Talk:Out of India theory/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Indigenous Aryan Theory

alright, we've heard all arguments now, over and over again. Proponents mostly harp on "Indo-Aryans must have been present since Harappan times". This is the Indigenous Aryan Theory touted by the BJP. Now, this is a required but insufficient part of the OIT claim. "OIT" means

• (a) Indo-Iranians were in India before 3000 BC
• (b) other IE branches migrated out of India at some point.

If you can prove (a), you are only half done. I've asked for contributions to (b) again and again, but all we hear is Sarasvati here and Harappan script there. It is time that (a) be treated separately, at Indigenous Aryan Theory. This can be a sub-article of this one. OIT scenarios should then be argued based on the assumption of a pre-3000 BC Indo-Iranian presence. dab (𒁳) 11:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it may be better to split the articles otherwise: A separate article for linguistic aspects, another one for archaoeological and one for philological aspects. Splitting the article to discuss sub-variants of the theory could be too early. --RF 23:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been keeping away from these controversies so I can concentrate on building GAs and FAs in articles where such achievements are remotely possible. But now I must step in to Dab's proposal of splitting part of the article into the Indigenous Aryan Theory (which would cover everything about the Sarasvati and everything and leave just a paragraph here) and the Out of India theory (which could easily be completely covered here). The Indigenous Aryan Theory (based on Dab's way of presenting it) is half of the Out of India Theory, the OIT encompasses it anyway. But the Indigenous Aryan Theory produces no more than sixty hits on Google (a tiny number), it could be deleted any day for non-notability, what then dab? The Out of India theory at least produces over 1000 hits on Google. [1] So Indigenous Aryan theory is non-notable and as an admin who is entrusted with deleting such articles, I want to confirm with you before nominating it in Afd. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object of making something like Indigenous Aryan Theory as separate article. The subject is part of OIT and should be presented under OIT only. Don't try to mis-guide readers. WIN 04:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Again this article is on OIT, a subject at least discussed in academic journals, and supported by people who arent biblical literalists or Marxist activists. Therefore the whole enchilada should be kept here. The new article created (IAT) should be userfied to "dab's views on OIT" (a more appropriate page title). I personally would call IAT "cruft".Bakaman 06:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your ludicrous claim that most academics are biblical literalists or Marxist activists indicates what a weird fantasy-world, disconnected from the real reasons for these arguments, you occupy. Paul B 10:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nein mein freund. I dont even believe in OIT, I just think AIT/IAM is bull. Have I not stated time and time again on this page that I am more of a PCT follower? I suppose to be in your universe, one must be a racist to fully understand the context because the "stupid Hindutva chatterbots/Hindu gerontophiliacs" cant understand anything?Bakaman 18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem with this article is the constant confusion between two separate issues:

1. The claim that IE originated in India

2. The claim that IE existed in India earlier than is commonly supposed (either the IVC is said to have been IE speaking, or the RV is said to have been older than is commonly asserted)

