothesis. He is exactly following Wikipedia policies about sources. They are well-established books written by authorities in the field and widely accepted. So, once again, what are you on about? Kautilya3 (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Amount of citations are almost same, whether they calls it theory or hypothesis. I was talking about why we are using Witzel as a citation or base of this theory, misinterpreting him, when he has provided most of the arguments one sided. It is enough for criticism. Also the to make this page look very contradictory to other theory, it it reading like "AMT is better than this" when neither are scientific or have been settled. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Blaed, are you seriously suggesting that the IAMt is fringe? The iAMt is scientific. Witzel is a top-authority. The IAMt is not "refuted"; only some non-scholars think so. Read these quote again, from Mallory & Adams (2006), The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World:

"Currently, there are two types of models that enjoy signiWcant international currency (Map 26.1)." (p.460)

"There is the Neolithic model that involves a wave of advance from Anatolia c. 7000 bc and, at least for south-eastern and central Europe, argues primarily for the importation of a new language by an ever growing population of farmers." (p.460)

"Alternatively, there is the steppe or kurgan model which sees the Proto-IndoEuropeans emerging out of local communities in the forest-steppe of the Ukraine and south Russia. Expansion westwards is initiated c. 4000 bc by the spread from the forest-steppe of mobile communities who employed the horse and, within the same millennium, wheeled vehicles." (p.461)

Regarding Kazanas: do you actually understand what Kautilya3 is communicating here? Let's repeat:

"His paper was so whacky that J. P. Mallory decided to accept it for publication without peer review, and invited 6 other people to give responses. All of them dismissed it (Bryant mildly so), and nobody ever referred to it again. So, he didn't even make a dent in scholarly consensus."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Why you are copying same quotations that you have already repeated once? when most of it is clearly irrelevant including Kautilya3's comment.

Witzel cannot be considered neutral for analyzing Indigenous Aryans per Wikipedia:BIASED.

Per Wikipedia:FRINGE says that "It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact." and IAMh is not scientific neither you can find a scientist who will claim that, just like you have been asked before. I had also asked you to provide the link/citation of the unknown Dutch person that you had cited for degrading the credibility of Klaus. Iamt is refuted enough times and that's why it is not a universal theory. By misinterpreting its status as science is not helpful because there is no scientific proof of it. It is contradictory to the genetic studies and actually accepted early human migration. Which is just more than a hypothesis. Now I see that scholars have already started to note that Indo Ayran Migration is declining.[15] How about we stick to it? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm repeating them because I hope that some you will understand what's being stated there. I can't access the page you're referring to, but I dare to be quite sure that a book on "A Communication Perspective on Interfaith Dialogue" does not have the same status in this field as a book by Mallory. Blades, please knock it off now. We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, not to provide a forum for fringe-theories. To suggest that the IAMt is not peer-reviewed - ... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

But it is irrelevant and nothing to do with this discussion. That book has no mention of a horse, forget about 30,000. Have you read the policy or at least one of the sentence around it? It says "Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community." That is what I was saying. Bladesmulti (talk)

Fringe Theories Noticeboard notification. Bladesmulti (talk)

Kazanas

I read a bit of Kazanas's paper last night and his "final reply". (Will need the paper volume to get hold of the critiques.) But the important bit is that Kazanas's meaning of "indigenous Aryans" is that Aryans entered the Indus Valley before 4500 BC and got integrated with Harappans (or may be they were the Harappans). I don't know why he has to call this theory "indigenous Aryans." But, for us, this gives a new interpretation of "indigenous Aryans" that we have to consider, in addition to the three interpretations that Witzel lists. I think we have to give Kazanas's interpretation due prominence here, because it is the only properly academic source that the indigenists have. (It was good enough to get published in JIES, at least with special concessions.) Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. You can show here whenever you have the link. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Indigenous Indo-Aryans and the Rigveda. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Kazanas should certainly get more mention but that which you are quoting is an old work by Kazanas in which he says "In this paper I argue that the Indo-Aryans (IA hereafter) are indigenous from at least 4500 (all dates are BCE except when otherwise stated) and possibly 7000.". For his more recent paper read 'The Collapse of the AIT and the prevalence of Indigenism'.Indoscope (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh my... That paper starts with a map which is utterly, completely wrong. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll read it. I'll copy it to my e-reader - if I get through it... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Indoscope: Was this paper published? If so, where? Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

And maybe I won't... I'm going to play chess now with my daughter; much more fun. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Mallory and Bryant

I previously gave a weblink to a yahoo groups post [16] for Mallory's editorial note on the Kazanas paper. I now have the source and can confirm that the yahoo groups post is accurate. Curiously, he also quotes a paragraph from Bryant, which seems topical in the light of our recent discussions:

"This does not mean that the Indigenous Aryan position is historically probable. The available evidence by no means denies the normative view—that of external Aryan origins and, if anything, favors it. But this view has had more than its fair share of airing over the last two centuries, and the Indigenous Aryan position has been generally ignored or marginalized. What it does mean, in my view, is that Indigenous Aryanism must be allowed a legitimate and even valuable place in discussions of Indo-Aryan origins."

So the Indo-Aryan migration view is the "normative view." The indigenist view had been "marginalized." So, it should be "allowed" in the debate. It does not mean any acceptance that the indigenist view is "probable." How different this is from what we have been led to believe here, viz., that Bryant has supported the indigenist view and that the migration view has now become a fringe view?

Also found on the same page of Bryant is this sentence:

"Vedantic discourse, for one, would consider nationalism (whether Hindu, American, English, or anything else) to be simply another upadhi, or false designation, imposed on the atman out of ignorance ("Hindu nationalism" from this perspective, is something of an oxymoron)."

