Talk:Indigenous Aryanism/Archive 4
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
"Theory"
Hypothesis
I propose that this be revised to use "hypothesis" not "theory" through its text in reference to the indigenous Aryans idea. The scientific consensus is that this is, basically, pseudo-science. It's fine in the vernacular to call something a "fringe theory", but linguistics is a science (albeit a "soft" social one), and "theory" has a more circumscribed meaning in such a context. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- I am afraid calling it a "hypothesis" make it sound more scientific than it is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- Exactly the opposite; see Theory and Hypothesis. The latter is some idea that is proposed for testing; the former is one after it's been shown to be broadly supported by that testing. The fact that some people in slangish English misuse "theory" to mean anything from "wacky nonsense" to "law of nature" isn't relevant in an encyclopedia, where precise language is very important. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Fringe
- @SMcCandlish and Kautilya3: I have changed the first sentence so that it is identified as a "fringe theory". Given the language present throughout the article, especially in the Criticism section, it is clear that this proposal is a fringe theory. So, I don't think that the "fringe theory" descriptor needs a source in the lede. However, if someone thinks otherwise, feel free to attach citations to the "fringe theory" descriptor. BirdValiant (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Works for me. "Fringe theory" (though a mild oxymoron, strictly speaking) is a well-understood enough phrase that "this is an iffy hypothesis" is the conclusion it implies, while "theory" by itself suggests broad scientific support, at least to anyone with a sciences background. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: By the way, speaking of fringe theories, I will always be in your debt for when you definitively shut down the US-dollar-is-a-commodity-currency fringe theory on the US Dollar page, after I had been struggling to restore sanity for a year. I will always remember you for that. Thanks again. :) BirdValiant (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Memory is tricky! I had no recollection of that at all. :-) Glad it was apparently helpful. One of my bolder WP:NAC moves, I think. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: By the way, speaking of fringe theories, I will always be in your debt for when you definitively shut down the US-dollar-is-a-commodity-currency fringe theory on the US Dollar page, after I had been struggling to restore sanity for a year. I will always remember you for that. Thanks again. :) BirdValiant (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Works for me. "Fringe theory" (though a mild oxymoron, strictly speaking) is a well-understood enough phrase that "this is an iffy hypothesis" is the conclusion it implies, while "theory" by itself suggests broad scientific support, at least to anyone with a sciences background. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish and Kautilya3: I have changed the first sentence so that it is identified as a "fringe theory". Given the language present throughout the article, especially in the Criticism section, it is clear that this proposal is a fringe theory. So, I don't think that the "fringe theory" descriptor needs a source in the lede. However, if someone thinks otherwise, feel free to attach citations to the "fringe theory" descriptor. BirdValiant (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this revert, edit-summary unsourced newly added labels
, see the definition of Fringe theory, WP:FRINGE, and the section Indigenous Aryans#Criticism, for example Michael Witzel:
The revisionist and autochthonous project, then, should not be regarded as scholarly in the usual post-enlightenment sense of the word, but as an apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking aiming at proving the 'truth' of traditional texts and beliefs.
And of course, see also Talk:Indigenous Aryans/Archive 3#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. The IA/OoI-theory has no serious scholarly support whatsoever. I suspect that even Koenraad Elst doesn't really beleive in it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- See WP:VERIFY and WP:LABEL. All labels like "fringe theory" should be supported by sources. Although this is not exactly a fringe theory because it was a predecessor to Indo-Aryan migration theory. There are also other similar IE hyopthesis such as Paleolithic Continuity Theory, Armenian hypothesis, which like this subject, are supported by a minority of scholars. Bharatiya29 18:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Since the main issue was with the use of the word "theory" which wasn't used on lead back in the day, I have re-modified to remove it from the lead. Other than that I agree that strong words should be supported by multiple reliable sources. ML 911 19:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- NB: note that
The Indigenous Aryans theory, also known as the Out of India theory (OIT), which proposes ...
is grammatically incorrect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC) - The main issue in the RfC was not whether Indigenous Aryan theory is a "theory" but whether it is a "fringe theory". Your reverts which remove the description as "fringe theory" also have nothing to do with the use of the word "theory", but rather, "fringe theory". BirdValiant (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Joshua Jonathan, it was ungrammatical, but your edit is not really making sense because the discussion you cited was not about changing the terminology but treatment of the theory on Wikipedia articles in the sense how much weight it needs to be provided. Nothing about changing the terms on this article. Though BirdValiant has already tried to source that statement, but it seems that they ended up misrepresenting sources. As Bharatiya29 noted, WP:VERIFY still applies, and if there is no existence of multiple reliable sources supporting the term 'fringe theory' then it needs to be removed right away. ML 911 19:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- NB: note that
Fringe theory: "A fringe theory is an idea or viewpoint which differs from the accepted scholarship in its field." See, again, the criticism-section and the above-mentioned talkpage discussion for mainstream scholarly opinions on the IA/OoI-theory: far, far away from mainstream scholarly views. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- So according to you, there can be either a 'mainstream' or a 'fringe' view and nothing else. You are wrong. But then again, where are your sources? "
criticism-section and the above-mentioned talkpage discussion for mainstream scholarly opinions
", you need to look at WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Capitals00 (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC) - @SMcCandlish, Kautilya3, Joshua Jonathan, Bharatiya29, and My Lord: Should we have another Request for Comment on whether "Indigenous Aryans theory"/"Out of India Theory" is a Fringe theory? As Joshua Jonathan has pointed out, the issue has already been dealt with and the consensus was: the "Indigenous Aryans" proposal which is the subject of this article is a fringe theory according to Wikipedia guidelines. jps (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Additionally, a cursory search also reveals that the subject has appeared on the Fringe noticeboard many, many times in the past: one two three four and many more and even has appeared on the administrator's noticeboard. However, perhaps the scholarly consensus has changed in the last five years to the point that the issue needs to be re-examined. BirdValiant (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- This time the argument is over WP:NOTGETTINGIT that WP:V is a policy. So your discussions belongs to WP:TEAHOUSE whether you are allowed to add your unsourced view on article. You cannot even hold an argument if you don't even have sources to back up what you are saying. We say lots of things on talk pages but don't add something on article which isn't supported by the sources. WP:IDHT won't help, neither will any attempts to find ways to get around adding unsourced personal views. You need to provide sources or simply move on (see WP:STICK).
- Given you have been caught misrepresenting sources recently you will need to tread carefully. Capitals00 (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Capitals00: Are you aware of the extensive discussion that occurred at the last RfC on this topic? The consensus was that the "Indigenous Aryan theory" is a Fringe theory. It is not my personal view. It is the view of the hard-won consensus here on Wikipedia.
- You say that "[I've] been caught misrepresenting sources". Have I, now? As seen on WP:FRINGE, "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." The first three sources have been used to support the claim "This is contrary to the mainstream scholarly view, saying that the Indo-Aryan languages originated outside India" for a long time. In the fourth source, Witzel is directly quoted as saying (emphases mine):
The 'revisionist project' certainly is not guided by the principles of critical theory but takes, time and again, recourse to pre-enlightenment beliefs in the authority of traditional religious texts such as the Purånas. In the end, it belongs, as has been pointed out earlier, to a different 'discourse' than that of historical and critical scholarship. In other words, it continues the writing of religious literature, under a contemporary, outwardly 'scientific' guise […] The revisionist and autochthonous project, then, should not be regarded as scholarly in the usual post-enlightenment sense of the word, but as an apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking aiming at proving the 'truth' of traditional texts and beliefs. Worse, it is, in many cases, not even scholastic scholarship at all but a political undertaking aiming at 'rewriting' history out of national pride or for the purpose of 'nation building'
- In the fifth source, Jamison is quoted as saying (emphasis mine):
The Indo-Aryan controversy is a manufactured one with a non-scholarly agenda, and the tactics of its manufacturers are very close to those of the ID proponents mentioned above. However unwittingly and however high their aims, the two editors have sought to put a gloss of intellectual legitimacy, with a sense that real scientific questions are being debated, on what is essentially a religio-nationalistic attack on a scholarly consensus.
- The sixth source by Bryant has been the source for the claim "According to Bryant, OIT proponents tend to be linguistic dilettantes who either ignore the linguistic evidence completely, dismiss it as highly speculative and inconclusive, or attempt to tackle it with hopelessly inadequate qualifications; this attitude and neglect significantly minimises the value of most OIT publications" for a long time as well.
- Finally, in the seventh source, Fosse is quoted with (emphasis mine):
largely neglected by Western scholars because it is regarded as incompetent
- I have to ask: where have I misrepresented the claim? According to WP:FRINGE, a "fringe-theory" is one "idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". Do those sources not support that claim? BirdValiant (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- No, I don't see why we need another RfC. Nothing has changed since the last one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Administrator note I have fully protected the article per WP:PREFER pending consensus. Once consensus is established, the regular indefinite autoconfirmed protection can be restored. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- "The concept of Indigenous Aryans also known as the Out of India theory (OIT) [...] originated within the Indian subcontinent" - chapeau. To remind you, with this statement from Mallory:
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.
- Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: Consensus was already achieved in the previous Request for Comment. The result was that "Indigenous Aryans theory" is a fringe-theory. Additionally, when I asked whether the scholarly field has changed enough to warrant another RfC, the only answer so far has been a no from user Kautilya3. BirdValiant (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- And yet, here we have an active discussion about which language to use here. There is (more or less) an active edit war going on, and we (admins) will always invariably protect the The Wrong Version (and not to throw around more all-caps, but consensus can change). TSD asked me for my opinion on the matter, and I agree that full protection, at least in the short term, is justified. Primefac (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- We certainly could have another RfC on this, though the outcome is very obvious. There is not only no doubt that it is a fringe theory, we've had other RfCs on this "Well, does a source actually use the exact word 'fringe'?" WP:WIKILAWYERING before at other topics, and the answer is always the same: no, the sources do not have to use the exact word. I would be in favor of an RfC, simply to put this matter to bed so we can get on with more constructive things. I had no idea this was still running full-tilt five months after I opened the discussion. Way too long for something this simple. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: Do you happen to have any links to those previous RfCs? BirdValiant (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Nah, I don't think anyone stacks up lists of things like this, since WP isn't based on legal-style precedent. Consensus can change, but it usually doesn't, and that's good enough. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: Do you happen to have any links to those previous RfCs? BirdValiant (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Proposal
Those sources, as higlighted above by BirdValiant, are very clear that IA/OoI is a fringe-theory. Asking for sources which explicitly use the term "fringe" is a petty attempt to ignore the scholarly consensus; nay, to deny reality. Fringe is fringe, and you know it. Just acknowledge it. NB: the quotes above can serve as an explanatory note. So, we can change
The concept of Indigenous Aryans also known as the Out of India theory (OIT), which proposes that the Indo-European languages, or at least the Indo-Aryan languages, originated within the Indian subcontinent, as an alternative to the established migration model which proposes the Pontic steppe as the area of origin of the Indo-European languages.
into
The belief[1][note 1] in Indigenous Aryans, also known as the Out of India theory (OIT), entails the idea that the Indo-European languages, or at least the Indo-Aryan languages, originated within the Indian subcontinent. While presented as an alternative to the established migration model, which proposes the Pontic steppe as the area of origin of the Indo-European languages, it is "largely neglected by Western scholars because it is regarded as incompetent."[3]
- Notes
- ^ Witzel:
- "Any immigration scenario is strenuously denied by [...] the autochthonists who try to show (or who simply believe in) an indigenous origin of the 'Aryans' in the subcontinent.[2]
- "The revisionist and autochthonous project, then, should not be regarded as scholarly in the usual post-enlightenment sense of the word, but as an apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking aiming at proving the 'truth' of traditional texts and beliefs [...] [those writings] must be clearly understood and described as traditional, (semi-)religious writings. Therefore they should be regarded and used, not as scholarly contributions, but as objects for the study of the traditional mind, -- uncomfortable as this might be for some of their proponents, many of whom combine, in facile fashion, an education in science with a traditional minds."[1]
- References
- ^ a b Witzel 2001, p. 95.