There are some truly weird arguments (the "no silver" claim etc) mixed in with more reasonable ones, and there is a tendency to present "OIT proponents" as having a united front. In fact Elst's theory largely contradicts Talageri's theory - a fact thsat is nowhere clear here. The other problem is the fact that the article is completely fixated on proving that IAs were native to India (because of course that's the main motivation for the theory). There is no account of how IE is supposed to have spread elsewhere, and what models of language development are being offered. Once it's out of India no-one seems to care anymore. Paul B 10:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply - PIE did not originate in India (most likely somewhere near Africa), and it's nearly impossible to find proof to the contrary. PII originating in India is a more plausible scenario that should be discussed in the article.Bakaman 18:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"PIE" means the recoverable source of IE languages. There is some dispute about whether this means a real spoken language or an artificial construction derived from fragments of grammatical and lexical information. But it's most commonly believed that a some aspects of a real language can be reconstructed by liniguistics in a form that fits with archaeological models of migration. Of course all "proto" languages imply yet earlier proto-forms that may or may not be recoverable. There is never any real linguistic proto moment, only phases. BVut history makes those phases meaninful. I guess you believe that "PIE" originated in Africa prior to an Ice-Age migration to India a la Oppenheimer. That's a very idiosyncratic view, especially if you try to meld it with a neolithic/copper age RV. So much evidence has to be ignored that it becomes cvery obviously motivated by faith rather than facts. Paul B 23:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: "Out of India Theory" has also very few google results, once you exclude "wikipedia" in searches. --RF 11:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to split "linguistic" vs. "archaeological" etc. "arguments for OIT" because none have been brought forward. The only thing that clutters are attempts cover entire fields, "what is historical linguistics", "what is the geological history of India". Bakaman is the perfect example for a political believer in Ancient Aryans: he just knows nothing ever budged in India before the evil Muslims and racist Colonialists came along. "Aryans" by definition grew out of fertile paleolithic Indian soil like mushrooms. That's the entire "theory" according to Bakaman and friends, and this is justly treated at Indigenous Aryan Theory, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with Indo-European linguistics or scholarship in general. Nobleeagle's concern is just with the title. I don't know how to title it, we used to have Proto-Vedic Continuity Theory which is pretty much the same as "IAT". We moved it to "OIT" because there was at least some scholarly debate on that. Predictably, the tiny core of actual debate was again flooded by Aryan-cruft. If you prefer, Nobleeagle, we can move this entire article to Indigenous Aryan Theory, and make "Out of India" a minor subsection of that. The fact is just that this article doesn't address what it's supposed to address. Whether we solve this by splitting, moving or just cleaning up is all the same to me. I also appreciate your sentiment, Nobleeagle, that spending time on uncontroversial articles is better invested and more satisfying. I have no calling to clean up articles on schools and minor bands. But I do believe my time is well invested in the tiring task of defending Wikipedia against nationalist propaganda, not just Indian, but any sort, because unlike Pokemon-cruft the stuff tends to spill into articles on notable topics. Not because it improves Wikipedia, but because it needs to be done to keep it from worsening. If we had more stringent policies on locking out the clueless and the trolls, much time could be saved, and we would long have arrived at a honest and accurate report of the debate. The term Indigenous Aryan originates with Bryant [2], an author quoted very frequently by "IA" revisionists for his agnosticism. dab (𒁳) 14:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I admit, though that the "Theory" part is my addition. Most hits are for "Indigenous Aryans", "Indigenous Aryan model", "Indigenous Aryan debate", "Indigenous Aryan proponents" etc.; I guess I was influenced by "AIT", "OIT". We can easily move it to Indigenous Aryan debate or even just Indigenous Aryans. dab (𒁳) 14:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that there should be only one article. The reason this article includes so much extra stuff is because more proof is asked and required for OIT. For example: horse bones discovered in IVC in 1974, this was challenged for next 20 years and the person finally gets recognition for that in 1994 and the horse/chariot issue is still being debated. Similar issue regarding Proto-Bangani (almost 20 years), controversy still goes on. But all that is beside the point. Regarding the content of the article, I have 2 statements:

1. Kazanas' arguments were rejected by no less than five mainstream scholars, among them JP Mallory in JIES. I have not seen one word of that rejection/criticism from JIES. Same thing with Talageri’s book. Witzel provided scathing comments (as per Dab) for Talageri’s book. Again, not one word of that criticism in the article yet. I am happy for Dab that he want to write a book about this, but this is not the place for OR. Dab says he wants to make encyclopedic article, but his comments are OR. When he is asked for citation, he just ignores that comment. But writes large notes about how he wants to improve the article and everyone else is trying to ruin it. Why don’t you make some real effort in adding criticism?