It is an upadhi, born out of "ignorance." How enlightening! Kautilya3 (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Balance

We need to eventually balance the treatment in the article by separating the proposed theories and their criticisms. Right now, I feel that the criticisms come too quickly. This is probably one of the things that Bladesmulti is probably trying to argue. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. That's why started to read those texts by Elst etc., to see what their arguments are. I'm sure I don't agree with them, but to know for sure, I'll have to read those texts too. And Blades, you know me well enough to know that I'll present their arguments is a fair way - though I'll also give the counter-arguments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Edwin Bryant's "Concluding Remarks" (chapter 14) in Indo-Aryan Controversy is a good source of balance. Also archaeologist Jim G. Shaffer is a good source.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. More input is welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please refer to this statement by Upinder Singh "The original homeland of the Indo-Euorpeans and Indo-Aryans is the subject of continuing debate among philologists, linguists, historians, archaeologists and others. The dominant view is that the Indo-Aryans came to the subcontinent as immigrants. Another view, advocated mainly by some Indian scholars, is that they were indigenous to the subcontinent." She acknowledges that "Subhash Kak has argued that the astronomical references in the Rigveda can be dated 4000-2000 BCE". She goes on to say "The date of Rig Veda remains a problematic issue." The point is we don't know so to be encyclopedic we should recognize this. A dominant view is not necessarily the only view and it is not necessarily always correct. Dominant number of people in Europe disagreed with Galileo when he proposed his heliocentic view. He was even arrested for it. That does not make him 'fringe' and certainly not wrong.. Refer to Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute for bringing in balance.Indoscope (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the scope of this article, I'd welcome a section on Kak. but please do notice of the following: in 2002 Kazanas was allowed to publish in "The Journal of Indo-European Studies", probably the only publication by an "Indigenist" in the JIES. Mallory, editor of the Journal of Indo-European Studies, and emeritus professor at Queen's University, Belfast, and a member of the Royal Irish Academy, introduced this with an explanation, in which he stated:

Many regard the scholarship of the Indigenous Indo-Aryan camp so seriously flawed that it should not be given an airing [...] I indicated that I thought it would be unlikely that any referee would agree with [Kazanas'] conclusions [...]"

Michael Witzel commented, "It is certain that Kazanas, now that he is published in JIES, will be quoted endlessly by Indian fundamentalists and nationalists as "a respected scholar published in major peer-reviewed journals like JIES" -- no matter how absurd his claims are known to be by specialist readers of those journals. It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars."

Mallory also quoted a paragraph from Bryant:

This does not mean that the Indigenous Aryan position is historically probable. The available evidence by no means denies the normative view—that of external Aryan origins and, if anything, favors it. But this view has had more than its fair share of airing over the last two centuries, and the Indigenous Aryan position has been generally ignored or marginalized. What it does mean, in my view, is that Indigenous Aryanism must be allowed a legitimate and even valuable place in discussions of Indo-Aryan origins."

So, those theories are not really favoured by mainstream science. But anyway, that's what this article is for: to give an overview, whithout burning them down right-away. Does the lay-out I've chosen now "work"? For each (sub)topic: theoretical background, "Indigenous" arguments, counter-argument? It's not he "best" lay-out qua readability, I'm afraid, but it may be the most balanced. What do you think? Peace, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Continuity vs. immigration

I suspect that part of the confusion surrounding the issue is the misunderstanding that the mainstream model somehow implies a more-or-less complete replacement of the pre-existing population, at least in the northern part of the subcontinent. Any amount of archaeological and genetic continuity is of course not to be expected in such a "catastrophic" scenario. But I don't know anybody who actually supports such a scenario. Even the most ardent invasionists probably did and do not. Even among white supremacists as encountered on Stormfront and various "human biodiversity" forums such a view would be considered ridiculous from what I've observed. Everybody seems to agree that any migration wave would eventually have merged into the pre-existing population, though not without significantly (even profoundly) affecting the cultural, linguistic and genetic landscape, and resulting in a sort of mixed culture. Mutual lexical influence and typological (especially phonetic) convergence with the Dravidian languages have long been taken as linguistic evidence for intense contact and cross-cultural merger of Indo-Aryans with native populations. Hell, the Nazis explicitly acknowledged the Indians as a mixed population in order to explain their decidedly non-Nordic appearance. How could replacement lead to a racially mixed population, I wonder? If we look at analogous medieval or modern events such as the Magyarisation of (previously Slavic-speaking, and perhaps partly Romance-speaking) Pannonia, the Turkification of Anatolia or the Hispanification of Central and much of South America we see exactly that, relatively small groups of invaders or immigrant populations overwhelming the natives, but eventually mixing with them to such an extent that diverse "melting-pots" just like India arise. In Mexico, the majority of the population is actually Mestizo, and Nahuatl as well as various other indigenous languages are still spoken in sometimes significant numbers! Mexican culture is equally acknowledged as heavily mixed, with strong pre-Columbian elements. Nothing could be farther from the "replacement" scenario, and there is no reason to give it credence. After all, in South Asia too, there are several indigenous families of languages, and traces of even more in the form of substrate influence, which Witzel, among others, has examined (his writings on the subject are available online), and these are by no means limited to the south. Just like Mexican culture is heavily indebted to Aztec, Maya and other indigenous Mesoamerican cultures, so is it highly likely that the role of pre-Aryan South Asian cultures was highly significant in the development of ancient Indic culture(s) as well. I'm not sure if the replacement scenario is the result of honest confusion or a straw-man erected to combat the migration consensus. After all, at least part of the Hindutva movement seems to be equally uncomfortable with a mixing scenario and just as obsessed with (cultural as well as racial?) "purity" than white supremacists. But some sympathetic observers who are under the impression that Indo-Aryan migration is designed to deny the originality and validity of South Asian culture somehow and to portray it as derivative of white European culture, that the Indosphere is thus entirely dependent on white achievements and in this way inferior, which would explain the "white academics are trying to keep the brown man down using the Aryan invasion club" sentiment, appear to be honestly mistaken in this way.