- ^ Witzel 2001, p. 28.
- ^ Fosse 2005, p. 438.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- I would be fine with this version; it still gets across that it's a fringe theory. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
An alternative proposal
- @Joshua Jonathan: While that might work, I don't see why we can't have something modeled from the Christ myth theory article, which reads: "The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines.[4][5][6][q 2] It is criticised for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies,[7] and deviates from the mainstream historical view."
- As pointed out time and time again, the consensus from the previous RfC [1] is that the "Indigenous Aryans"/"Out of India theory" idea is a fringe theory. The numerous sources provided also clearly show that the scholarly consensus is that IA/OoI is also a fringe theory. Accordingly, I think that the article should be classified as such, with just as clear a statement as in the Christ myth theory article, and with the appropriate article category. And as Joshua Jonathan pointed out, it is patently absurd to require sources to literally use the word "fringe" in order to support the notion that the idea is a fringe theory: the definition given in WP:FRINGE does not require sources to literally say "fringe", only that the idea needs to be demonstrated to be far outside of the mainstream scholarly view. In the Christ myth theory fringe appellation, very few sources used to support that fringe appellation chose to use the exact word "fringe".
- So, how about the following?
The Indigenous Aryans theory, also known as the Out of India theory (OIT), is the view that the Indo-European languages, or at least the Indo-Aryan languages, originated within the Indian subcontinent.
...[moving to final paragraph of lede]
The Indigenous Aryans or Out of India theory is a fringe theory supported by few Western scholars;[note 1] instead, the prevailing consensus is that the Indo-Aryan languages originated outside of India.[5][6][7] It is criticised as having crucial theoretical and methodological shortcomings[8], and it deviates from the mainstream scholarly view whereby the Indo-Aryan migrations are part of the Indo-European migrations from a homeland at the Pontic–Caspian steppe.
- Notes
- ^ Witzel:
- "Any immigration scenario is strenuously denied by [...] the autochthonists who try to show (or who simply believe in) an indigenous origin of the 'Aryans' in the subcontinent.[1]
- "The revisionist and autochthonous project, then, should not be regarded as scholarly in the usual post-enlightenment sense of the word, but as an apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking aiming at proving the 'truth' of traditional texts and beliefs [...] [those writings] must be clearly understood and described as traditional, (semi-)religious writings. Therefore they should be regarded and used, not as scholarly contributions, but as objects for the study of the traditional mind, -- uncomfortable as this might be for some of their proponents, many of whom combine, in facile fashion, an education in science with a traditional minds."[2]
- "The Indo-Aryan controversy is a manufactured one with a non-scholarly agenda, and the tactics of its manufacturers are very close to those of the ID proponents mentioned above. However unwittingly and however high their aims, the two editors have sought to put a gloss of intellectual legitimacy, with a sense that real scientific questions are being debated, on what is essentially a religio-nationalistic attack on a scholarly consensus."[3]
- [The Indigenous Aryans critique] is "largely neglected by Western scholars because it is regarded as incompetent."[4]
- References
- ^ Witzel 2001, p. 28.
- ^ Witzel 2001, p. 95.
- ^ Jamison 2006.
- ^ Fosse 2005, p. 438.
- ^ Trautmann 2005, p. xiii.
- ^ Anthony 2007.
- ^ Parpola 2015.
- ^ Fosse 2005.
- (Note that these sources are fully cited in the article.)
- The only argument that I can conceive of to avoid describing IA/OoI as a "fringe theory" is if we choose to classify it as pseudoscience instead. The Jamison source describes IA/OoI proponents as using the same tactics as Intelligent Design proponents; ID is, of course, correctly described as a pseudoscience in that article. In that case the, IA/OoI would be put in the Denialism category instead. BirdValiant (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- "Let it go, let it go"... and simply stick to the sources. It's not a big deal; I'll bet that even Koenraad Elst doesn't believe in it anymore. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- What? First of all, I have stuck with the sources. And, it is a big deal: it is critical that Wikipedia accurately portray the scholarly consensus, just as it was done on the Christ myth theory article. BirdValiant (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- "Let it go, let it go"... and simply stick to the sources. It's not a big deal; I'll bet that even Koenraad Elst doesn't believe in it anymore. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- I would be okay with this version as well. As long as it is clear to the reader that this is a fringe theory, I don't much care what the exact wording is. We just cannot present this idea as real science. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Harappa dna source
Harappa dna is any match with northindian? krishh45 18:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Narasimhan et al (2019) has all the answers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Citation cleanup
I count at least 33 Harvard-style citation errors in this article (as of this writing). This is a good reason to convert to normal inline citations with a single "References" section (and perhaps put them in a WP:LDR end-of-page block, for neatness). Harvard referencing (separate citations and bibliography sections) is only practical in stable articles that see very little editorial churn, whereas this page is probably going to be furiously edited by all kinds of random people for decades, and very few of them are going to understand the complexities of two-section referencing, so they're going to continue breaking Harvard-style citations again and again.
PS: If you want to be easily able to detect broken Harvard cites, add the following to Special:MyPage/common.js:
// Detect broken Harvard citations (docs at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors): mw.loader.load('https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Shaffer
Shaffer is often presented as a supporter of the idea of indigenous aryans. Ironically, while arguing for cultural continuity, to explain the similarities between sanskrit and western languages, Shaffer (1984) proposed that Sanskrit has non-Indians origins, and was taken over by Indians, together with a new kind of societal organisation, which was codified in the Vedas in this non-Indian language. Not the kind of argument ever repeated by indigenists... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Correction required
"Yet, Shaffer also notes that the Harappan culture was not extensively tied to this network in the third century BCE, leaving the possibility that.." in this sentence, should it be "third millennium BCE" instead of "third century BCE"? __Chaduvari (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Chaduvari: you're absolutely right; I've corrected it. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Koenraad Elst says: "Of course it is a fringe theory"
I knew it: if it fits the purposes, even Koenraad Elst would be rejected as a source. Elst, of all persons. LOL! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Haha, that is funny.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- NB, regarding "WP:RSPS, totally blacklisted sources cannot be used as reference on Wikipedia," Swarajya is not "totally blacklisted," but "considered generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It is blacklisted on the spam blacklist, to avoid link spam. WP:RSP further says "context matters tremendously when determining how to use this list. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." It's quite obvious that this interview in Swarajya can be considered as reliable for a direct statement by Koenraad Elst, especially when he acknowledges that Indigenism is rejected by mainstream scholarship. There is no indication, let alone evidence, that Indigenism has any relevance in mainstream scholarly debate on the origins of the IE-languages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Koenraad Elst does not consider it a fringe theory in India, only out of India as mentioned in his quote itself attached to the article. He makes it clear it has the support of most archaeologists (not just some fringe "Hindu nationalists") in India.
- ""Of course it is a fringe theory, at least internationally, where the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) is still the official paradigm. In India, though, it has the support of most archaeologists, who fail to find a trace of this Aryan influx and instead find cultural continuity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldring234 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- And what does that tell us about Indian scholarship? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- It says that Indian archeologists does not always necessarily regurgitate what others say and do their own research and they are not afraid to question the dominant western narrative if it contradicts their evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldring234 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- If you are using his quote to justify your assertion that its a "fringe theory", Shouldn't you add that its a fringe theory outside India and not for Indian archeologists as the quote makes it clear ?Goldring234 (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Isn't that special pleading? Arguing that the standard criteria for science do not apply to Indian scholarship, because they deviate en masse from it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- That is your opinion. Koenraad's quote does not say that. Indian archeologists oppose Aryan migration theory using established scientific models. The fact you think they oppose it out of thin air without scientific basis shows your bias.Goldring234 (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Classical rhetorics: "that's your opinion." See the "opinions" of Witzel and Doniger regarding the (lack of) usage of "established scientific models" (I suppose you mean "methods"?; the Indigenist "model" is precisely not that, "established") by Indigenists in their opposition against establishd scientific methods. I'm afraid that your "own research" and "question the dominant western narrative" in practice mean that they propagate a 'political-religious' narrative which irreconciliably deviates from mainstream scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- The opposition to Witzel and Doniger by Indian archeologists and authors is precisely that they don't follow scientific models and suit their analysis to fit their ideological lens. The fact that these people accuse their Indian counterparts the same thing is like pot calling the kettle black. Talageri brought Witzel to his knees using the same scientific models which Witzel trumpet. What did Witzel do ? Initially came up with a half baked critique (which was again rebutted by Talageri using logical scientific method) and then ran away from the debate by appealing to authority. AMT thesis is a "Mainstream scholarship" only in entrenched "South Asian" academic cartels of the West. Not anywhere else and certainly not in India. In AMT debate, western "mainstream scholarship" AMT defenders act like the Church during Galileo's time trying to paint their opponents as devils instead of challenging the evidences of the OIT opponents on their own scientific merit.Goldring234 (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- So what you claim is that these Hindu nationalists, who rarely if ever any relevant education in the field, are more scientific than reputed scholars at the top of their field? Frawley, Talageri, Malhotra, Danino, and Rajaram are all non-scholars who have no proper training in any of the fields required for Indology. Elst and Lal still belong to the fringe of academia, and their work has been heavily criticized and had giant holes poked in them. If you need a refresher, read WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Koenraad has been labbled as a "fringe" not because his OIT thesis lacks merit but because his opponents labeled him as "radical anti-muslim". None of his opponents refuted his OIT arguments on their own merit. B.B.Lal was a distinguished archeologist and was Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India. He was anything but fringe in India. The fact that every Pro-OIT proponent is now being dubbed as "Hindu nationalist" is pure ignorance. Lal was actually Pro-AMT who turned Pro-OIT. Klaus Klostermaier, a Western academic himself had this to say in his book - A Survey of Hinduism. "This putative “Aryan invasion” was dated ca. 1500 bce, and the composition of the hymns of the Ṛgveda was fixed between 1400 and 1200 bce. The Aryan invasion theory was conceived on pure speculation on the basis of comparative philology, without any archaeological or literary evidence to support it. It was resisted as unfounded by some scholars from the very beginning. In the light of recent archaeological finds, it has become less and less tenable. Nevertheless, the Aryan invasion theory, recently downgraded to an Aryan migration theory, is still widely defended and forms part of many standard histories of Hinduism." Goldring234 (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- David Anthony's The Horse, the Wheel, and Language addresses much of the concerns that you cite from Klostermaier, which is again just rehashing the claims of indeginists that the scientific methodology of linguistics and archeology is just false. And that was even before the advent of archaeogenetics, which has been the final nail in the coffin for OIT. There is a reason I separated Lal and Elst from the rest. They are still academics, and I personally respect Lal for his archeological work, however his analysis has been heavily flawed and criticized. Chariotrider555 (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- David Anthony's does not provide anything new that Klostermaier or Koenraad Elst or Lal does not already included in their 'Pro-AMT' arguments which they then refute. Just because a book is relatively new does not mean the arguments and evidences are new. Its just rehashing the old arguments like old wine in new bottle. Even in archeogenetics, OIT has not been disproven. Like in linguistics, the AMT folks picked the studies which suited their already held views and ignored others which contradicted their views. Goldring234 (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- By refuting do you mean sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "La la la! Linguistics, archeology, and genetics are all wrong!" Anyway I am done here, as the community has already came to a consensus on the fact that the idea of Indigenous Aryans is complete fringe rooted in Hindu nationalism. Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. Refuting in the sense showing scientific evidence and linguistic theories which pro-AMT folks choose to ignore or discredit them not on the basis of their scientific merits but who is saying them. Goldring234 (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The amount of rhetorics, and refusal to acknowledge the obvious, is overwhelming:
- Ideological lens: it's not 'western scholars accusing their Indian counterparts of the same thing'; it is fringe authors accusing mainstream scholars (the overwhelming majority) of the same thing;
- Which publications by Talageri are you referring to, and how much impact have they had in mainstream scholarship on Indian history?
