![]() | 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 |
The mediator has closed this case. See: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-28_Indigenous_Aryan_Theory Buddhipriya 18:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Apropos of this edit and the editorial comment on this revert, here is the third paragraph of Chapter 8 of Bryant(2001) in full:
Apropos of this comment and this "rebuttal" (which forgets this from WP:NOR: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions."), consider the following example.
The fallacy in Bryant's "necessary corollary" should be clear now. But even if his argument were correct, it would still seriously misrepresent the Indigenist position, as I tried to point out elsewhere. rudra 02:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've included tags for the lead paragraph - if the article says that a view is pseudohistory then a citation for this word or an equivalent phrase is required, not an explanation why an individual editor would consider this view reasonable. Also notes are not a forum for individual editors to express their views, preferably the only content of a note should be a {{ cite book}} or similar. Addhoc 13:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the last part of the lead section because of concerns relating to copyright infringement based on this extract. Also the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the overall article. Addhoc 16:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed this reference there are several (mutually exclusive) decipherment claims of the Indus script as encoding a "Sanskritic" language; see also Indus Valley Civilization as there are few things wrong with this:
Pleas provide verifiable reference. Sbhushan 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This sentence:
“ | The proposition of "indigenous Aryans" thus does not correspond to a single identifiable opinion, but to a sentiment that may result in various, partly mutually exclusive, specific claims united by a common ideology. | ” |
is possible original research. The supporting foot-note is:
“ | Thus, Koenraad Elst postulates a Proto-Indo-Iranian Harappan culture, while Nicholas Kazanas argues that the Indo-Aryan Rigveda must predate the Harappan culture. The unifying ideology is apparent in that there is no academic controversy among proponents of "out of India" scenario aimed at resolving such contradictions. | ” |
which obviously isn't a reference to a reliable source. Accordingly, I propose deleting the sentence and supporting foot-note. Addhoc 22:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The astronomical lore in Vedic literature provides elements of an absolute chronology in a consistent way. For what it is worth, this corpus of astronomical indications suggests that the Rg-Veda was completed in the 4th millennium AD, that the core text of the Mahabharata was composed at the end of that millennium, and that the Brahmanas and Sutras are products of the high Harappan period towards the end of the 3rd millennium BC. This corpus of evidence is hard to reconcile with the AIT, and has been standing as a growing challenge to the AIT defenders for two centuries.
The second paragraph In its extreme forms, postulating ..... is all original research. Witzel's statement below that is better classification. I suggest that second paragraph be removed and only statements attributable to Witzel be left. Sbhushan 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Both Witzel and Bryant are publication from same time. So either we can move everything to "Historiographical Context" or leave both in lead. Sbhushan 14:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, Sbhushan, you've just demonstrated that you don't understand the word "historiographical". Wouldn't you agree that WP would be better served if your contributions were to subjects where you knew at least something, and you could keep up with the elementary concepts of the field? rudra 06:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Instead of ranting and raving, do you want to offer constructive suggestions? It might be worthwhile looking at "collaborate". You care to explain why Bryant should not be in lead also, since what Bryant is saying is not much different than Witzel and also "sets the scope" and doesn't belong in "why" of historiographical. On your matter of expertise, I seriously doubt you have much understanding of the subject matter. You believe that your words should carry more weight than the published authors. Do you care to show where have you published in peer reviewed literature regarding this topic? Are you aware of current Wikipedia guidelines regarding credentials? Sbhushan 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
As long as you provide verifiable content, I don't have any problem with most controversial statements you can find. But if you want to use Wikipedia as a platform to push your POV, then I will insist on proper citations. Take a look at
WP:ENC. On the Aryan migration page, the quality of evidence in support of Aryan Migration is very limited. How about you demonstrate your expertise by adding good quality content there? Let us see if you can walk the talk.