A side-note regarding the placement of the ultimate Indo-European homeland – curiously, the Anatolian hypothesis, which archaeologists are so fond of, has its major weakness in the exact problem of accounting for the origin of the Indo-Iranian languages; it doesn't seem to have a scenario how Anatolian farmers spread to the adjacent Iranian Plateau and to South Asia (inconveniently, they cannot have been those who introduced farming there, as Mehrgarh as well as Jhusi was already in the Neolithic ca. 7000 BC, when the expansion out of Anatolia was supposedly only beginning, and the Neolithic on the Iranian Plateau is similarly old or even older), nor, crucially, can it plausibly account for the deep, old and continuous contacts of Indo-Iranian with Uralic as evidenced by loanwords in Proto-Uralic and later stages, as Jaakko Häkkinen has pointed out. This is, incidentally, an even greater problem for OIT, but it makes perfect sense with the steppe homeland. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Indigenous Aryan Discussion on RISA-L: The Complete Text

I jus found this page, Linda Hess, The Indigenous Aryan Discussion on RISA-L: The Complete Text (to 10/28/96). It's an extended, scholarly discussion in which Edwin Bryant also participates. I've read only a few parts so far, but it looks very interesting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Lost River

The page The Lost River is about a book by Michel Danino that fits into the topic of thi page. I have called it a fringe theory topic and asked for material to be included on the page, which would not have been needed otherwise. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:The Lost River#Danino, Kazanas & mainstream scholarship, which might give us a better idea of what it means to work with a fringe theory label. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem is probably solved by now. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wishful thinking. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Became true. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What does Elst conclude regarding OIT?

Does Elst actually conclude that the OIT is correct? Or does he merely propese it, as a theoretical possibility? Anybody read the book? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Bryant, his article in The Indo-Aryan Controversy Quest for the Origins, it was an entirely theoretical exercise. I can dig up the quote later. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I just added a quote from 1999 to the article. Surprising, isn't it? Bryant is "agnostic", Elst only describes the point of view of others, just like Danino. What's left? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Elst supports the Indigenous theory but also talks about the other views and how they are disputed, same with Danino. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(Response by Kautilya3:)

• Lopez's review of Quest for the Origins says: Bryant presents Elst's PIE-in-India hypothesis as "a purely theoretical linguistic exercise . . . as an experiment to determine whether India can definitively be excluded as a possible homeland. If it cannot, then this further problematizes the posssibility of a homeland ever being established anywhere on linguistic grounds" (p. 147).
• In Indo-Aryan Controversy (p. 468), he says Elst, perhaps more in a mood of devil’s advocacy, toys with the evidence to show how it can be reconfigured, and to claim that no linguistic evidence has yet been produced to exclude India as a homeland that cannot be reconfigured to promote it as such.

I was quite surprised to hear that Elst was engaging in theoretical exercises. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Indo-Iranian migrations according to Kazanas. Source: Kazanas (2013), The Collapse of the AIT

So, what's left? Kazanas? See map, from a self-published paper. Kak? "It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars." Michel Danino? Nope; he does not state that "[T]he simplest and most natural conclusion is that the Vedic culture was present in the region in the third millennium" is also the correct conclusion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now we are getting to the bottom of this. My guess is that the "mainstream" indigenist view is what we have called the Kazanas' view in the article, i.e., they want to claim that the Indo-Aryans were in the Indus Valley in the 4th millennium BC or perhaps earlier, so that the IVC becomes Vedic. They are not particularly concerned about what happened before, or what happened in the rest of the world. The reason for this particular position is what Maunus would call "religious", the Rig Veda says Saraswati was a grand river, the astronomical references talk about 4000 BC, and the Mahabharata war was supposed to have happend in 3107 BC (writing from memory). So, the main concern is the preservation of religious veracity. Klaus Klostermaier put it in black and white. See the updates I made to his page last night. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. That's why we originally had two separate articles "Indigenous Aryans" and "Out of India theory". These are really two separate concepts. The second accepts the concept of I-E migration, but simply reverses the standard model, depicting "Aryans" expanding out of India to bring their language to the benighted peoples of less happier lands. The indigenous model simply insists that the Vedic peoples were there for some unspecified degree of venerable antiquity before the Vedas were written. Some have tried to appropriate the Anatolian model to bring IE into India at a sufficiently ancient date. Others clkaim that there is no such thing as IE. Paul B (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, your "guess". Nice working conclusion; worth to preserve for future reference. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Talageri and Kak should be re-arranged as such, under these themes, in the section "Further arguments" (to be renamed "Thematic arguments"). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Kak was a good addition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

So, evidently, this is an attack by "Hindus" (the self-appointed upholders of Hinduism) on the historians and academics, claiming to know better history than them. Apparently, Hinduism scholars in other parts of the world have been recruited into the enterprise as well, not just the Hindus of the motherland. Some sobering advice from Rajiv Malhotra: Personally, I think it is wiser to refute the Aryan migration (yes, migration is just as harmful as invasion) theory without trying to replace it with an alternative out-of-India theory. That way you don't arm the opponents with an opportunity to attack. What matters is removing the prevailing Aryan theory, and in fact, explaining it as the result of 19th century European racism and nationalism that culminated in Nazism. For a theory to be refuted, it is not required that one must supply an alternative theory--an important point. So let's avoid over-ambition.[17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs)