- The AMt is not 'mainstream scholarship only in entrenched "South Asian" academic cartels of the West'; it ìs mainstream scholarship, worldwide, except for some scholars and authors whose impact is mostly confined to India and an alternate universe at the internet (ironically, the best-known voices of the Indigenist camp are westerners...;
- Most AMT-scholars don't pay any attention at all to Indigenists, simply because they are utterly irrelevant, lacking "scientific merit" worth responding to;
- Elst has given an overview of an OoI-model, but doesn't seem to take it very serious himself; Lal's latest publication on Indigenism is completely ignored in the scholarly debate; and Klostermaier is the sad black swan among credible scholars who has voiced support for Indigenism, though he too does not seem to be widely cited in his views on Indigenism, but rather neglected;
- Anthony's The Horse is an overwhelming book, incomparable to Elst, Klostermaier or Lal. Klostermaier's few alinea's on the origins of the Aryans don't adress Anthony's arguments at all;
- Archeogenetics isn't even interested in Indigenism; what authors in this field deem to be disproven is Renfrew's model. But that Reich and Narasimhan and their co-authors don't leave any room whatsoever for Indigenism is abundantly clear; and explicitly stated in their responses to Shinde's public turnaround discrediting his own conlusions in the infamous Rakhighiri-study (augh..... how low can you go throwing away your scientific reputation?)
- Which "scientific evidence" and "linguistic theories" are ignored? Did they have impact? Or are you running around in a circle? "Evidence" and "theories" which are ignored because they are irrelevant and useless, and their authors being ignored for this reason?
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
AMT supporters themselves indulge in rhetorics of their own even while accusing their opponents of the same thing. And then they try to ride the high horse.
- OIT is not a fringe among Indian archeologists, academics and Archeogeneticists. Anglo-American academic cartels assume their opinions are the norm in the whole world. They are not. Its like labelling Hindus as "fringe" religious group because their numbers are insignificant in the West while turning a blind eye to the vast number of them in India.
- AMT/OIT topic itself is a fringe topic outside of India. Only in India, people have interest in it. Lal, Talageri, Koenraad, Klostermaier, Kazanas - these are well known names in Indian academic circles. Every one in India who is interested in AMT/OIT debate reads their books as a rule, even those who disagree with them. To say they have no impact on Indian mainstream scholarship is ridiculous. Western Pro-AMT academic cartels are not "mainstream". Their opinions on AMT are considered fringe among large sections of India. Not because Indians are against them for ideological reasons as AMT folks try to portray. But because the AMT folks have ignored Pro-OIT folks, labelling them while not debunking their thesis on scientific merits.
- David Anthony's book did not make any difference to the AMT/OIT debate. The people who champion it are already convinced about AMT. Its like eco chamber preaching to the choirs. The people who needs to be convinced - their critics were not convinced by his arguments and evidences as they are not new but old wine in new bottle.
- Archeogeniticists were dragged by AMT folks into the debate because they thought that will seal the debate in their favor. But what it did was to create more questions. When Shinde did not agree with them, he suddenly became "fringe" for them. Infact Reich himself was confusing interpreting his own results. AMT folks quote him to show Steppe ancestry for Indo-European languages with Indians and Iranians being one branch. But Reich is quoted as saying Iran or Armenia itself as the origin of Indo-European languages. See his attested quote here under "Indo-European origins" section.https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/David_Reich_(geneticist)
- Russian Archaeologist Dr. Alexandr Semenenko' work on Chariots and its relation to the AMT/OIT debate promises to be as pathbreaking as those of Talageri's on linguistics. Anglo-American Pro-AMT academic cartels led by Witzel, Doniger et al who were unable to rebut Talageri's books on scientific basis tend to ignore him as his work goes against their well entrenched position. I would have loved to see them demolish Taligeri's work on scientific merit. I wonder what excuse these Anglo-American academic 'South Asian" cartels will find to ignore Semenenko's work.Goldring234 (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's still not clear to me what debate between Wiztel and Talageri you're referring to. You mean Witzel's devastating critique of The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Witzel did critiqued Talageri's book 'The Rigveda- Historical analysis'. But it was not devastating. Like most AMT folks, he mostly rehashed his original arguments. Talageri's arguments were largely unaddressed. Talageri rebutted Witzel's lame critique of his book in his next book - 'The Rigveda and the Avesta'. He also rips apart the arguments of another AMT ayatollah Hans Hock. Goldring234 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Talageri is not even a fringe author, because he has no academic credentials. This is the main problem with the Aryan nativist group in general. They say Indian academicians were too westernized, when they have an actual education. This is their only argument. An argument, which is not taken seriously by western (and Indian) scientists.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Witzel did critiqued Talageri's book 'The Rigveda- Historical analysis'. But it was not devastating. Like most AMT folks, he mostly rehashed his original arguments. Talageri's arguments were largely unaddressed. Talageri rebutted Witzel's lame critique of his book in his next book - 'The Rigveda and the Avesta'. He also rips apart the arguments of another AMT ayatollah Hans Hock. Goldring234 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
How does an IE origin in the Caucasus disprove AMT? ChandlerMinh (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Request for comment: IA/OoI is a fringe theory
Extensive discussion has been made whether the subject should be called 'fringe'. There is no consensus to modify the existing text. Kraose (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
Should the article say in the lede that the Indigenous Aryans / Out of India theory is a fringe theory as in the suggestion below? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Following this addition, the IA/OoI is a fringe theory, and should be qualified as such in the lead:
The [idea of] Indigenous Aryans [theory], also known as the Out of India theory (OIT), is a fringe theory[1][2][note 1] which entails the belief[3][note 2] that the Indo-Aryans were indigenous to South Asia. It proposes that the Indo-European languages, or at least the Indo-Aryan languages, originated within the Indian subcontinent, from where they spread to Central Asia and Europe. While presented as an alternative to the established migration model, which proposes the Pontic steppe as the area of origin of the Indo-European languages, it is "largely neglected by Western scholars because it is regarded as incompetent."[5]
- Notes
- ^ Fringe theory:
- Witzel: "The 'revisionist project' certainly is not guided by the principles of critical theory but takes, time and again, recourse to pre-enlightenment beliefs in the authority of traditional religious texts such as the Purånas. In the end, it belongs, as has been pointed out earlier, to a different 'discourse' than that of historical and critical scholarship. In other words, it continues the writing of religious literature, under a contemporary, outwardly 'scientific' guise."[1]
- Jamison: "The Indo-Aryan controversy is a manufactured one with a non-scholarly agenda, and the tactics of its manufacturers are very close to those of the ID proponents mentioned above. However unwittingly and however high their aims, the two editors have sought to put a gloss of intellectual legitimacy, with a sense that real scientific questions are being debated, on what is essentially a religio-nationalistic attack on a scholarly consensus."[2]
- ^ Witzel:
- "Any immigration scenario is strenuously denied by [...] the autochthonists who try to show (or who simply believe in) an indigenous origin of the 'Aryans' in the subcontinent.[4]
- "The revisionist and autochthonous project, then, should not be regarded as scholarly in the usual post-enlightenment sense of the word, but as an apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking aiming at proving the 'truth' of traditional texts and beliefs [...] [those writings] must be clearly understood and described as traditional, (semi-)religious writings. Therefore they should be regarded and used, not as scholarly contributions, but as objects for the study of the traditional mind, -- uncomfortable as this might be for some of their proponents, many of whom combine, in facile fashion, an education in science with a traditional minds."[3]
- References
- ^ a b Witzel 2001.
- ^ a b Jamison 2006.
- ^ a b Witzel 2001, p. 95.
- ^ Witzel 2001, p. 28.
- ^ Fosse 2005, p. 438.
See also Talk:Indigenous Aryans/Archive 3#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory for additional scholarly assessments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Related threads
This RfC was preceded by the following RfCs and Administrator Noticeboard threads:
- Talk:Indigenous_Aryans/Archive_3#RfC:_the_"Indigenous_Aryans"_theory_is_fringe-theory (Result: the "Indigenous Aryans" proposal which is the subject of this article is a fringe theory according to Wikipedia guidelines. jps (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC))
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_45#Proposed_Hypothesis/Theory_as_fact (Result: Premature closure, see [2])
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive871#Massive_POV_pushing_problem_at_WP:FRINGE_and_Indo-Aryan_topics
This RfC was also preceded by the following related threads on this and related talk pages:
- Talk:Indigenous Aryans#"Theory" The thread immediately preceding this RfC.
- Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration#Shinde_et_al._(2019) Thread discussing recent (2019) genetic research
- Talk:Indigenous_Aryans/Archive_3#Questionable
- Talk:Indigenous_Aryans/Archive_2#Continuity_vs._immigration
- Talk:Indigenous_Aryans/Archive_2#What_does_Elst_conclude_regarding_OIT?