2. Regarding Dab’s (b) issue, details regarding outside India can be added. Bryant 2001 has Chapter 7 on “Linguistic Evidence from outside of India”. I have provided all the publication regarding Proto Bangani, both for and against, in the section above on Dec 7th, so far no one has commented on that. So do we want to make this encyclopedic article. OR only thing that you want to say is that mainstream in 1989 (JP Mallory’s book) rejected the theory detailed in articles in late 1990’s and 2000. That would definitely make mainstream scholars look very learned (my attempt at sarcasm if you did not get it).Sbhushan 18:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Its quite simple Sbushan: We shouldn't have to provide criticism of and counter arguments to everything everything you guys write! If you were interestd in having a neutral and nonbiased encyclopedic article you would provide that yourself and write in a way that reflects the topic from the prevalent scientific viewpoint - not in a way that tries to convince readers and fellow editors that the OIT is really the only viable theory and that it has been unfairly rejected by the "establishment" of indofobic scientists. It cannot be and it should not be our responsability to police you guys into respecting the basic principles of WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight you as editors should do this by your self - or if incapable of detaching yourselves from your personal viewpoints cease to edit these articles.Maunus 18:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, the reason I did not add criticism is that there is no relevent criticism. Witzel writes a 79 page review of a 59 page article, but does not address any critical arguments. Same thing with other critics. The prevalent scientific view is: Even Mallory (1989), who has been the most prolific scholar in quest of the Indo-Europeans, is moved to quip: “One does not ask ‘where is the Indo-European home-land?’ but rather ‘where do they put it now?’” (143).Sbhushan 18:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

guys, if you really insist that indigenous Aryans be merged here, I hope you are aware that this article would then become the main article on all sorts of mysticist nonsense. My reason behind creating a separate Indigenous Aryans article was to take away the heat of propaganda from this article, and allow us to discuss what (very) little scholarly merit the idea may have. If this is going to be the "Hindutva propaganda" as well as the "PIE out of India" article, it is obvious that it will cease to be an article about Indo-European linguistics, and become fully a sub-topic of Hindutva. You can't have your cake and eat it. You want to pretend "out of India" has scholarly merit? Then discuss the mysticist nonsense somewhere else. You don't want a separate article on Hindutva pseudoscience? Then this article is it. dab (𒁳) 08:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"mysticist nonsense" belongs in Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) as pointed out in AfD for indigenous Aryans. We have three article to deal with broader topic; Indo-Aryan migration for mainstream view, Out of India for minority scholarly opinion, and Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) about historical, ideological and socio-political aspects of this controversy. There is no need for a fourth article like indigenous Aryans. Would this be acceptable compromise.Sbhushan 14:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Zora's reversion

I'd better explain my reversion. WIN added an ungrammatical "linguists" to "Indo-Europeanists", which completely changes the meaning as well. Someone else added a bit re an ancestral homeland in Kashmir. I reverted both edits to a known-good one. Zora 09:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Kashmir note was the product of a lengthy discussion between WIN and I, as you have now changed it back to the vague and misleading wording I originally objected to. Please see Talk:Out_of_India_theory#Hapta_Hend_and_Airyanem_Vaejah for this discussion, and actually reason your objection to the result. I will restore my edit soon, since you did not provide any reason for throwing away the conclusion of our discussion on that part. Please state whatever objections you have to this sourced material. The Behnam 17:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarasvati

You might want to mention that this entire section relies upon the unsupported assumption that the Ghaggar-Hakra river is the Sarasvati. You might want to mention that most mainstream scholars maintain that the Helmand river is the river that is actually being mentioned in the rg veda. Quodfui 19:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How good do you feel after being in hypnotic trance and wake up to write above ? WIN 05:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

well, the Ghaggar is widely accepted as the Sarasvati of the Brahmanas. The argument is void anyway, the Sarasvati became a sort of mystical unseen river, and I think its confluence with the Ganges(!) at present is supposed to be at Allahabad. The early Rigvedic Sarasvati was probably the Helmand, yes, but it became a rather fuzzy mystical thing even in Rigvedic times. dab (𒁳) 16:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yajurveda mentions Five Punjab rivers merging with Sarawati & Atharvaveda mentions Agriculture on the banks of Saraswati river. Now , Yajurveda & Atharvaveda were composed after Rig-Veda. And, as per Aryan theory they migrated to Indian subcontinent after 1900 BC when Sarawati river dried up totally. First arrange this incidences in proper order and then continue the misguide.