The book "Breaking India" extensively quotes historians and academic sources. There is no "attack by "Hindus" (the self-appointed upholders of Hinduism) on the historians and academics".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Unless you can present a referenced quote that it is an attck by Hindus please abandon this line of argument. Is every opposing view an attack on Hindus? Let's not do this. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Attack" may indeed sound too strong, but read this User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2014#Copied from Raj Malohtra. It may sober you... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sober, you are off-topic. It is merely discussion among some yahoo group users on internet. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Whoa! @Joshua Jonathan: you are not just an organisation, you are a whole army! And, Indra will sendthunderbolts down to all your enemies! Kautilya3 (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Cool. I have often toyed with the thought myself that all the hindutva pov pushers on wiki are really Karsevaks or RSS Pracharaks sitting in a basement in Gujarat receiving orders and payment directly from Malhotra/Infinity foundation and the Modi/BJP. Interesting and indeed sobering to think they seem to enjoy the same conspiracy thinking about me. Though I wonder what interest they believe the University of Chicago has in pushing and anti-hindu agenda.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Maunus meant "swayamsevaks." In any case, the way the RSS works is a lot more organic and complicated than that. No simple command centres. Malhotra has said that he is not connected to the RSS, which is very likely true, but they are all allied at some back end. Martha C. Nussbaum's Clash Within has a good discussion of his movement. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well I actually meant just "hindu religious volunteer" whether rss or not. I dont speak Hindi of course so I just picked the terms I remembered from my discussions about the Gujarat riots. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Enough, gentleman. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Indophobic, racist and patronizing comments

The Indophobic, racist and patronizing comments need to stop.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The only one playing the race card here is you (especially ridiculous considering that one of the editors in question is Maunus of all people). Objection to religiously-based nationalist ideology has nothing to with race or "indophobia". The same objections would be made to American religious fundamentalists, biblical-literalist Zionists, for example. Paul B (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree. Race is not an issue in this debate, and we should stop branding people as racist. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Indophobic" means "fear of Indian people". One of my best friends is Indian and I'm certainly not afraid of them. The term religio-nationalist is neither racist nor "Indophobic". It is an expression of the underlying motivations of the fringe "Indogenesis theory". Bryant is a professor of religion, not of either archeology or linguistics. That should make the motivation of this movement quite clear. --Taivo (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I must also say, Victoria, looking at your talk page and user contributions, that your main interest is also religion and neither linguistics nor archeology. So, based solely on that, your motivation here also appears to be religio-nationalist. That doesn't disqualify you from making comments, but it does allow other editors to take everything you assert about archeology and linguistics with a grain of salt. You cannot get angry because those of us with clear backgrounds and Wikipedia history in historical linguistics and/or archeology take you less seriously. --Taivo (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am also not afraid of Indians. I am however concerned about religious fundamentalists of all religions and nationalities trying to substitute science with their mythological worldviews.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that Indophobia would mean "fearing Indians" does not make sense – -phobic or -phobia seldom actually mean "fearing" or "fear" nowadays; see homophobia. (However, not saying you guys are actually Indophobic in some other sense.) Of course, you guys are probably responding with some level of sarcasm, but still. — Eru·tuon 23:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Edwin Bryant:

it is now increasingly difficult for scholars of South Asia to have a cordial exchange on the matter without being branded a “Hindu nationalist”

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"Cordiality" is meaningless when religio-nationalists claim that the mainstream view has been discredited because a nonscientist like Bryant has doubts. They refuse to listen to specialists in the field because the science discredits their religio-nationalism. --Taivo (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Edwin Bryant has a PhD in Indic languages from Columbia, wrote his PhD dissertation on Aryan Migration, wrote 2 books on Aryan Migration as well as a few chapters in other books.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Guys, if there is no such attack... where and why this rush to defend against it and attack Vic here? If there is, introspect and stop. No, this is neither an attack nor a welcome message to attack me. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Off-the-Wall Comments

On the one hand, I don't see any of the comments as Indophobic (either in the original sense of fearing Indians or in the more common modern sense of disliking Indians), patronizing, or racist. Maybe I have missed something. I don't see any reason why any particular theory about the origin of Indo-European languages is necessarily either pro-Indian or anti-Indian. The Indians have, by any reasonable historical analysis, been civilized longer than the Europeans. In recent centuries, Europeans have been racist toward Indians (among others), either out of European pride or out of ignorance of India's long and proud history. That has very little to do with where a great language family that is spoken by most Indians and most Europeans originated. (Any theory that it originated in Europe is fringe even among fringe theories.)

I will point out that this subject area is covered by ArbCom discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. As the arbitrators have clarified, the ancient history of the Indian subcontinent is inextricable from the history of modern states that have too often been at war. Anyone engaging in disruptive editing can be subject to sanctions, so be civil and avoid disruptive editing, and racism and prejudice contribute to disruptive editing. I didn't observe any anti-Indian, patronizing, or racist comments, but maybe I missed something. I certainly don't want to see any anti-Indian or racist comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you Robert. You may check [18], and [19], there are many spread across pages in this topic. It even went to a point that any Hindu academician is unreliable. [20] is one instance of such discussion. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

How can you "completely agree" when you are contradicting him?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

He admitted he might have missed, I gave few pointers of your personal attacks among others. I completley agree with him that such conduct is not helpful. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

He didn't say that. Personally I find misrepresenting sources, and peddling unscientific propaganda sources to be more disruptive and more damaging to the discussion than the odd "personal attack". But then that is just me.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Maunus, I hope you have understood that personal attacks is unhelpful. Even if it is "odd" as per your assessment it is absolutely forbidden. You may not attack even once. Read as many times as it takes to understand this. There is no exemption. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your sanctimonious prattle is every bit as offensive as a more direct personal attack. ANd it is getting really tiresome too.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Then backoff and don't pretend to not understand a direct specific message about not making personal attacks. I had given diffs of your edit as evidence above. Do you have any proof that Vic is a "Hindu Crusader"? Or I am part of a faction? It would be better you just drop this here and we do not see such remarks again. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

An American View on India, maybe

Maybe I didn't see Indo-phobic (dislike of Indians) comments when there were Indo-phobic comments, or maybe I missed them. However, I may have been looking at India through a sympathetic American perspective as an American who sees the United States and India as two countries with many common aspects despite different cultures and histories. India and the United States are the world's two most populous democracies. They are two countries having proud heritages of religious pluralism. India is a Hindu-majority country, but it is not a "Hindu" country in the sense of making Hinduism an essential part of Indian-ness. The United States is likewise a Christian-majority country, but it is not a "Christian" country in having an established church, or making Christianity an essential part of American-ness. Also, one of the major threats to civil society and religious pluralism in the United States is Christian fanaticism, a desire to make tie Christianity (and particular denominations of Christianity) to an American identity. Likewise, I understand that one of the threats to civil society and religious pluralism in India is Hindu fanaticism.