- Talk:Indigenous_Aryans/Archive_2#Re-ordering_to_fit_overview_of_arguments_and_scenarios
The topic of "Indigenous Aryans" or "Out of India" has appeared on at least the following threads on the Fringe Noticeboard:
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Scientific_Parallels_in_Hindu_Mythology
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Bulgars
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Return_of_the_Hindutvavadis
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_11#the_obligatory_Hindutva_intermezzo
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Out_of_India,_migrations_from_the_Urheimat_to_cyberspace
Survey
- Support - see also Narasimhan, Vagheesh M.; Patterson, N.J.; et al. (2019), "The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central Asia", Science, 365 (6457): eaat7487, doi:10.1126/science.aat7487, PMC 6822619, PMID 31488661, representative of the scholarly consensus, which leaves no room whatsoever for any consideration of IA/OoI as being within the bounds of scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Additional quotes
|
---|
The sources as quoted above are quite explicit. See also:
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC) |
- Support - It is obviously an unscientific theory based on blind beliefs and some junky arguments brought forth to buttress them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support. The essential argument is that WP:FRINGE has a broad definition of "fringe theory": In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. The numerous sources given in these threads and throughout the article clearly demonstrate that, under that definition, IA/OoI is a fringe theory. This is not only a consensus of mainstream scholarship, but it was also the consensus of Wikipedia editors during the last Request for Comment: [3]. Furthermore, I concur with user Erutuon from that discussion (in the Comments section) in that the term "fringe theory" is not a value judgment expressing the despicability, dishonesty, and ulterior motives of those who promote a theory. It is not a pejorative, it is not an insult. It simply reflects the level of acceptance of an idea among academics. For example, with regards to the Christ myth theory, I enjoy listening to Richard Carrier and I think that his ideas are intriguing, but at the same time, the article must characterize mythicist position as a fringe theory, which it thankfully does. To do otherwise would be a grave disservice to readers and give a false impression of the idea's position in scholarship. Likewise, we would be doing a grave disservice to readers to characterize IA/OoI as anything less than a fringe theory. BirdValiant (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support. As noted above, "fringe" is not a "value judgment", but an accurate description of how the mainstream academic community perceives the issue. Heiro 23:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Oppose. Description is more effective than labeling. Why is it considered 'fringe', who pushes it, etc.? Just calling it 'fringe' doesn't really tell me all that much. I suspect the sources more often describe as 'revisionist' and lacking rigor or non-scholarly. Is that 'incompetent' quote by Fosse often cited by others? Should be a pretty high bar to include such. with lots of others repeating and citing the quote. fiveby (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)My comment was focused on the details of the wording, striking so as not to detract from the consensus. fiveby (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Oppose - As absurd. No reliable sources have been presented to support the argument. Recent DNA studies by archaeologists and scientists support this theory, I would also say we need to improve coverage of this subject in context of Indian history. Shrikanthv (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Oppose [Statement by indefinitely blocked user] As I already noted in above sections, WP:VERIFY is the policy not Wikipedia's user's own interpretation of their personal feelings towards the subject. As such I oppose the RfC and redirect people to scholarly sources such as this from Cambridge, this from Oxford University Press, this by Routledge and many more scholarly sources where this theory has got significant attention as a contender or alternative theory. Fringe theories barely ever get attention other than their particular fringe circles. ML 911 16:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: User:My Lord has been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Support As I've not seen any mainstream scholarship supporting this opinion other than the Sanskrit nativists, who usually lack any type of formal education in the related fields.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose [Statement by indefinitely blocked user] - Violates WP:OR and none of the sources are verifying the word, nor other parts of the the lead. This theory isn't "presented as an alternative", but has been founding support since 18th century.[4][5] I also don't see any sense in WP:SYNTHESISING non-independent sources for the lead. You would be supporting the "mainstream theory" if it was as mainstream as "Out of Africa" theory, but it is very far from that and has been deduced to a much different conclusion than what it was proposed in 18th century - 20th century. Bharatiya29 14:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: Bharatiya29 has been blocked indefinitely by the Arbitration Committee. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Oppose, and I embrace all the argument of the opposers. Given the fact the Indo-European theories suffer from a relevant uncertainty ans mostly consist hyphothesis and speculations mostly based on even a hyphothetical artifically reconstructed PIE that often tries to identify itself as a borrower to non-Indo European langauges or cultures even on those timelines and ages that is heavily controversial. Hence, labeling a theory in such a determined manner could be indentified as a POV support for part of the Indo-Europeanist lobby, shall it be any direction regarding the hyphothetical location of origins, etc. Until the exact and uncontroverisal location of the Urheimat is not determined and there is no evidence of the common langauge ancestor, the whole question should be left open.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC))
Extended content
|
---|
You're still prsenting a theory without support in mainstream scholarship as an equivalent of the mainstream position. It may be your personal opinion that there is too much uncertainty about the steppe-origins of the IE-languages, but this certainly isn't the view of mainstream scholarship. Indigenism simply isn't a model which is considered credible, or even discussed, in the relevant scholarly discourse. There is no equivalent WP:RS for, say, Anthony's The Horse, the Wheel, and Language, Parpola's The Origins of Hinduism, or Narasimhan et al. (2019). The only sources presented so far are Bryant, and a few sources which superfluously mention the indigenist position, without any serious treatment of the arguments. The indigenist position is a non-issue in mainstream scholarship; it is simply irrelevant for the understanding of the origins of IE-origins. It only has relevance in Indian nationalistic discourse, as illustrated by Shinde, who had a publication in a relevant journal, then publicly dismissed his own research results and conclusions, and was publicly rebuked by his co-authors and other knowledgeable authors. That's the sad status of the indigenist position: annoying, embarrassing, and irrelevant. Fringe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
|
- Support per everything I and so many others have said before in all these related discussions. I'm not going to repeat it all here. WP:FRINGE is broadly defined, and it does not require that the source literally use the exact word "fringe"; they simply have to agree that it doesn't represent the scientific consensus. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Per KIENGER, I oppose and agree that majority of linguistics support Kurgan theory by saying that it wields the higher possibility than saying that the Kurgan theory is scientifically established. Agree with Bharatiya29 about sourcing of proposed wording. Kaweendra (talk) 11:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Oppose The sources are not supporting the proposed info as clarified above. Present lead of the article is good enough. Capitals00 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Support - The sources make it clear that it is not mainstream scholarship. —PaleoNeonate – 14:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - per Joshua Jonathan Idealigic (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Basically unsourced original research. As of now,
everymany countries (at least in Eurasia) claims to be the origin of Indo-European language, thus the subject is not surprising. Azuredivay (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Oppose. To begin with, for a theory to be deemed fringe in Wikipedia's voice, there needs to be a lopsided rejection of the theory amongst the subject matter experts. That has not been demonstrated at all. What has been advanced in the name of 'scholary consensus' in the course of this discussion are certain quotations from books that have been cherry-picked in order to reinforce personal prejudice. And even then, these cherry-picked arguments don't do justice to the inferences that had been drawn from them; something that a number of users have already highlighted above.Just to add to this: there is much debate within the relevant scholarly literature itself on the concerning theory, and one could find a plethora of views in favour of it, including from some of the eminent authority on the subject such as B. B. Lal[8] and Jim G. Shaffer[9] Clearly then, in view of this acceptance amongst the leading experts of this particular field, the label of 'fringe' would but be incompatible.In other words, in the face of this scholarly disagreement, we should follow the usual drill and cover the different viewpoints, rather than taking sides. Regards, MBlaze Lightning 07:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Oppose per MBlaze Lightning. As he pointed out, there is a not insignificant number of scholars supporting this hypothesis. I can certainly agree that it's a minority point of view, but the use of the term "fringe theory" is derogatory and doesn't belong in the intro without attribution. Indian historians advocating this theory have been called nationalists by some, but the fact remains that they do exist and they are credentialed historians, so, when it comes to the intro, we shouldn't call them "fringe" outright. However, I think we could directly quote another reputable historian who does choose to call them "fringe". IvoryTower123 (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Which scholars? Publishing which publications in which journals? Sources please, not unfounded statements. And which attribution are you missing? Who are those "credentialed historians"? Again, please provide solid sources for your statements. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support per BirdValiant and Joshua Jonathan. Puduḫepa 06:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Support, per the overwhelming consensus within contemporary scholarly sources. I could quibble with the wording; specifically, I think "fringe" is a Wikipedia-specific term that might be confusing in context; but the substance of this proposal, that the mainstream consensus among scholarly sources clearly opposes this theory, is supported by the sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, per KEINGIR and MBlaze Lightning. Theory isn't fringe (nor any sources say so) but one of the competing hypothesis. The sources above only show significance that this theory has attracted attention in serious literature and considered to be accurate by enough scholars, even if not most but then there is absence of a non-controversial theory about the subject. Yoonadue (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Support - The multiple reliable sources provided by nom clearly demonstrates that IA/OoI fits our definition of a fringe theory. Krakkos (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Current scholarly consensus holds that we don't enough info on history as to where did the Indo-European languages originated from. While enough agree with Kurgan Hypothesis citing linguistic evidence, but still there isn't enough info or clarity from sources (including those mentioned here) to name Out of India as fringe. I wouldn't name any of the current proposals as 'fringe' unless there are enough sources supporting the information. If we are creating our own meaning from the sources then it is just violation of WP:OR. Santosh L (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended discussion
- Notice of my formatting activity - I have reformatted the RfC, making it have a clear question. I have also added sub-sections for Related Threads, consolidated a Survey section, and made this Comments section. If anyone has any objects to me doing this, please feel free to revert.<br.
