This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Indigenous Aryanism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 3 March 2007. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
![]() | Rakhigarhi DNA - Ancient DNA study of skeletal remains of IVC - Shinde et al. (2019) - Further confirmation of Narasimhan (2018) |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
First of all, there is no such thing as Aryan people or Aryan race. The article
Aryan states:
Max Müller, who had himself inaugurated the racial interpretations of the Rigveda,[97] denounced in 1888 those who spoke of an "Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair" as a nonsense comparable to a linguist speaking of "a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar".[98] But for an increasing number of Western writers, especially among anthropologists and non-specialists influenced by Darwinist theories, the Aryans came to be seen as a "physical-genetic species" contrasting with the other human races rather than an ethnolinguistic category.[99][100]
Why are we holding to this dogmatic
conviction that linguistics prove the existence of a fictitious race?
"Mainstream scholarship" has maintained this 19th century assumption without challenge for nearly 150 years. This article outright dismisses any criticism of this fundamentally flawed assumption:
"linguistic dilettantes who either ignore the linguistic evidence completely, dismiss it as highly speculative and inconclusive,[note 10] or attempt to tackle it with hopelessly inadequate qualifications"
Nice gatekeeping! As if someone needs a PhD (ostensibly from a white Indology professor) to question a tenuous assumption tracing back to the era of colonialism and
scientific racism. This is unacceptable in the 21st century, and it certainly wouldn't fly in the hard sciences. Why is the standard for scholarship so low in South Asian studies?
2603:8001:1A07:2561:E5BE:3B76:35D6:1FC7 (
talk) 19:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
the mainstream academia goes to great lengths to silence any indigenous voices that question the academics' base assumptions: no, mainstream academia does not make such an effort; they just ignore obvious nonsense generated by people who are unable to operate within those scientific parameters. Science stimulates discussion, research, theories that can be falsified - not articles of faith, promoted by people who attack criticasters as 'leftist radicals' and 'Marxists'. Your rant is indeed yet another example of the vicious 'debate' carried by non-scholarly minded people. Cheers, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Vanamonde93: This [1] is a good rationale, thank you. I agree with it. It's definitely a better one than indiscriminate deletionism. What do you think, TrangaBellam. – Austronesier ( talk) 21:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves.
It is very loud and clear that this article considers only the so-called "mainstream" POV truthful, and the indigenous aryanism hypothesis a nationalist ideology claimed to be part of Hindutva. I cannot understand how that stand is NPOV. If this article is considered worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, then by core tenets of policy, it must be NPOV. If that's not possible, remove the article. Sooku ( talk) 08:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
When there is a consensus of opinion on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of 'due weight' can lead to 'false balance', meaning that viewers might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is [...] Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.
Thank you both, I understand. Based on my reading, this article misrepresents the "degree of credibility". However I need to compose and submit for discussion specific and properly sourced edits to the text. Sooku ( talk) 20:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
ten peer-reviewed sources, authored by specialist scholars and published by reputed academic presses within the last thirty years, which claim both OIT and IAM to be equally plausible or OIT to be more plausible.Please work towards such an end.
I don't understand [..] that the quoted sentences above are not considered a racist framing of an ongoing area of research. Why even make the distinction of "Indian" scholars?
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the following in the section "Main arguments of the Indigenists":
"Identifying the Sarasvati River, described in the Rig Veda as a mighty river, with the Ghaggar-Hakra River, which had dried up c. 2000 BCE, arguing therefor for an earlier dating of the Rig Veda;"
to
"Identifying the Sarasvati River, described in the Rig Veda as a mighty river, with the Ghaggar-Hakra River, which had dried up c. 2000 BCE, arguing therefore for an earlier dating of the Rig Veda;"
since there is no word "therefor" in English. 98.179.127.59 ( talk) 19:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
[2] Doug Weller talk 11:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Indigenous Aryanism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 3 March 2007. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
![]() | Rakhigarhi DNA - Ancient DNA study of skeletal remains of IVC - Shinde et al. (2019) - Further confirmation of Narasimhan (2018) |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
First of all, there is no such thing as Aryan people or Aryan race. The article
Aryan states:
Max Müller, who had himself inaugurated the racial interpretations of the Rigveda,[97] denounced in 1888 those who spoke of an "Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair" as a nonsense comparable to a linguist speaking of "a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar".[98] But for an increasing number of Western writers, especially among anthropologists and non-specialists influenced by Darwinist theories, the Aryans came to be seen as a "physical-genetic species" contrasting with the other human races rather than an ethnolinguistic category.[99][100]
Why are we holding to this dogmatic
conviction that linguistics prove the existence of a fictitious race?
"Mainstream scholarship" has maintained this 19th century assumption without challenge for nearly 150 years. This article outright dismisses any criticism of this fundamentally flawed assumption:
"linguistic dilettantes who either ignore the linguistic evidence completely, dismiss it as highly speculative and inconclusive,[note 10] or attempt to tackle it with hopelessly inadequate qualifications"
Nice gatekeeping! As if someone needs a PhD (ostensibly from a white Indology professor) to question a tenuous assumption tracing back to the era of colonialism and
scientific racism. This is unacceptable in the 21st century, and it certainly wouldn't fly in the hard sciences. Why is the standard for scholarship so low in South Asian studies?
2603:8001:1A07:2561:E5BE:3B76:35D6:1FC7 (
talk) 19:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
the mainstream academia goes to great lengths to silence any indigenous voices that question the academics' base assumptions: no, mainstream academia does not make such an effort; they just ignore obvious nonsense generated by people who are unable to operate within those scientific parameters. Science stimulates discussion, research, theories that can be falsified - not articles of faith, promoted by people who attack criticasters as 'leftist radicals' and 'Marxists'. Your rant is indeed yet another example of the vicious 'debate' carried by non-scholarly minded people. Cheers, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Vanamonde93: This [1] is a good rationale, thank you. I agree with it. It's definitely a better one than indiscriminate deletionism. What do you think, TrangaBellam. – Austronesier ( talk) 21:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves.
It is very loud and clear that this article considers only the so-called "mainstream" POV truthful, and the indigenous aryanism hypothesis a nationalist ideology claimed to be part of Hindutva. I cannot understand how that stand is NPOV. If this article is considered worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, then by core tenets of policy, it must be NPOV. If that's not possible, remove the article. Sooku ( talk) 08:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
When there is a consensus of opinion on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of 'due weight' can lead to 'false balance', meaning that viewers might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is [...] Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.
Thank you both, I understand. Based on my reading, this article misrepresents the "degree of credibility". However I need to compose and submit for discussion specific and properly sourced edits to the text. Sooku ( talk) 20:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
ten peer-reviewed sources, authored by specialist scholars and published by reputed academic presses within the last thirty years, which claim both OIT and IAM to be equally plausible or OIT to be more plausible.Please work towards such an end.
I don't understand [..] that the quoted sentences above are not considered a racist framing of an ongoing area of research. Why even make the distinction of "Indian" scholars?
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the following in the section "Main arguments of the Indigenists":
"Identifying the Sarasvati River, described in the Rig Veda as a mighty river, with the Ghaggar-Hakra River, which had dried up c. 2000 BCE, arguing therefor for an earlier dating of the Rig Veda;"
to
"Identifying the Sarasvati River, described in the Rig Veda as a mighty river, with the Ghaggar-Hakra River, which had dried up c. 2000 BCE, arguing therefore for an earlier dating of the Rig Veda;"
since there is no word "therefor" in English. 98.179.127.59 ( talk) 19:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
[2] Doug Weller talk 11:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)