Sbhushan
12:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I moved the article to Theory of Indigenous Aryans in India as this a theory in relation to India, and a similar theory (at least in Iran) exists for the hypothesis that Aryans are indigenous to Iran, to conform with other such articles. Khorshid 02:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I am moving this to " Indigenous Aryans (India)" for the reasons expressed above: this is no "theory" but an ideological sentiment. Until we have an article on similar sentiment in Iran, Indigenous Aryans can be a redirect. All scholarly debate belongs on Indo-Iranians, not here. dab (𒁳) 12:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised to see that there is no discussion on possible link between this article and PCT! -- UB 12:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
TALK about extreme POV. Some ham handed theory dreamed up by German with vested interest is not psuedo science and the new "Out of India" theory is? We all know that theories can be laid out to support one's POV. I will not name names here but some posters have obvious intersts in lurking on wikipedia and such other outlets to stamp out any interest or support that Out of India theory may generate among lay people. These are really well known tactics, but unfortunately some people keep falling for it. Let there be a "scientific" discussion on merits of both theories. Frankly the jury is still out! Till then please refrain from using extreme POV and mouthing rhetoric.
How many such germans do you know? On other hand, you may know many. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.92.51 ( talk) 20:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
TN, you have shown erratic behaviour at other Hindu topics, but if you now stoop so low as to tout "Indigenous Aryans", you have lost any shred of credibility you may have had left. We have been through lengthy disputes with editors who tried to depict this thing as something other than Hindutva national mysticism. The result is up for anyone to see: "IA" isn't a single "hypothesis", but a sentiment including a range of positions that may rank from eccentric fringe views on the sane scale, to unmitigated jingoist pseudohistorical propaganda on the other end of the scale. The "OIT" is a hypothesis, albeit an utterly discredited one, but you will note it has its own article. -- dab (𒁳) 15:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah ok I didn't realize the OIT had a separate article. Please target the edit content and not the editor. Trips ( talk) 16:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
TN, what part of WP:DR, WP:CONSENSUS do you find difficult to understand? This is an article with some history. You seem to thing that the definition of the IA meme given in the lead is "undue". Care to back this up with anything resembling a coherent statement? If we couldn't cite Witzel's characterization of IA as an idea in Hindu nationalism, there wouldn't be any grounds for having this article in the first place. This article documents a sad case of confused national mysticist propaganda. Every religion has these guys, see Islamism or Christian fundamentalism. The Hindu zeaolts are not an ounce better or worse than their counterparts of other faiths. Nor do I believe for one minute that all or even most Hindus are national mysticist morons. These people are a minority, ok? I am sure most Hindus are nice and rational people. We nevertheless need to document, neutrally and encyclopedically, the existence of the unpleasant underbelly of religious faith, and this article is one such instance. Now please stop blanking references, and, if you can, stop associating yourself with this stupidity by giving the impression of defending it. Crackpots like Purushottam Nagesh Oak give a bad name to whichever group they are trying to tout. Trying to defend such cranks instead of documenting them as an isolated lunatic minority makes this worse. Trying to portray Oak as a sane Hindu author does the same to Hinduism as trying to defend Herbert W. Armstrong as a sane Christian author would do for Christianity, ok? If you do not think PN Oak was a Hindu fundamentalist, I would very much wonder who you would let in to this term at all. dab (𒁳) 11:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I will ignore the rant at a strawman. I removed a massive quote entirely talking about politics and Indigenous Aryans, but this has disproportionate weight in the article. Its like repeatedly quoting Koenraad Elst on Aryan Invasion theory or other articles which has been removed swiftly. Witzels views were also grouped and moved from the header as there is only so much a linguist can be quoted on his views in this case, especially one that supports the "Japhetic race" claim and evangelism. I also slightly expanded the arguments section. Since I know you wont read the changes before reverting, Bergunder views were already summarized before the massive quote, which is what I removed. Trips ( talk) 11:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
There you go, apparently theories concerning history are all about politics. Trips ( talk) 12:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Can a version be formulated first at the talk page, Then all parties should have their say and then it should state if they accept it. There are policies on this and how to arrive at conclusion that is acceptable to all. Talk page is meant for that - list the disputed items and lets iron it out first before editwarring. Wikidās ॐ 16:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