- Also, I'm going to remove my signature from the question section. I added it to make it clear that I added the question. However, it falsely makes it look like I started the RfC in the first place, which I did not. So, I hope that this comment will suffice for documentation. BirdValiant (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Redrose64 and Joshua Jonathan: As stated here, I (BirdValiant) formatted the RfC and added sub-sections, including the Question section where I added a concise question with this edit here: [10]. I wrote the question since I'm pretty sure that RfCs are supposed to have a concise question; Joshua Jonathan technically did not write that exact question. However, as stated above, I was not the one to start the RfC, and I thought that having my signature on the question made it falsely look like I started it. I also thought that adding the question was more of a "formatting activity" than a "post" per WP:SIGNHERE, so I figured that my signature was distracting and unnecessary. On the other hand, I didn't want to make it look like Joshua Jonathan wrote that exact question, so I just decided to put it in italics. But, now it looks like Joshua Jonathan wrote the exact wording, so I don't know if that's good, either. BirdValiant (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Whilst the full signature is optional, the timestamp component of it is mandatory, otherwise Legobot doesn't know where the statement ends. If it can't find a valid timestamp within a certain length, it doesn't list the RfC correctly, and will not publicise it through WP:FRS. It's covered at WP:RFCST and WP:RFCBRIEF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. Joshua Jonathan's signature was so far down (after the references) that Legobot must've missed it. Well, I guess we can leave it up to Joshua Jonathan to determine whether I summarized the RfC in a way which reflected his intentions, and whether there should be a full signature there, or a five-tilde-style timestamp. BirdValiant (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Whilst the full signature is optional, the timestamp component of it is mandatory, otherwise Legobot doesn't know where the statement ends. If it can't find a valid timestamp within a certain length, it doesn't list the RfC correctly, and will not publicise it through WP:FRS. It's covered at WP:RFCST and WP:RFCBRIEF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Redrose64 and Joshua Jonathan: As stated here, I (BirdValiant) formatted the RfC and added sub-sections, including the Question section where I added a concise question with this edit here: [10]. I wrote the question since I'm pretty sure that RfCs are supposed to have a concise question; Joshua Jonathan technically did not write that exact question. However, as stated above, I was not the one to start the RfC, and I thought that having my signature on the question made it falsely look like I started it. I also thought that adding the question was more of a "formatting activity" than a "post" per WP:SIGNHERE, so I figured that my signature was distracting and unnecessary. On the other hand, I didn't want to make it look like Joshua Jonathan wrote that exact question, so I just decided to put it in italics. But, now it looks like Joshua Jonathan wrote the exact wording, so I don't know if that's good, either. BirdValiant (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment on RfC format - Is this RfC categorized into the appropriate topic? It seems to me that it should belong in rfc|hist and rfc|lang instead of, or in addition to, rfc|reli, because the topic concerns the historical place of origin of the Indo-Aryan languages. I'm not sure, though: can this be changed after it is added? BirdValiant (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've added the rfc|hist and rfc|lang categories. Feel free to revert if adding categories is not allowed. I don't see anywhere on WP:RFC that says this is not allowed, but maybe I'm missing something. BirdValiant (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment on wording of the proposed statement: I think that the bracketed [idea of] should be replaced by "concept of" as it is now, and that the bracketed [theory] should be deleted. I don't think that square-bracketed statements are esthetically pleasing in ledes. It's difficult to find a phrasing which neatly ties together both of IA and OoI together, but I think that making those small changes would be about as good as possible. BirdValiant (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment unrelated to the content dispute - the prose in this article is a tangled mess and requires improvement. All of the editors who are participating in the editing of the article should work together to simplify the prose in the lead paragraph in the first instance. I think that will assist others (whom you are seeking comments from) so that they can focus on the content issues you would like them to review. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Notice of editing another's posts @My Lord: In this edit, you edited my posts so that my citations were broken. I don't know if it was intentional or some kind of automated process, but please do not do that. BirdValiant (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is my browser setting, removes very unnecessary spaces. I generally turn it off. ML 911 18:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- @BirdValiant: I'm sure it wasn't intentional; there's simply no need for ML to do so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan: Don't strike comments by My Lord. We only strike comments by socks not by sockmaster even if the multiple accounts abuse concerned this page. Though sock comments can be removed as well but not master's. Capitals00 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I support the strikethrough. In this case, not only were the sockpuppets blocked indefinitely, but so too was the sockmaster. Does the opinion of someone totally banished from the website matter, when it comes to the activities of those who remain on the website? I don't think so. BirdValiant (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. ML is no participant anymore at Wikipedia, for good reasons; their opinions don't count here. But we can ask @Bbb23: should the comments of banned users be included in the conclusion of this Rfc? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Birdvalient: Sockmasters can be unblocked with or without convincing request but socks remain "
totally banished from the website
". This is why I said, only comment of socks comments are removed. Capitals00 (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I support the strikethrough. In this case, not only were the sockpuppets blocked indefinitely, but so too was the sockmaster. Does the opinion of someone totally banished from the website matter, when it comes to the activities of those who remain on the website? I don't think so. BirdValiant (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan: Don't strike comments by My Lord. We only strike comments by socks not by sockmaster even if the multiple accounts abuse concerned this page. Though sock comments can be removed as well but not master's. Capitals00 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- @BirdValiant: I'm sure it wasn't intentional; there's simply no need for ML to do so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is my browser setting, removes very unnecessary spaces. I generally turn it off. ML 911 18:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Request to re-list - The discussion had grown stagnant for a couple weeks, with no progress. Legobot has apparently removed the RFC tag. I suggest that the RFC be re-listed, in order to gain more input. BirdValiant (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Question on full protection - Why have you fully protected the article? Other articles that are very high profile, such as coronavirus, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders only have extended confirmed protection as of posting. Bernspeed (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment on lack of responses - I notice that most editors who oppose the explicit qualification of the IA-"theory" in the lead have not responded to requests to substantiate their statements with reliable sources. The only sources mentioned are given by Shrikanthv, who refers to Shinde (2019), whose public contradiction of his own publication has been ripped to pieces; and by MBlazeLightning, namely Lal, who's opinions on this topic are neglected in the scholarly literarture; and Shaffer, who does not voice support for the indigenist position, and whose cited statement even contradicts the indigenist position. In lack of evidence for the supposed mainstream position of indigenism, the opinions of these editors should be weighted as such, namely personal opinions and beliefs, when concluding this RfC. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment on possible topic-ban - @Joshua Jonathan: You are mistaken with this note. I am not topic banned, see this. You may want to remove it. After all, per WP:FOC, you must not comment on contributors but only comment on content and refrain from speculating backgrounds of other editors per WP:ASPERSIONS even if they have declared it on their userpage. Capitals00 (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Calling my comment "speculating backgrounds" or an aspersion is incorrect; you were topic-banned, and asking if you're rightfully commenting here is relevant and reasonable. But, given the fact that your topic-ban was lifted, I'll strike my comment. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
Given the above discussion has been closed as no consensus to make the change, the immediate disagreement seems to have been solved so I've dropped the article back to semi-protection if there's productive editing to be done. If the edit warring resumes, of course so can the protection. ~ mazca talk 19:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Mazca: Given User:Kraose (who closed the RfC) hasn't edited for 3 months and you were involved in an administrative, could you please clarify for me whether your understanding that the intention behind the close was that Indigenous Aryans be described as a fringe theory or not? My understanding is that Kraose meant that there wasn't consensus to modify what was the current text as of their close (fringe theory not in the lede) rather than there being no consensus not to adopt the suggested text. However, there have been recent reverts and discussion about it below. Just want to confirm what the original intent was before I determine what administrative action should be taken. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Callanecc: Yeah, by my recollection this RfC was closed with there being no consensus to modify the text as it stood - the version I unprotected was this, which does not include "fringe" in the lead. For context, I got involved briefly after there was further discussion of Kraose's closes at AN here, but beyond a general review that "no consensus" wasn't an unreasonable conclusion, and unprotecting it after most parties seemed to agree to stop edit warring, I've not really stuck my head in this disagreement much further than that. Thanks! ~ mazca talk 13:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Re Fringe Label
RfC revisited
@Azuredivay: Regarding the sources for the fringe label, there are several. The theory is widely rejected by mainstream scholarship/outside the mainstream, and thus meets the definition of "fringe". It is not necessary that the word "fringe" explicitly be used, although it is explicitly used by Konrad Elst (see below). I think you may possibly have misunderstood the rfc. The inclusion of the fringe label, as far as I can tell, was the preexisting state of the article (before the rfc). The rfc seems to have been about whether or not it should stay, and the decision was not to modify it (i.e. keep the label). However, if unsure, the thing to do might be to ask some of those involved (such as User:Joshua Jonathan, who seems to have begun the rfc, - or User:Kraose or User:Mazca, who seem also to have been involved but in a neutral capacity). I In the meantime, it is best to avoid edit warring.
Edit: The "fringe" label does indeed predate the rfc. The "fringe" label was added on January 24th 2020. The rfc was begun on Febuart 23rd 2020. Seemingly the decision of the rfc was to keep the label (by not modifying the text). See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/937316103
The sources in the note alone make clear that the indigenous Aryan theory is fringe and rejected by mainstream scholarship. Here are just those from the note (many others are cited in the rfc and elewhere in the article):
"Romila Thapar (2006): "there is no scholar at this time seriously arguing for the indigenous origin of Aryans".[101] Wendy Doniger (2017): "The opposing argument, that speakers of Indo-European languages were indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, is not supported by any reliable scholarship. It is now championed primarily by Hindu nationalists, whose religious sentiments have led them to regard the theory of Aryan migration with some asperity."[web 1]
Girish Shahane (September 14, 2019), in response to Narasimhan et al. (2019): "Hindutva activists, however, have kept the Aryan Invasion Theory alive, because it offers them the perfect strawman, 'an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument' ... The Out of India hypothesis is a desperate attempt to reconcile linguistic, archaeological and genetic evidence with Hindutva sentiment and nationalistic pride, but it cannot reverse time's arrow ... The evidence keeps crushing Hindutva ideas of history
Koenraad Elst (May 10, 2016): "Of course it is a fringe theory, at least internationally, where the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) is still the official paradigm. In India, though, it has the support of most archaeologists, who fail to find a trace of this Aryan influx and instead find cultural continuity."[4]"
Skllagyook (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- The rfc-question was if the fringe-label should be added, but the existing text indeed included the fringe-label. Which is correct; Indigenism is indeed a fringe-"theory" in all the meanings the trrm has. Anyone with some basic knowledge of Indo-European history and linguistics, and the intention to build a reliable encyclopedia, knows that Indigenism is totally incompatible with the facts, and plays no role whatsoever in the scholarly debate. None. And I'm still waiting for the solid sources, instead of the wiki-lawyering and the attempts to game the system, to prove me wrong. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:IDHT, I won't repeat my message which I already added here, that the RfC was about whether the term "Fringe" should be included and there was no consensus to include it. This was the version during the RfC.
- It is ironic that you want to avoid edit warring while you are edit warring over a silly label that has no support from the sources and you are WP:CHERRYPICKING Koenraad Elst who you would otherwise reject as a source. You seem to have omitted the quotation of Elst who also said that "But anyway, this ‘fringe’ aspect doesn’t impress me at all. When Copernicus put the sun rather than the earth at the centre of the solar system, he was in a minority of one, very ‘fringe’ indeed; but he won the day." If you don't agree with this, then at least don't cherrypick. Rest of your sources don't verify the term. There is criticism towards every other proposed Indo European origin. Azuredivay (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Bullshit. Scholarly consensus is that IE-languages originated ate the Pontic-Caspian steppes. And now please provide the sources which show that Indigenism is a credible theory in mainstream scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Skllagyook: See WP:REFACTOR and stop modifying your already replied comments like you are doing above:[11][12] Wareon (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Wareon: I'm not quite sure how REFACTOR applies here. But regarding modifying my comment, that is noted. However, when I modified the comment, I was not yet aware it had been replied to (it was not yet obvious to me; the reply and my modifications happened around the same time), and also I believe my modifications were fairly minor (or meant to be) not significantly changing the substance of the comment. Edit: I have now undone (thought it best to undo) some of the aforementioned modifications to my comment. Skllagyook (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- You too, Wareon: provide sources, instead of hitting the revert-button, templating the regulars, and divering the issue. Back-up the claim that Indigenism is a credible theory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- That isn't something we are even discussing. We are not verifying credibility of the theory but removing a label that is unsourced and was already discussed during the RfC above. Wareon (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- You too, Wareon: provide sources, instead of hitting the revert-button, templating the regulars, and divering the issue. Back-up the claim that Indigenism is a credible theory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Above, I was also asked the same question but I ignored it per WP:NOTFORUM. Azuredivay (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the ping Callanecc. I don't edit these days but I check my emails regularly. The RfC concerned about the addition of the label which was being discussed at the time when the RfC was opened. I had closed the RfC as no consensus concerning the inclusion of the term/label after the prolonged discussion. It seems that until last month this page abided by the result of the RfC and I don't see any reason to second-guess the simple closure. Kraose (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Kraose. FYI on what the consensus version is Wareon, Joshua Jonathan, Skllagyook, Azuredivay. If you would like to change it (that is, add it), given that it is disputed and contentious, another RfC will need to be held. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Azuredivay (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- I understand. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
More sources
Another enlightening article, describing Hindutva revisionism and the misuse af archaeological data: Anne-Julie Etter (2020), Creating Suitable Evidence of the Past? Archaeology, Politics, and Hindu Nationalism in India from the End of the Twentieth Century to the Present.