Stop interpreting Rig-Veda and Saraswati in Western way instead of traditional Indian way. Do not try to make previous Western Sanskrit knowing persons as having greater language & cultural understanding than brahmins. Tell me do you know Sanskrit ? WIN 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have serious doubts myself that you know the first or last thing about Sanskrit philology. Read my lips: this isn't the Saraswati aritcle. This article should tell us what evidence there is that the Indo-Europeans "left India" towards the steppe in 4500 BC, and then moved to Persia in 3000 BC, and to Arabia(!!) and Anatolia in 2000 BC, while it took them full 2,500 years(!) to cross the Ural river. At least that's what's in the map attributed to Elst. All other authors don't even go as far as giving us any such scenario at all. The proposition is ludicrous and wholly unsupported, and all principles of faith concerning the Saraswati won't fix that. dab (𒁳) 13:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You are telling like this - since this article is for Christianism don't write about Mother Mary ! WIN 08:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

that's not even English, WIN. Why do you keep bothering? dab (𒁳) 14:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The association of Mother Mary with Christianism is undeniable. Same way your posting that `this isn't Saraswati article' should not be mis-understood to those Westerrn readers who are hardly aware about the depth of Hinduism. I have written this association so that they can understand Indian point , which you are always denigrating like formulators of Aryan Invasion Theory. WIN 05:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Having grown up on Hindu MYTHOLOGY i know first hand where people like WIN get their training from. Rationality and reason haven't reached the Arya Samaj and its various social and political incarnations in the last century, Its sad that these people want the foundation of modern understanding of Indian history and hindu tradition on whatever occurs to them or what they think would benfit their position in India's illiterate masses and the so called 'educated' zealots. Didn't the Brahmin ancestors mess up Indian history by mixing geneologies of Indian kings and tribes in ancient texts with some god or the other just to please these kings or make them appear holy in the eyes of the people they were trying to control, thanks to which we don't have an accurate Indian history. 25, March 2007

keeping this out of the "pseudoscience" category

there have been repeated claims that this article should be merged into the discussion of "indigenous Aryans" type pseudoscience. I argue that it should be kept separate, for what little academic value it has. We will only be able to do this, if we

• discuss academic publications exclusively (no Frawley, no Aurobindo, no Hancock, no archaeoastronomical or ethno-mystical nonsense).
• state up front that the academic notability of this hypothesis is less that that of both the Kurgan and the Anatolian model
• admit up front that the topic is spammed for ideological reasons.

Once we admit that, we can proceed to discuss Schlegel Elst and Kazanas and their critics. It's difficult to keep the ideological spam out of this article, but I believe it can be done. dab (𒁳) 14:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree to scholarly content - But not to Anatolian model - I would prefer to keep this article as bona fide scholarly discussion (see my earlier note [[3]]. The question is what to do with indigenous Aryans and Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies). Also Dab, keep in mind that you are not going to be able to slip in "compatibility with Anatolian Hypothesis" with indigenous Aryans. I have explained reason to you why we need peer reviewed material to say that (see here [[4]]. So sooner you give up that dream and sooner we can have a resoultion to this conflict.Sbhushan 14:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

but it is compatible, with the "mild" scenarios. As I have sourced with insane precision now. You have explained nothing short of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, sorry. Get a mediator to understand what we want, and we're talking. dab (𒁳) 15:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Dab, I have yet to see the source that says it is compatible, the "mild" scenarios argue for 4000 BC Rigveda. We also have issues of loan word in Finno-Ugric and Mittani. Please do check WP:ATT Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources. Also WP:OR says The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. This is not to say that I don't value your argument, but they don't belong in the article, till you can cite a reliable source.Sbhushan 16:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indo-Europeanist "linguist" community