So when I read criticisms of Hindu scholarship, I read "Hindu scholarship" as "scholarship serving a Hindu agenda" rather than as criticisms of scholarship by Hindu scholars (some of whom have been great scholars since before there were American scholars). I read those comments as comparable to criticisms of "Christian scholarship" in the United States or Europe as meaning "scholarship serving a Christian agenda", which is biased scholarship. I personally do deprecate scholarship by would-be scholars who serve particular Christian agendas rather than the agenda of truth (and truth is one of the proper values of Christianity and Hinduism), and likewise I agree with deprecation of scholarship that primarily serves a Hindu agenda. Of course any comment deprecating scholarship by Indians in general, or by Hindu Indians in general, is racist. A comment deprecating scholarship by those who put religious agendas before the academic pursuit of truth is not racist. Those are my thoughts as a human with a respect for freedom, as an American, and as a Christian. Maybe that explains why I didn't think that any comments were racist.

If any comments really deprecated all Indian scholarship, that is either racist or otherwise bigoted.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Indian/Hindu scholarship", as in Hindu scholars who are from India has never been an issue here. The problem, as you correctly surmise, are scholars who push a Hindu or Indian agenda without consideration for the vast majority of scholarship that contradicts their results. --Taivo (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Taivo, my point is how to identify such case. I ask again, is B. B. Lal to be dismissed? How are we to know if he is "pushing Hindu agenda"? We should go by other scholarly criticism of his work. He is a trained archaeologist of highest repute. And this is to take one example. You are right in pointing that people with such agenda are not to be taken at par with those who have no such malicious agenda. What is needed is academic scrutiny on such lines not your or mine personal assessment. I know many people might jump here and start attacking me or B. B. Lal... I don't want original opinions. Please bring academical referenced work to such effect. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 16:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody here has dismissed B. B. Lal. Please don't bring up red herrings. When we are speaking of "Hindu agendas," we are speaking of arguments made by people on the basis of Hinduism or Hindu texts. Frawley, Kak, Talageri, Kazanas and several others have done that. Their attitude can be summarized as, "this is what the texts say, we believe them, we will take them literally, and everything else has to be made to fit them." Even if the map of the world has to be turned upside down and 200 years of linguistics has to be thrown into the dust bin to accommodate the texts, they say that is what must be done. Obviously, scholars find these claims laughable. Nevertheless, they are making genuine efforts to give them a fair hearing and debating them. Kazanas' paper was accepted in the Journal of Indo-European Studies without peer review, and no less than 9 mainstream scholars wrote critiques of it. Some 200-300 journal pages have been spent on this one paper. Have any Indian scholars read these critiques and taken those arguments into account? I haven't seen any such. Their attitude is basically, why bother? Voice of India will publish anything we write and millions of Hindus will cheer for us. End of argument. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Then consider B. B. Lal. I already explained what I think of Frawley. You are putting up strawman argument to come to a conclusion you like. "Even if the map of the world has to be turned upside down and 200 years of linguistics has to be thrown into the dust bin to accommodate the texts"? I don't think I should respond to your genius here. Neither about "the nature of Indian Scholars and their basic attitude". --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Frawley

Interesting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Not interesting at all, actually. Frawley isn't an archeologist, a historian, or a linguist. He is a yoga teacher. It's not at all surprising to see someone tied at the hip to the religio-nationalist Hindu agenda espousing the Indogenesis mythology. --Taivo (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what Joshua found interesting in the article, but Frawley is essentially the inventor (or reinventor) of the Indigenous Aryans theory in modern times. He started saying Vedas say this and Vedas say that, and therefore India is the home of the Civilisation. The Hindu nationalists were enthralled by this white-skinned man who could explain Vedas to them and show them that India was the origin of the Universe! Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Frawley is a religious figure, not a scholar. His recognition is for his advancement of hinduism and have no bearings on the status of his scholarship.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

See my comments at the RfC: Dehli University Sanskritists wanting to "prove" that the Aryans were indigenous, being dismissed by their colleagues. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

And note that Frawley just got the Padma Bhushan award too, the third highest civilian honour of the Indian government. If anybody thinks, we don't need to give this page a FRINGE status, this should give them a pause. Powerful forces are now pushing this theory. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Fringe status should not be given merely for righting great wrongs. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

And the point of this comment is? The guideline you link to has no bearing on the issue. Frawley has no scholarly standing in this area, and it is, ironically you and OIT crowd who are seeking to "right great wrongs" because of the absurd notion that it is somehow insulting to India to say that it's not the homeland of the Indo-European language group. Even though no other country is trying to "claim" it. Paul B (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