And H. Tull (2019), India and Beyond: Vedism, Hinduism, and the Continuity of Culture:
Parpola hardly pauses, and correctly so, over the countervailing “out of India” theory
That's the state of affairs internationally regarding Indigenism: scholars don't even bother to mention it, let alone engage it and reject it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps someone will find this recent article useful for the IA article: "Integrating Linguistics, Social Structure, and Geography to Model Genetic Diversity within India" [13] . A layman's summary by Purdue Univ. is available here: [14] . BirdValiant (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Chaubey
Arbitrary header #1
Chaubey, cited here, refers to Metspalu et al. (2011). Interestingly, Metspalu stated to Fountain Ink that "the West Eurasian component in Indians appears to come from a population that diverged genetically from people actually living in Eurasia, and this separation happened at least 12,500 years ago." That's in line with Narasimhan et al. (2019), who found that the Iranian hunter-gatherer component (west Eurasian!) entered South Asia before the advent of farming. I've always found Metspalu's comment intriguing, since it is at odds with the Indo-Aryan migrations; Narasimhan et al. (2019) offers the explanation - and underscores the relevance of genetic research. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan:. That seems very different from the claim that no admixture has entered India since 60kya (!). But I'm not sure that Metspalu's statement is necessarily at odds with Indo-Aryan migrations; since part (sometimes the bulk) of the west Eurasian component in Indians is from a pre-Aryan/pre-IE wave (the one related to peoples in Iran) which came earlier, with the steppe-admixed admixture component linked to Aryan languages arriving after, which is what Narasimhan found. (Unless, of course, that is what you are referring to, which I think likely is the case.) Skllagyook (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Skllagyook but given you are "not sure" you should avoid giving more weight to your own opinion above the reliable source. DNA India is a reliable source and it talked about study published in peer-reviewed journal which is American Journal of Human Genetics. If you still have problem then you can use this source instead but I don't see any valid reason to remove the content added here. Azuredivay (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Azuredivay: The source was already added back by User:Joshua Jonathan in a more appropriate/relevant place here [[15]]. I now see, from your link what Chaubey was stating. Since Chaubey, more recent research (e.g. Anthony, Narasimhan 2019) has supported the idea/theory of a steppe-descended migration into India and its association with the introduction of IE/Aryan languages. Skllagyook (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Skllagyook: that's indeed what I mean. But at the time Metspalu et al. (2011) was published (two years after Reich et al. (2009), with their pathbreaking ANI-ASI distinction), this was less clear. No wonder Chaubey claimed there was no Indo-Aryan migration (though Shinde claimed the same, after having published a paper which explicitly provided arguments pro IAm...). Still, it's fascinating that Metspalu et al. (2011) picked up this signal, confidently stating that there had been no inflow of external genes for at least 12,500 years. They were not talking nonsense; given Narasimhan et al. (2019), they picked up signal from a (or more) pre-agrarian migration(s) from the west, that is, the Iranian plateau. Only when the Harappan civilisation started to take shape in the river-valleys, that is, after the Mergarh-phases in the mountains, did they start to mix with the AASI, the hunter-gatherers who had been in India for 50,000 years. Why not before? Strict endogamy? Different niches? NB: that genetic research supports IAm an sich is not in question, not at all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- So why one should not restore the study by "Chaubey"? User:Skllagyook your argument is not supported by a policy. The study by Chaubey was highly acclaimed and has been mentioned in multiple scholarly sources (one provided above) so your argument that DNA India is unreliable that's why you removed it falls flat.
- I don't see how "
since 2015 genetic research has increasingly confirmed the migration of Steppe pastoralists into South Asia
" is supported by any of the two added source. It appears WP:OR which was recently added, and should be removed or modified. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Skllagyook: that's indeed what I mean. But at the time Metspalu et al. (2011) was published (two years after Reich et al. (2009), with their pathbreaking ANI-ASI distinction), this was less clear. No wonder Chaubey claimed there was no Indo-Aryan migration (though Shinde claimed the same, after having published a paper which explicitly provided arguments pro IAm...). Still, it's fascinating that Metspalu et al. (2011) picked up this signal, confidently stating that there had been no inflow of external genes for at least 12,500 years. They were not talking nonsense; given Narasimhan et al. (2019), they picked up signal from a (or more) pre-agrarian migration(s) from the west, that is, the Iranian plateau. Only when the Harappan civilisation started to take shape in the river-valleys, that is, after the Mergarh-phases in the mountains, did they start to mix with the AASI, the hunter-gatherers who had been in India for 50,000 years. Why not before? Strict endogamy? Different niches? NB: that genetic research supports IAm an sich is not in question, not at all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Azuredivay: The source was already added back by User:Joshua Jonathan in a more appropriate/relevant place here [[15]]. I now see, from your link what Chaubey was stating. Since Chaubey, more recent research (e.g. Anthony, Narasimhan 2019) has supported the idea/theory of a steppe-descended migration into India and its association with the introduction of IE/Aryan languages. Skllagyook (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Skllagyook but given you are "not sure" you should avoid giving more weight to your own opinion above the reliable source. DNA India is a reliable source and it talked about study published in peer-reviewed journal which is American Journal of Human Genetics. If you still have problem then you can use this source instead but I don't see any valid reason to remove the content added here. Azuredivay (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Dhawangupta: It is not WP:OR at all. The sources (and others) state/support what the edit says. Narasimhan et al. 2019 for example (which found no steppe admixture or R1a in the Indus Valley people, as is present in many/most modern South Asians/South Asian populations) supports the theory that steppe/Yamnaya descended peoples subsequently brought IE languages to South Asia. I quoted the study in the edit notes. Here is the quote again (in full) (from the "Discussion" section of the study toward the end):
- "Our results not only provide evidence against an Iranian plateau origin for Indo-European languages in South Asia but also evidence for the theory that these languages spread from the Steppe. Although ancient DNA has documented westward movements of Steppe pastoralist ancestry providing a likely conduit for the spread of many Indo-European languages to Europe (7, 8), the chain of transmission into South Asia has been unclear because of a lack of relevant ancient DNA. Our observation of the spread of Central_Steppe_MLBA ancestry into South Asia in the first half of the second millennium BCE provides this evidence, which is particularly notable because it provides a plausible genetic explanation for the linguistic similarities between the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian subfamilies of Indo-European languages..."
- And (from the beginning of the study): "Earlier work recorded massive population movement from the Eurasian Steppe into Europe early in the third millennium BCE, likely spreading Indo-European languages. We reveal a parallel series of events leading to the spread of Steppe ancestry to South Asia, thereby documenting movements of people that were likely conduits for the spread of Indo-European languages."
- Also see Figs 1, 3, and 5 (migration maps and admixture charts).
- Lazaridis et al. (2016) also finds that the ANI (west Eurasian) component in South Asians "can be modelled as a mix of ancestry related to both early farmers of western Iran and to people of the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe".
- From Lazaridis:
- "In South Asia, our dataset provides insight into the sources of Ancestral North Indians (ANI), a West Eurasian related population that no longer exists in unmixed form but contributes a variable amount of the ancestry of South Asians... We show that it is impossible to model the ANI as being derived from any single ancient population in our dataset. ...it can be modelled as a mix of ancestry related to both early farmers of western Iran and to people of the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe; all sampled South Asian groups are inferred to have significant amounts of both ancestral types. The demographic impact of steppe related populations on South Asia was substantial, as the Mala, a south Indian population with minimal ANI along the ‘Indian Cline’ of such ancestry35,36 is inferred to have ~18% steppe-related ancestry, while the Kalash of Pakistan are inferred to have ~50%, similar to present-day northern Europeans."
- link here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/059311v1.full
- Silva et al. (2017) stated that "the recently refined Y-chromosome tree strongly suggests that R1a is indeed a highly plausible marker for the long-contested Bronze Age spread of Indo-Aryan speakers into South Asia." And that "they likely spread from a single Central Asian source pool, there do seem to be at least three and probably more R1a founder clades within the Subcontinent, consistent with multiple waves of arrival." (Excerpts from study and link to study here: https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/03/heavily-sex-biased-population.html?m=1)
- Skllagyook (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- The sources offered here by Skllagyook do not state that there is a trend in genetics research towards increasing acceptance of Steppe pastoralist invasions/ancestry in India.
- By combining them to support that statement, he is engaged in WP:SYNTH. What he needs is a secondary source saying that the trends in genetics research is now reflecting consensus of Steppe invasion/ancestral contribution to India. I'm sure that's not possible at the moment because there has been resistance to this idea.
- I agree with his overall assessment of the data, but our individual assessments don't belong on Wikipedia. The WP:SYNTH guideline exists for a reason. See also recently formed consensus about primary research. Note that at least one of Skllagyook's sources is a pre-print paper. Hunan201p (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Skllagyook (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for this "consensus," which refers to an essay. And which of the two is a pre-print? Narasimhan et al. (2019), peer reviewed, cited more than 100 times already; or Anthony (2021), SUNY Press. But if you like, we can remove "increasingly." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- My apologies for not specifying. I refer to the reference given here at the talk page: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/059311v1.full
- Using biorxiv articles to make a point is very haphazard, as crucial passages in pre-prints and peer-reviewed published documents can differ substantially. Many passages in pre-print papers won't even survive the review process.
- And excerpts from published studies posted by bloggers (especially a known Eurocentrist like Eurogenes) are also not feasible for discussion here. Hunan201p (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan: removing the word "increasingly" just seems like good common sense, but there is another problem I'd like to show you.
- This is the full text link to David Anthony's essay in Homo Migrans:
- https://www.academia.edu/44892216/Anthony_2021_Migration_nomads_from_the_east_IEMA_SUNY_Buffalo
- Can you point out to me where it mentions that there is evidence of steppe genetic ancestry in India? It does not seem to make mention of Indian genetics at all and mostly concerns European prehistory. Hunan201p (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Hunan201p: I see, you're referring to the discussion above. Apologies; I thought you were referring to the references in the article. I'll go through Anthony (2021) again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Hunan201p: I was not aware that the Lazaridis link I provided was a preprint. But I know the study has been published/peer-reviewed, and I will go over the published study to verify whether the same statement appears there. Regarding the blog, eurogenes, I can understand your objections; though the excerps there seem to be quoted directly from the paper, I will go over the paper also to verify that. Skllagyook (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Edit/update: @Hunan201p: and @Joshua Jonathan: The final/peer-reviewed version of Lazaridis also contains the statement. From the paper:
- "In South Asia, our dataset provides insight into the sources of Ancestral North Indians (ANI), a West Eurasian related population that no longer exists in unmixed form but contributes a variable amount of the ancestry of South Asians34,35 (Supplementary Information, section 9) (Extended Data Fig. 5). We show that it is impossible to model the ANI as being derived from any single ancient population in our dataset. However, it can be modelled as a mix of ancestry related to both early farmers of western Iran and to people of the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe; all sampled South Asian groups are inferred to have significant amounts of both ancestral types. The demographic impact of steppe related populations on South Asia was substantial, as the Mala, a south Indian population with minimal ANI along the ‘Indian Cline’ of such ancestry34,35 is inferred to have ~18% steppe-related ancestry, while the Kalash of Pakistan are inferred to have ~50%, similar to present-day northern Europeans7."
- Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5003663/
- The statements/similar statements to the excerpts from the eurogenes also do seem to appear in thr Silva et al 2017 source.
- From the source:
- "An influx of such migrants into South Asia would likely have contributed to the CHG component in the GW analysis found across the Subcontinent, as this is seen at a high rate amongst samples from the putative Yamnaya source pool and descendant Central Asian Bronze Age groups. Archaeological evidence suggests that Middle Bronze Age Andronovo descendants of the Early Bronze Age horse-based, pastoralist and chariot-using Sintashta culture, located in the grasslands and river valleys to the east of the Southern Ural Mountains and likely speaking a proto-Indo-Iranian language, probably expanded east and south into Central Asia by ~3.8 ka. Andronovo groups, and potentially Sintashta groups before them, are thought to have infiltrated and dominated the soma-using Bactrian Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) in Turkmenistan/northern Afghanistan by 3.5 ka and possibly as early as 4 ka. The BMAC came into contact with the Indus Valley civilisation in Baluchistan from ~4 ka onwards, around the beginning of the Indus Valley decline, with pastoralist dominated groups dispersing further into South Asia by ~3.5 ka, as well as westwards across northern Iran into Syria (which came under the sway of the Indo-Iranian-speaking Mitanni) and Anatolia [12, 95, 97, 98]. Although GW patterns have been broadly argued to support this view [24], there have also been arguments against. For example, Metspalu et al. [28] argued cogently that the GW pattern in South Asia was the result of a complex series of processes, but they also suggested that an East Asian component, common in extant Central Asians, should be evident in the Subcontinent if it had experienced large-scale Bronze Age immigration from Central Asia. In fact, however, aDNA evidence shows that this element was not present in the relevant source regions in the Early Bronze Age [76]. Moreover, whilst the dating and genealogical resolution of Y-chromosome lineages has been weak until recently, it is now clear that a very large fraction of Y-chromosome variation in South Asia has a recent West Eurasian source."
- And from the section entitled "Genetic signals of Indo-European expansions":
- "There are now sufficient high-quality Y-chromosome data available (especially Poznik et al. [58]) to be able to draw clear conclusions about the timing and direction of dispersal of R1a (Fig. 5). The indigenous South Asian subclades are too young to signal Early Neolithic dispersals from Iran, and strongly support Bronze Age incursions from Central Asia. The derived R1a-Z93 and the further derived R1a-Z94 subclades harbour the bulk of Central and South Asian R1a lineages [55, 58], as well as including some Russian and European lineages, and have been variously dated to 5.6 [4.0;7.3] ka [55], 4.5–5.3 ka with expansions ~4.0–4.5 ka [58], or 4.7 [4.0;5.5] ka (Yfull tree v4.10 [54]). The South Asian R1a-L657, dated to ~4.2 ka [3.3;5.1] (Yfull tree v4.10 [54]]), is the largest (in the 1KG dataset) of several closely related subclades within R1a-Z94 of very similar time depth. Moreover, not only has R1a been found in all Sintashta and Sintashta-derived Andronovo and Srubnaya remains analysed to date at the genome-wide level (nine in total) [76, 77], and been previously identified in a majority of Andronovo (2/3) and post-Andronovo Iron Age (Tagar and Tachtyk: 6/6) male samples from southern central Siberia tested using microsatellite analysis [101], it has also been identified in other remains across Europe and Central Asia ranging from the Mesolithic up until the Iron Age (Fig. 5)."
- And:
- "Altogether, therefore, the recently refined Y-chromosome tree strongly suggests that R1a is indeed a highly plausible marker for the long-contested Bronze Age spread of Indo-Aryan speakers into South Asia,..."
- From: https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-017-0936-9
- Skllagyook (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Arbitrary header #2
Here's a quote from a different chapter by Anthony about the steppe ancestry in South Asian populations:
Steppe ancestry averaging 22% was found in 31 ancient South Asians dated 1200–800BC from the Swat valley, but was not found in individuals dated before 2000BC, probably associated with the Harappan civilization, indicating the arrival of this suite of genes in South Asia during the 2nd millennium BC (Narasimhan et al. 2018). IE-speakers in modern South Asia have more steppe ancestry than non-IE speakers (p.26).[1]
That's a secondary source citing Narasimhan et al. (2018). Not to mention that Anthony cite Haak et al. (2015) all over the place. We don't need to overly rely on primary sources, and per policy shouldn't. Good secondary sources are avaliable anyway. –Austronesier (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Anthony, David W. (2019). "Ancient DNA, Mating Networks, and the Anatolian Split". Dispersals and Diversification. Leiden: Brill. pp. 21–53. doi:10.1163/9789004416192_003.
- To get back to Chaubey, and Dhawangupta's comment
So why one should not restore the study by "Chaubey"? User:Skllagyook your argument is not supported by a policy. The study by Chaubey was highly acclaimed and has been mentioned in multiple scholarly sources (one provided above) so your argument that DNA India is unreliable that's why you removed it falls flat.
- you added the following (in bold):
While some OIT-proponents have questioned the findings of genetic research,[web 1][web 2] since 2015 genetic research has increasingly confirmed the migration of Steppe pastoralists into South Asia.[1] According to Gyaneshwer Chaubey, "No foreign genes or DNA has entered the Indian mainstream in the last 60,000 years."[web 3]
References
- First, Chaubey's comment should logically be placed after "While some OIT-proponents have questioned the findings of genetic research," and not after "since 2015 genetic research has increasingly confirmed the migration of Steppe pastoralists into South Asia." As you placed it, it seems that Chaubey (speaking in 2011), rejects the value of DNA-studies from after 2015. I don't know which policy applies here, but it's clear that this is a kind of synthesis or editorializing.
- Second, dnaindia is not the original study, but a comment by one of the authors. The original study is (I've left out the other 14 authors): Metspalu, Mait (2011), "Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia", The American Journal of Human Genetics, 89 (6): 731–744, doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.11.010, ISSN 0002-9297, PMC 3234374, PMID 22152676 Copying from Indo-Aryan migrations#Pre-agricultural migrations, this is what the paper, and other authors, had to say about it:
Metspalu et al. (2011) detected a genetic component in India, k5, which "distributed across the Indus Valley, Central Asia, and the Caucasus".[205] According to Metspalu et al. (2011), k5 "might represent the genetic vestige of the ANI", though they also note that the geographic cline of this component within India "is very weak, which is unexpected under the ASI-ANI model", explaining that the ASI-ANI model implies an ANI contribution which decreases toward southern India.[206] According to Metspalu et al. (2011), "regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years."[207]
- In the conclusion, the authors also state:
our oldest simulated migration event occurred roughly 12,500 years ago and predates or coincides with the initial Neolithic expansion in the Near East [...] We found no regional diversity differences associated with k5 at K = 8. Thus, regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years. Accordingly, the introduction of k5 to South Asia cannot be explained by recent gene flow, such as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migration [...] Both k5 and k6 ancestry components that dominate genetic variation in South Asia at K = 8 demonstrate much greater haplotype diversity than those that predominate in West Eurasia. This pattern is indicative of a more ancient demographic history and/or a higher long-term effective population size underlying South Asian genome variation compared to that of West Eurasia.
- As I wrote before, Metspalu et al. (2011), with their k5 marker, detected the traces of the migration of Iranian hunter-gatherers into India, prior to the Indo-Aryan migrations. Yet, this is what Metspalu and others had to say about theor results (also from Indo-Aryan migrations#Pre-agricultural migrations):
Speaking to Fountain Ink, Metspalu said, "the West Eurasian component in Indians appears to come from a population that diverged genetically from people actually living in Eurasia, and this separation happened at least 12,500 years ago."[web 13][note 40] Moorjani et al. (2013) refer to Metspalu (2011)[note 41] as "fail[ing] to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years".[211] CCMB researcher Thangaraj believes that "it was much longer ago", and that "the ANI came to India in a second wave of migration[note 42] that happened perhaps 40,000 years ago."[web 13]
- As we can see now, speaking in 2021, they were wrong in theor generalisations, just like Chaubey. While the study is nuanced, k5 being older than the Indo-Aryan component, it is not (emphasis mine) "the West Eurasian component in Indians." So, when referring to Metspalu (2011), brass statements like Chaubey's in dnaindia should be put in context, and balanced with other views. That nuance can be found in other Wiki-articles, such as the section from which above extensive quote comes. That the dnaindia article is informed by Indigenism is clear, and as such it's a usefull additional reference for "While some OIT-proponents have questioned the findings of genetic research." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- You would never know that, and if you think you do then your analysis should be instead backed with a secondary source then only it can have currency as already stated above. The study which is also cited by other scholarly sources indeed deserve a separate mention. You can't deem them as "OIT-proponents" based on your own thinking, instead, it needs to be backed with a source which I find impossible. Azuredivay (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Chaubey is an Indigenist; see the dnaindia article. Danino p.216 (a dubious source, given Danino's writings on the 'Sarasvati' river) refers to Chaubey (2007), Peopling of South Asia: investigating the caste–tribe continuum in India, not to Metspalu et al. (2011). The quote from Chaubey et al. (2007) is about mtDNA, not y-DNA. There's broad agreement that the maternal lineages in India are anciet, in contrast to the paternal lineages. That is, men came to India, and had children with local women, replacing or reducing older paternal lineages.
- When referring to Metspalu et al. (2011), there's a substantial difference between peer-reviewed research (Metspalu 2011), and individual comments in non-neutral news-outlets (Chaubey), unchecked by scrutinizing reviewers. Metspalu et al. (2011) does not make the sweeping statements Chaubey makes (or is quoted as such) in dnaindia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- You would never know that, and if you think you do then your analysis should be instead backed with a secondary source then only it can have currency as already stated above. The study which is also cited by other scholarly sources indeed deserve a separate mention. You can't deem them as "OIT-proponents" based on your own thinking, instead, it needs to be backed with a source which I find impossible. Azuredivay (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- [@Skllagyook] Thank you for taking the time to provide full links and quotes, @Skllagyook:. However, while Silva argues the case for their hypothesis in their paper, there is one passage that you did not quote:
India, the second most populous country worldwide, includes a patchwork of different religions and languages, including tribal groups (~8% of the population, speaking over 700 different dialects of the Austro-Asiatic, Dravidian and Tibeto-Burman families) and non-tribal populations, who mostly practice Hinduism, grounded in a strictly hierarchical caste system, and speak Indo-European or Dravidian languages. Indo-European is often associated with northern Indian populations, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and a putative arrival in South Asia from Southwest Asia ~3.5 ka (the so-called “Indo-Aryan invasions”) has been frequently connected with the origins of the caste system [11, 12]. Although some studies suggested a greater affinity of upper castes to European and Southwest Asian populations than lower castes [13, 14], genetic data have provided no clear evidence for the “Indo-Aryan invasions” so far [15], and their very existence is challenged by many archaeologists [16].