I've watched this article for awhile and particular inclusion by WIN has been bothering me. What is this "Indo-Europeanist linguist community" wording? Based upon reading Indo-European studies, it is a linguistic field, so it is a redundancy that implies that there are non-linguistic Indo-European studies. True? It keeps coming back so I figure I'd put it up for discussion since WIN never did despite requests. The Behnam 06:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, WP:DFTT. rudra 07:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if WIN will forever be dismissed as a troll, at least get rid of him. It is best he not waste his time. I just saw a content dispute & figured I'd post it here for discussion. It could be trolling, but it could also be that WIN simply does not realize this fully, though the lack of response to discussion requests may rule out the latter scenario. The Behnam 07:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have written linguist word to already written `Indo-Europeanist community' because the words IE community was giving false impression to general reader that Kurgan hypothesis is backed by other IE relating sciences like archeology, anthropology etc. Where as this is not true. Kurgan hypothesis is favoured by only linguist community and not other IE relating sciences. So, for clarification purpose `linguist' term was added. I think this clarifies the doubt.

I already had discussion with The Behnam in Jan. 2007. And, he had suggested that --- "the Indo-European linguistics community" is better English than "the Indo-Europeanist linguist community". --- So, we can modify accordingly. WIN 11:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Kazanas article and redirect to OIT

I just noted that Kazanas article is deleted and redirected to OIT. It's utterly full of prejudice or malign practice to portay every IAM theory opposition as not worth a salt. Refer website http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/en_index.html which contains papers published in journals or presented in University. So, it's just not proper to redirect him to OIT. WIN 11:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

All articles related to "Aryan" in Wikipedia have become sole property of a user/administrator called "Dab". If he likes it it will remain or else it will disappear. It is that simple. Did you notice the two articles (IAT,Kazanas) that went through RFC, both have the verdict of "No Consensus", but one was deleted and the other was untouched. It was because, Dab created the RFC for Kazanas article - so he got it no matter what. Wikipedia is more and more tilting towards AIT/AMT with super admins like Dab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.21.204 (talk • contribs)

thanks for the "super admin" award, Mr. troll, I am doing my best to uphold Wikipedia:policy in the face of concerted trolling campaigns. WP is "tilting" towards "AMT" because academia is, and no amount of trolling is going to change that, per WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE. Change academic mainstream, and you'll change Wikipedia. Wide support in academia means wide coverage on WP, general rejection in academia means "fringe/pseudo-scholarship" caveats on Wikipedia. It's how we operate, if you don't like it, consider forking off. dab (𒁳) 11:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You should be nicer.--D-Boy 09:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit section

The argument regarding conservative nature of Sanskrit was presented by Kazanas in the article "Indigenous Indoaryans and the Rigveda" published by the Journal of Indo-European Studies in 2002. The other references are from Bryant 2001. All this material is from peer reviewed material. Kazanas arguments were criticized by all mainstream scholars as per Dab. Why don't you provide some of that criticism?Sbhushan 17:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is Kazanas?

The man claims to be a Sanskritist. So he isn't any of: a (comparative) linguist, a philologist, an archaeologist, an historian. Whatever. In reality, he's a classic blog-style "researcher", with choice elements of a crank modus operandi:

Naturally, start with the fringe theory you want to "prove": it's your one and only filter of "truth". Read a lot, to gather a whole bunch of cherry-picked sound bites and plausible ideas. Focus on relatively dated works, because that's where you're most likely to find suitable material (recent works by contrast being the most likely ones to make the fringiness abundantly clear to all but the invincibly stupid.) Throw in a few references to respected current names ("see also" is a good trick here), to disguise the datedness of your real sources. And don't forget offhand claims here and there about the academic establishment ignoring your carefully culled "facts" (i.e. in up-to-date standard works.) Mix thoroughly, and serve it up hot... to the punters ready, willing and eager to osmote instant expertise from your labor of love.

And that's how Wikipedia will get an unending stream of science students (it really helps to have no background in the relevant subjects) gung-ho on informing the world that Burrow and Lockwood are the Last Word on Sanskrit (and IE linguistics, for good measure.)