So Padma Bhushan awarded people are looked down upon. Ok. India was the origin of Universe. Ok. Need I comment on how remarks are being made here? I agree with Taivo, he is not academically trained on this topic. Is he tied to a religio-nationalist Hindu agenda? I don't think so. Unnecessary to attack him for his choice of religion or his academic training and expertise in his choice of specific subjects. Can you question his expertise in his study of Vedas? I bet no. I know Witzel summarily dismisses him and yet engages with him at length in a debate regarding the origin of Vedic civilization. At the same time I do not see Frawley making such summarily dismissive statements. His study on this topic has much less academic weight than others who are academically trained in this specific topic. Going beyond that and continuing to primarily focus a discussion on his "motivation" rather than his study is... continuing in the same vein as previous sections... --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The award is no more relevant than a British person having an OBE or French person being awarded the Legion of Honour. It says nothing about scholarship in a particular field. Paul B (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't say any negative about them either Paul. It was used as a negative virtue above. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see any such assertion. I think you misunderstood what Kautilya3 was saying. Paul B (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case, then please ignore my comment on it. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what the argument is about. But the significance of the award was already mentioned in my first mention of it: Powerful forces are now pushing this theory. The Sanskrit department project to "prove" that the Aryans were indigenous, inviting Frawley for its launch, the rumours that the Sanskrit department is being given mandate to revise high school history books, and Frawley getting Padma Bhushan, are all obviously related. The same players and the same ideas pop up everywhere. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC) And every time AmritasyaPutra uses the word "So", assume that he is throwing up yet another red herring to waste everybody's time. We should ignore it and move on. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Out of Hand

I just looked at the nightmare that this article is becoming. It is at least twice as long as is necessary for a fringe theory. Jonathan and Bladesmulti, while perhaps well-meaning, have turned this into a monster. This is an encyclopedia article, not a doctoral dissertation. Every single reference to Indogenesis does not need to be cited here. Every single trivial quote from George the yoga teacher does not need to be included. This article is totally out of control. And now you want to include a history of British colonialism to motivate why Hindu fundamentalists and Indian nationalists want to abandon science and place the origin of humanity (or at least Indo-Europeans) in the Ganges or Indus basin. Step back and get some perspective on this. Cut half of this article and you'll have an appropriate Wikipedia-length article (although still too long for a fringe theory). --Taivo (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the battle ground pages do get like that. But I think it is important to first pin down the content. We can always copy-edit it later. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree it's too long. But I also agre with Kautilya: the content is being pinned down. I think there's a great irony in this article: Indigenous Aryanism is being used as a coatrack for Indigenous Aryanism. Yeah, you'll think I'm nuts, but let me explain. Most of this article, just like Bryant's book, is about the arguments against the IAmt. What's lacking, or what was lacking, is the background and context: what does this idea mean, where does it come from? All the discussions at Wikipedia are endless, because a "mythology diguised as a scientific theory" is being treated as it's disguise: a scientific theory. It's not, and that becomes clear when the context and the history become clear.

Brynat's book has the semae omission, except for Witzel and, especially, Fosse: it ttrets the IA/OOI as a theory, not as a mythology. A proper scientific study of the topic would inform the reader about the context, so one understands what is is about.

So, yes: trimming down. The arguments. I think that, actually, those "arguments" are a stock reservoir: "Aryan invasion theory", no archaeological remains, archaeological continuity. It's the same arguments on and on an. So, they can be shortened, with references to the literature. Just an overview, like: if you read an article on it, these are the arguments you can expect to read. Or, if you want to write a pro-article yourself: these are the ingredients.

So, one aspect that's missing: the idea of Vedic people who have been around in India for 10,000 years. Who's got a source? And I promise: there's also going to follow a trimming-down. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Joshua. It's still twice as long as it needs to be, but it's at least shorter now than when I last looked. There are probably too many subheadings that add to much white space as well. --Taivo (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Re-ordering to fit overview of arguments and scenarios

While working today on this raticle, I realised that the "Indigenist" arguments consist of two parts:

• Arguments against the IAMt;
• Arguments pro a redating of the Indian chronology.

The "scenarios" are scundary to these arguments; the "real" scenario seems to be the alignment of the Vedic-Puranic Indian chronology with the Harappan Civilisation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course this is all about trying to make current Hindu/Indian culture the direct descendent of the Indus Valley civilization, which in turn requires both doing away with the established dating of the Vedas and to do away with the established history of the Indo-European languages to be able to argue for an earlier date of Vedic Sanskrit than is linguistically possible. This is exactly what Christian fundementalists do when they try to argue that the Hebrew scriptures were written during the rule of Ramesses III, or when they try to reject the scientific dating of fossils and geogical layers in order to uphold a short chronology as required by Biblical literalism. But how does this insight of yours impinge on the the way we write the article? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream western scholarship acknowledges that the Vedic religion is partially derived from the Indus Valley civilization. See page 28 of David Gordon White's Kiss of the Yogini. So yes, Hindu/Indian culture is a direct descendant of IVC. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It really is hilarious to see what kind of stuff you pull out and try to present as reliable sources for claims about language history. White is of course another Yoga/religion scholar with zero credentials in the field of history and or linguistics. Note also that your comment is a red herring because obviously it is the case that vedic civilization is partly descended from Harappan. That is not the question and has no relation to what I was saying, namely that the pseudoscientists you push are trying to make Harappan culture and vedic culture out to be one and the same and to place them in an impossible chronology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, any reference to back up your thoroughly unique and original interpretations: 1. This is all about trying to make current Hindu/Indian culture the direct descendent of the Indus Valley civilization 2. This is exactly what Christian fundementalists(sic) do when they try to argue that the Hebrew scriptures were written during the rule of Ramesses(sic) III? --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