- Hence, Silva acknowledges that this is still a contentious issue that has not been resolved by genetic research.
- I read David Anthony, Homo Migrans (2021) several times, and there is definitely nothing in there about the genetics of India. Hunan201p (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding Silva, "so far" comes from the introduction, referring to Metspalu et al. (2003). That's 18 years ago... (I've checked; 2003 is not a typo). It is followed by their own results. From the discussion, p.12:
The more widely accepted “Steppe hypothesis” [91, 92] [in contrast to Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis; JJ] for the origins of IndoEuropean has recently received powerful support from aDNA evidence [...] An influx of such migrants into South Asia would likely have contributed to the CHG component in the GW analysis found across the Subcontinent, as this is seen at a high rate amongst samples from the putative Yamnaya source pool and descendant Central Asian Bronze Age groups. Archaeological evidence suggests that Middle Bronze Age Andronovo descendants of the Early Bronze Age horse-based, pastoralist and chariotusing Sintashta culture, located in the grasslands and river valleys to the east of the Southern Ural Mountains and likely speaking a proto-Indo-Iranian language, probably expanded east and south into Central Asia by ~3.8 ka.
- The "many archaeologists" refers to Coningham R, Young R. (2015), The Archaeology of South Asia: From the Indus to Asoka, c. 6500 BCE–200 CE, Cambridge University Press. That's quite unspecific, butseems to refer to the Indigenists (see p.16), or archaeologists like Shaffer, who worked with a 1980's diffusionist model (see Antbony (2021)). NB: it's peculiar that they use the phrase “Indo-Aryan invasions”; that's a non-neutral term, not used in mainstream scholarship.
- Anthony (2021) does indeed refer to the western migrations; I've copy-edited the sentence accordingly, and added additional sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- To re-word the paragraph, to suggest that genetic resesrch confirms the migration of Steppe pastoralists in to Western Europe and Asia, for the purpose of including David Anthony (2021), seems rather WP:SYNTH and POV. Anthony's paper only concerns the intrusion of Yamnaya in to Europe. David Anthony never speaks to the origin of the Yamnaya pastoralists in his essay, and for all we know, based on the essay, the "Steppe pastoralists" had an Indian origin. That is, of course, not what David Anthony believes; my point is that this paper doesn't say anything about the origin of Indo Aryans (or Steppe pastoralists, for that matter). It concerns a very narrow timeframe between the arrival of Yamnaya and Corded Ware pastoralists in to central Europe. It shouldn't be synthesized with any other research to support an anti-indigenist consensus, and rewording the paragraph to state "in to Western Europe and Asia" just adds another layer of personal interpretation.
- Silva doesn't definitively state that the Indo-Aryan invasions are confirmed but seems to cautiously endorse them as a possibility. It wasn't in her concluding remarks. Delving further into the minutia of her paper doesn't seem to be yielding any conclusive declarations, which doesn't fit the bold statements in the Wiki. Hunan201p (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- To re-word the paragraph, to suggest that genetic resesrch confirms the migration of Steppe pastoralists in to Western Europe and Asia, for the purpose of including David Anthony (2021), seems rather WP:SYNTH and POV. Anthony's paper only concerns the intrusion of Yamnaya in to Europe. David Anthony never speaks to the origin of the Yamnaya pastoralists in his essay, and for all we know, based on the essay, the "Steppe pastoralists" had an Indian origin. That is, of course, not what David Anthony believes; my point is that this paper doesn't say anything about the origin of Indo Aryans (or Steppe pastoralists, for that matter). It concerns a very narrow timeframe between the arrival of Yamnaya and Corded Ware pastoralists in to central Europe. It shouldn't be synthesized with any other research to support an anti-indigenist consensus, and rewording the paragraph to state "in to Western Europe and Asia" just adds another layer of personal interpretation.
Arbitrary header #3
Silva et al. (2017) p.12-14:
Genetic signals of Indo-Europe an expansions
Contrary to earlier studies [99, 100], recent analyses of Y-chromosome sequence data [55, 58, 94] suggest that haplogroup R1a expanded both west and east across Eurasia during the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age. R1a-M17 (R1a-M198 or R1a1a) accounts for 17.5% of male lineages in Indian data overall, and it displays significantly higher frequencies in Indo-European than in Dravidian speakers [55]. There are now sufficient high-quality Y-chromosome data available (especially Poznik et al. [58]) to be able to draw clear conclusions about the timing and direction of dispersal of R1a (Fig. 5). The indigenous South Asian subclades are too young to signal Early Neolithic dispersals from Iran, and strongly support Bronze Age incursions from Central Asia [...] Moreover, not only has R1a been found in all Sintasha and Sintashta derived Andronovo and Srubnaya remains analysed to date at the genome-wide level (nine in total) [76, 77], and been previously identified in a majority of Andronovo (2/3) and post-Andronovo Iron Age (Tagar and Tachtyk: 6/6) male samples from southern central Siberia tested using microsatellite analysis [101], it has also been identified in other remains across Europe and Central Asia ranging from the Mesolithic up until the Iron Age (Fig. 5) [...] Altogether, therefore, the recently refined Y-chromosome tree strongly suggest s that R1a is indeed a highly plausible marker for the long-contested Bronze Age spread of IndoAryan speakers into South Asia [...] the spread of Indo-European within the Subcontinent seems to have been mainly male-mediated
Conclusions
In conclusion, analysis of the uniparental marker systems can provide complementary insight into the main genome-wide component that arrived in and spread throughout South Asia since the LGM. This “CHG” component [...] underwent of multiple dispersals into the Subcontinent, with chronologically distinct sources in the eastern Fertile Crescent and the Steppe, via Central Asia. Moreover, these dispersals involved [...] the male-dominated arrival of Indo-Aryan speakers from Central Asia.
I think that that does fit the "bold statements." "[T]hese dispersals involved [...] the male-dominated arrival of Indo-Aryan speakers from Central Asia" is what you call a confirmation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Joshua Jonathan: But Chaubey is a clearly reliable source of this field and highly acclaimed who has his works published in a number of major science sources.[16][17][18] You appear to be underestimating the publications without a strong argument. Agreeing with above Hunan201p, I see the sources are not being used carefully here. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- There's a difference between peer-reviewed publications, and bold statements in non-reliable news-outlets. See Shinde, who published his analysis of the Rakhigarhi-DNA, including clear statements about the Indo-Aryan migrations; and next stated at a press-conference that his research disproved the Indo-Aryan migrations, in full denial of his own publication. He was publicly contradicted by several of his co-authors... What you added was a personal statement from Chaubey, not a quote from a peer-reviewed paper.
- See the quotes above for what Metspalu et al. (2011) actually stated: k5, an indicator of west-Eurasian genetic influx, entered India before 12,500 years ago. Chaubey et al. (2007) found that maternal DNA-lineages in India go back 60,000 years. As I stated before, and see Silva et al. (2017), that's an accepted fact. But it does not mean, as Chaubey concurred back in 2011, that there has been no genetic influx, that is, migrations, into India after 60,000 years ago. Continuity in maternal DNA does not mean that there is also continuity in paternal DNA. As I also stated before:
men came to India, and had children with local women, replacing or reducing older paternal lineages.
See Silva et al. (2017) (A genetic chronology for the Indian Subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased dispersals), Narasimhan et al. (2019), etc etc. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)- Would you like to propose some text now? I assume we had enough discussion and now it is time for addition of this particular content. Azuredivay (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Is this entire contentious discussion the result of this article in DNA? Because we ought to be giving exactly zero weight to an article of that sort; the Indian news media (as with news media in other countries) routinely misrepresents genomic and genetic studies of human populations. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and indeed. The same dnaindia article states that "Dr Chaubey had proved in 2009 itself that the Aryan invasion theory is bunkum." That may refer to (no title given...) Petraglia et al. (2009), Population increase and environmental deterioration correspond with microlithic innovations in South Asia ca. 35,000 years ago, PNAS; or to Underhill et al (2009), Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a, Nature:
Its origin and dispersal patterns are poorly understood as no marker has yet been described that would distinguish European R1a chromosomes from Asian [...] the virtual absence of M458 chromosomes outside Europe speaks against substantial patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, including to India, at least since the mid-Holocene.
- That was 2009. The origins of Haplogroup R1a are much better understood now, and Underhill's 2009-findings are superceded by more recent research, including Underhill et al. (2014), The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a], Silva et al. (2017), and Narasimhan et al. (2019). Underhill, commenting in 2017:
The avalanche of new data has been so overwhelming that many scientists who were either sceptical or neutral about significant Bronze Age migrations into India have changed their opinions. Dr. Underhill himself is one of them. In a 2010 paper [=2009 Separating...; JJ], for example, he had written that there was evidence “against substantial patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, including to India” in the last five or six millennia. Today, Dr. Underhill says there is no comparison between the kind of data available in 2010 and now. “Then, it was like looking into a darkened room from the outside through a keyhole with a little torch in hand; you could see some corners but not all, and not the whole picture. With whole genome sequencing, we can now see nearly the entire room, in clearer light.”
- From Haplogroup R1a#Proposed South Asian origins:
According to Martin P. Richards, co-author of Silva et al. (2017) , "[the prevalence of R1a in India was] very powerful evidence for a substantial Bronze Age migration from central Asia that most likely brought Indo-European speakers to India."[1]
References
- ^ Joseph, Tony (16 June 2017). "How genetics is settling the Aryan migration debate". The Hindu.
- See also: ""Heavily sex-biased" population dispersals into the Indian Subcontinent (Silva et al. 2017)". Eurogenes Blog. March 28, 2017.. To present Chaubey's dated quote, from non-WP:RS, a lot of context needs to be given, for WP:NPOV. This is not the place for a WP:COATRACK; the context is given in other articles, such as Indo-Aryan migrations. Some editors seem to ignore, if not just completely ignorant of, this context, that is, the publications in question themselves, the broader field of research, and the more recent developments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps; but my point remains that we ought not to be basing anything on the news pieces, or on quotes taken in isolation. For all we know Chaubey himself may have presented a very balanced view of the science, and was subsequently quoted out of context. The news media are generally not a good source for interpreting primary science. If anyone is agitating to add content in support of the OIT, they need at the very least to present scientific sources explicitly supporting it, and ideally, present content based on secondary scientific sources. Honestly, discussions without such are really a waste of time. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- See also: ""Heavily sex-biased" population dispersals into the Indian Subcontinent (Silva et al. 2017)". Eurogenes Blog. March 28, 2017.. To present Chaubey's dated quote, from non-WP:RS, a lot of context needs to be given, for WP:NPOV. This is not the place for a WP:COATRACK; the context is given in other articles, such as Indo-Aryan migrations. Some editors seem to ignore, if not just completely ignorant of, this context, that is, the publications in question themselves, the broader field of research, and the more recent developments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=web>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=web}}
template (see the help page).