(Bonus question: which blogger made such a big deal of Beekes?) rudra 03:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A specific article presented in peer reviewed litrature by Kazanas is being discussed. The article was presented in JIES. If Mallory can accept it, I fail to see what credentials you have to challenge it. Beekes (who favours AMT) was quoted by Elst in 2005.Sbhushan 14:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

JIES offered a fringe author the possibility to state his case. After three issues, they had to close the debate, since he was obviously impervious to rational criticism. We can well state that Kazanas brouht up the OIT thing in JIES and was torn apart, if only to document that the 1990s "recent evidence" presented by VoI has left no impression whatsoever on academic mainstream. This doesn't qualify Kazanas as an academic or scholar in his own right. He is a painfully obivous sockpuppet proxy of S. Kak et al., and it is no coincidence that he keeps a homepage on voi.org. He's just a member of the gang. He stated their case in JIES and was shot down, end of story. dab (𒁳) 14:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is about minority view. It says clearly in the lead section that The theory is not favored in Indo-European studies community also makes similar statements in the rest of the article. The content presented in article is based on acceptable source and is verifiable. Since Kazanas arguments were rejected by so many mainstream scholars, a good source of criticism is also available. So what is the issue here?Sbhushan 14:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

history section

Please read Bryant 2001 page numbers provided in the references. For Latham quote, these are the words from Page 31-32.

For Latham (1862), “when philologues make the Veda 3000 years old, and deduce

the Latin and its congeners from Asia, they are wrong to, at least, a thousand miles in space, and as many years in time” (620). Latham's rationale, which survives to the present day, was that “if historical evidence be wanting, the a priori presumptions must be con- sidered…. the presumptions are in favour of the smaller class having been deduced from the larger rather than vice versa” (611). As a natural scientist, he illustrated this thesis by comparing language groups to distinct species of reptiles: Where we have two branches of the same division of speech separated from each other, one of which is the larger in area and the more diversified by varieties, and the other smaller and comparatively homogeneous, the presumption is in favour of the latter being derived from the former, rather than the former from the latter. To deduce the Indo-Europeans of Europe from the Indo-Europeans of Asia, in ethnology, is like deriving the reptiles of Great Brit- ain from those of Ireland in herpetology. (Latham 1851, cxlii; italics in original)

.

Again please check the reference before deleting text. If you have a doubt please leave a fact tag and try to have a discussion instead of edit waring.Sbhushan 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Bryant often misstates the case for simplicity (or for other reasons known best to himself). You keep bringing up Bryant's stuff as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Bryant usually gets the gist right, but you cannot treat whatever Bryant came up with as unassailable fact. dab (𒁳) 14:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And, the same should be true for Witzel , Purpola etc. also. WIN 11:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Innocently" asking for {{fact}} tags is just more gaming the system, because providing random references -- Moe(1963), Larry(1975), Shemp(1992), whatever -- would meet such requests. Which, considering that he hasn't read much, and knows even less, is about the best he could do anyway. rudra 02:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If the choice is between Bryant's words and yours, Bryant is acceptable to wikipedia - your view are not. If you can provide any publication that provides verifable content, please provide it.Sbhushan 14:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to cite Bryant, quote him only. Don't try to pass off his references as yours. Manifest ignorance isn't as tiresome here as pretense of knowledge. Given your performance on a set of related pages over the past few months, it's matter of serious doubt that anyone would still be obliged to extend good faith to you. We weren't born yesterday. What that means, in plain English, is that you are in no position to ask for anything. rudra 01:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The history of who tried to push original research on Wikipedia is very clear. All of Indigenous Aryans was OR, you tried to defend all questionable references with more OR. Luckily wikipedia keeps history of all actions. And you are stil trying to defend publication of more original reasearch?????Sbhushan 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I suggest that you take a wiki-break. It's Spring. Step outside, breathe some fresh air. You're in danger of really losing it here. rudra 20:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)