For someone who makes sanctimonious statements about how others should argue in friendly and non-patronizing ways you sure do use a lot of "sic"s.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Maunus references please. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, do you actually think that anything written in a book on tantric sex has anything at all of value to this discussion? That's what you are citing as "evidence". Maunus is quite right about Indigenists trying to completely discredit 200 years of research on the Indo-European languages in order to place Vedic Sanskrit at a linguistically impossible date. --Taivo (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Its an academic book on ancient Indian tantra, written by a well known indologist.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Taivo, I don't think we were discussing Indigenists trying to completely discredit 200 years of research on the Indo-European languages in order to place Vedic Sanskrit at a linguistically impossible date in the first place, and you don't cite any scholar saying that. Have you read B. B. Lal? Is he not a scholar? Or he is unworthy of a reading because he holds a contrary opinion? There are others too. But the argument that I keep hearing is they are Hindu or they are Indian. That is not an argument. Maunus has yet to provide any credible reference for his original conclusions. If there are two theories, then they are just that, one can be a minority but your unique conclusions of they are Hindu/Indian hence their research is flawed is absolutely unfounded unless you cite another scholar drawing that conclusion. It has to be a credible study instead of passing comments, have you considered that Europeanists/Americanists are not trying to completely discredit the research of Indigenists? And Indiginists also express similar "silencing" from others? I guess we all understand such arguments will lead us nowhere. Every scholar has its worth and if you are beginning your argument with Indigenist scholar, Hindu schoalr, Indian scholar, Brahmin scholar (all have been used in the discussions) you are already on the wrong track. It would be better we end this line of argument and focus on what studies have to say about the actual theories. I hope you will not try to draw a "motivation" for me like you did here. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Gentleman, I think you're all right here (and that's not my usual 'dimming the flames'). I remember an interview by someone with Israel Finkelstein (if it was him), a scholar on ancient Israel c.q. the Bible. The interviewer was an American fundamentalist, and they knew each other for years already. It was hilarious. The scholar totally disagreed with the fundamentalist (of course), but was also sympathetic to him; the fundamentalist was indeed a nice and funny guy, despite his, ehm, "bijzondere" lines of reasoning. Gosh, I also remember this video of an American Hindu fundamentalist, going around the nieghbourhood to share his message. Rings at the home of a Christian fundamentalist.... You can imagine the heated discussion that followed... (no offense intended here; I love dutch "Gereformeerden", also Christian fundamentalists; I use to have very nice and warm conversations with them. One person once told me, when we were watching the clouds: "Imagine, the Lord could be coming on a cloud right now." I imagined, and yes, that would be great! It was awesome to sit together and share her thoughts.)
Realizing what's going on here, what's at stake, makes it understandable. At least to me. And interesting. After all, I'm a psychologist of religion. So, I'm hooked, and I want to know more.
Vic is also right. Gordon White is a top scholar. And yes, it seems very likely that there is a continuity between the Harappan Civilisation and later developments - though it's not only the Harappan Civilastion, or the Vedics. But that's another discussion, though related.
And AP, it's dawned on me how you are feeling here. It's worthwhile to have this article (though it's getting quite long), and to gain an understanding of what's going, and why this is important to many people.
To share one last personal thought: I don't believe there's a God out there. But this night my daughter was wide awake, so I was lying with her in bed, waiting for her to fall asleep. and I thanked God for the privilege to have a duaghter and a wife to love, knowing that way too soon everything wiil be different, when the daughter is grown-up and has left the house, and either my wife or myself appears to have a terminal disease. So, I thanked the God who does not exist, to my opinion.
All the best, to all of you, as usual. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Joshua. I hope we are not dealing with any fundamentalists here. Every editor and scholar has certain merit which should be considered without bringing in their race or casting aspersions on their motivation. If we could do just this much I am sure we will conclude all discussions here in a jiffy, it is the racist abuse that is prolonging them in the wrong direction. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I realised later that "fundamentalist" sounds wrong. I just refer to taking the religious texts more "literal", and seeing a profound value in those texts, and the way of life they represent and inspire. As you understand, mines is a more skeptical attitude, but there's also beauty in taking the religious texts more "literal." I've been trying to understand this since I was at school; I partly do, now. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Why does "fundamentalist" sound wrong? Aren't we just beating around the bush here? Kautilya3 (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Fundamentalist is fundamentalist. And anyone who tries to rewrite science to fit scripture fits within the label "fundamentalist". As Joshua, I also personally have a deep respect for religious people and am interested in understanding their world views, as long as they do not try to reshape the reality that we all share to fit exclusively with their worldview. And this is what is going on here. I know not all agree that wikipedia should be written from a scientific pov, but I think that is a basic misunderstanding of what an encyclopedia is. We are not here to represent all possible worldviews - just the one that is established through the methods of science and scholarship. I also think that untill WP:SPOV is finally adopted we will have these power struggles between ideologically motivated perspectives and science all across the encyclopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Good thing if we all have agreed that fundamentalism is not needed here! Let's come up with references which were asked for specific claims here and in previous section. Like Joshua and Maunus, I also have deep respect for people who live according to Dharma. --AmritasyaPutra^T 14:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about "fundamentalism"

What is meant in this context by "fundamentalist" or "fundamentalism"? I know what Christian fundamentalism is, a school of thought within Protestant Christianity, especially in the United States, that emphasizes the literal truth of the Bible, thus ignoring or disputing accepted scholarship, especially geology as to the age of the Earth. Is the term also being used here to refer to a Hindu school of thought that contradicts accepted scholarship? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, Hindu fundamentalism is merely about combating Islamic terrorism and efforts to implement Sharia in India. In my opinion, its nothing like Christian fundamentalism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I think that different editors are using different definitions of "Hindu fundamentalism". Some editors here appear to be criticizing Hindu fundamentalism; I would like to know how they define it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

My usage of "Hindu Fundamentalism" closely resembles with what Vic has put above. But I interpreted "fundamentalism" (no qualifier) this way when I responded above: totally ignoring others' argument and hammering on what one likes. There is no scripture, as far as I understand, that dictates this or that theory. I remember it was Aryan Invasion Theory earlier when I studied it first time, slowly it changed to Aryan Migration Theory. The proponents of earlier theory were not fundamentalist. Here too, they are, in no way fundamentalist in the way you have given an example of. There is no book to stick to for theories here and no literal wording they want to stick to. It is fluid and there is a considerable volume of arguments and counter-arguments. They may turn out to be wrong in the long run or right. --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that fundamentalism disambiguates various beliefs referred to as fundamentalist, including Christian fundamentalism. I would still urge editors who criticize fundamentalism to be clear what they are criticizing, since fundamentalism in general is a loose term (as opposed to Christian fundamentalism, which is specific). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Fundamentalism," in my terminology, is giving primacy to religious beliefs and overriding all rational discourse, in particular attacking and discounting science. Creationists that maintain that God created the world in 7 days and the theory of evolution is wrong are fundamentalists. So are indigenous aryanists who maintain that the Rigveda doesn't say that the Indo-Aryans came from anywhere and, therefore, they are indigenous. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

By your own definition you are a fundamentalist. You want to sum up the study of Madhukar Keshav Dhavalikar, B. B. Lal, and Klaus Klostermaier, among others into "Rigveda doesn't say that the Indo-Aryans came from anywhere and, therefore, they are indigenous" for your convenience. You are fundamentalist! --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Equating Indigenous Aryans with the Christian belief God created the world in 7 days is extreme.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: I feel that you are just throwing around names of people randomly. What did those people say and how does it fit into my description of "fundamentalism"? Kautilya3 (talk)

@Kautilya3: Did they say "Rigveda doesn't..."? And is their research equal to "world was created in days theory"? You have yourself tagged them as indigenous aryanists. --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

But what did these people say, AmritasyaPutra? Do you have any idea what they said? Kautilya3 (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Kautilya3 Do you not stand by your earlier statement of "Rigveda doesn't..." and equating all study with "world was created in days theory"? --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: A question doesn't answer another question. Please share with us what you know about what these people said, and how that affects the present discussion. If you don't know the answer, you may say so. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• With "fundamentalism", I meant taking the religious texts quite literal, and taking them as the "fundament" of your life.I was not referring to extremism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Hindutva, also called hindu nationalism, is the belief and practice system within hinduism that is the rough equivalent of Christian fundamentalism - it combines indian nationalism and hinduism into a hindu-centric worldview. It is opposed, often violently to practitioners of other religions in India, including Islam and Christianity. It also promotes the Vedas as a privileged source of knowledge similar to the Christian fundamentalist use of the Bible.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a very useful viewpoint. The borderlines between "Hindu nationalism" and "Hindu fundamentalism" have been increasingly blurred, by their own choice. The RSS started off being "nationalist," (or "communalist" in Indian terminology) but, by spawning the VHP and letting it set the agenda, it has moved over to the religious sphere. Now, by promoting Indigenous Aryanism, it has closed the circle and made its anti-science and anti-scholarly credentials explicit. There is no choice but to call them "fundamentalists" at this point. (By the way, the history of the terminology is that, when the Babri Masjid was demolished, all the newspapers of the world called them "Hindu fundamentalists." The Hindus got very upset and wrote letters after letters to the newspapers claiming that there was no such thing called "fundamentalism" in Hinduism. The newspapers relented and decided to call them "Hindu nationslists." If something about Indigenous Aryanism were to hit international headlines, I wonder if the newspapers won't go back to the terminology of "Hindu fundamentalists.") Kautilya3 (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

What? Is that your insight on Indigenous Aryans theory Kautilya3? Babri Masjid and all? Kindly shed some light on Charlie Hebdo and Nazism and more such things too. Really, do you consider this line of repeated arguments is useful. Suit yourself. --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, there was a Hindu temple beneath Babri Masjid. It wasn't "anti-science and anti-scholarly".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There was nothing remotely "scientific" about a mob smashing up a historical building for reasons of religious ideology. It was no more "scientific" than the destruction of the Buddha statues by the Taliban. All this is in any case irrelevant. "Fundamentalism" is a term that technically applies properly to Christianity, in which it originated. But there are clearly similarities to Hindu and Muslim extremism and anti-science attitudes, along with a need to vindicate the truth of sacred texts. As a socio-religious phenomenon, it's reasonable to use the term to cover Hindu and Muslim groups, and that's how many sources do use it. Paul B (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Red Herring alert! Kautilya3 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Witzel on Wikipedia?

"Prof Witzel was active in erasing information about DFN's missionary nature on the free Internet encyclopaedia, Wikipedia." [21] Do we have any evidence of this? Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Very unlikely. The textbook controversy is well documented. Witzel did conduct a campaign via the Yahoo indology list to remove disinformation from web sources in the early 2000s. The archive of the list is public. Paul B (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, Witzel was on Wikipedia [22], but there is no indication that he fiddled with the DFN page. So, I suppose Sandhya Jain was simply making up stories? Kautilya3 (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is this tendency to turn everything into a conspiracy. Christian groups advocating for their POV are automatically part of a grand coordinated strategy against Hinduism, Paul B (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is how nationalists work. But the argument that has been made is that DFN is a front for a Christian evangelist organisation. Other than the fact that DFN's India wing is headed by a Christian evangelist, I haven't seen anything else concrete. Sandhya Jain seems to have been one of the sources for this theory, but she now appears to be prone to making up stories. So, her reliability is in question. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Split

I've split-off part of the article to Indigenous Aryans - Overview of arguments per WP:BOLD to reduce the size. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That would work. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Having run across this in the scope of WP:NPP, I will say that the title needs to be something that's more in compliance with WP:TITLEFORMAT. I'll leave that to those with more involvement in the article to determine. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Indigenous Aryans - Overview of arguments#Title. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Now the page is moved to a new title.[23] Bladesmulti (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think it is a bad idea to split off articles from this one. It simply multiplies the problem, and creates more concerns of undue weight. The size should be reduced by removing superfluous detail.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"Superfluous detail"? If so, the whole Indo-Aryan migration debate article is a long list of "superfluous detail" (serious!) We might as well delete the whole article (IAmd (chocolate-bar for the one who can recall all the abbreviations!), not IA), limit the overview of IA-arguments to the shortlist of arguments which is provided now, and for the rest refer to the books by Bryant, the objections by Witzel, and the funny websites such as "The Vedic Foundation". I bet you yell an enthusiastic "Yes! That's a go!" :) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)