You didn't restore any "scholarly cited content" you idiot, because I didn't remove any. This is typical edit-warring, you have reverted me on the basis of perceived motive alone. Do you know anything about the article topic to even argue on what grounds you are reverting my relatively minor edits? Trips ( talk) 04:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The quote is large and overstates one point of view in the article. Additionaly, Bergunders views have already been summarized before the quote. I am acting on precedent, there was a situation like this, where user:Soman removed a lengthy Elst quote in a short article, I forget which. Trips ( talk) 04:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
TN, your changes lend legitimacy to a completely discredited idea, please explain. Dance With The Devil ( talk) 07:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Be more precise with what you want an explanation for? Trips ( talk) 07:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
this article isn't about "theories concerning history". If it was, we'd delete it as ridiculous fringecruft. It is, instead, an article on a particular brand of national mysticism, revived by Goel and friends in time for the 1999 election and touted for the duration of BJP rule 1999-2004, to a point where serious scholars felt it necessary to debunk it, but utterly discredited and exposed as a propaganda stunt by 2005. As such, it is a topic of Indian politics and religious fundamentalism of the past decade or so. If you would read the article instead of trolling it, there wold be no need to point this out to you. It concerns "history" about as much as Space opera in Scientology scripture, Vril, Vimana or Atlantis. dab (𒁳) 09:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what you are trying to make it look like. Again you probably aren't acquainted with any of the work, you don't know what arguments it consists of, only that it is involved in Hindu nationalism, which you have repeated time and time again. Trips ( talk) 11:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Let it go Bachmann. The edits included are accurate and barely tread on your POV. Trips ( talk) 10:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The theories of aryans in 2 different wikipedia articles are:
I want to create a new realistic article to merge these two articles into a single the Indo-Aryan article with a theory which holds that the Indo-Aryans are mix of migratories and native Indians. Considering an analogy for the purpose of justification of the theory : When the Islamic invaders came to India, they captured most of north India. This does not mean that the existing people were pushed to the south - this is quiet obvious today because Hindus are still a majority in North India. Similarly, when the Aryans came long ago, they also captured Northern India and the natives were not pushed south in this case either. The confusion in theory comes because the Aryan invaders adopted Indianism and Mughals did not. (Here I am not mentioning adopted Hinduism because it was a period when there were no boundary lines of "RELIGIONS". Only when Pentium 2 came, a postfix of 1 is added to the first pentium release and before that it was just Pentium. Similarly the people just believed in Gods, there were several local deities, Gods, etc. There was no concept of another religion. So, it was Indianism that was adopted).
A realistic thought would lead to a conclusion that the Indo-Aryans are a mix of both natives and migratories, but they belong to different castes as of today. What can well be said is that the so-called Dravidians are pure natives to India. Again I use the word so-called because the word was generated because of external elements entering India. Before that, there were only the natives isolated from all sides of the continent.
The policy of Wikipedia is to provide reliable and correct information to the possible extent. All information posted require citations and references. Here there are 2 articles Indo-Aryan migration and Indigenous Aryans. Both are long articles and have reliable citations and yet contradict each other in the basic idea itself. So it is evident from this that one or both of these articles has to be deleted when speaking about correctness. And if we speak that there is a theoretical contradiction, then, the realistic theory that I have mentioned is another possibility.
So my request is to consider merging Indo-Aryans as a single article or create an article with the realistic theory. Vayalir ( talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Indo-Aryan migration, a very common and crude supposition that the Indo-Aryans migrated to India -- I take it you have not in fact read the article. -- dab (𒁳) 16:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the article speaks to much of Indians, and there is very little evidence supporting their claims. The Indian sanskirt language has many burrowed words from the ancestor PIE language, making it not the home of the "Aryans" or PIE's This is associated with the steppe theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 ( talk) 06:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the article speaks to much of Indians, and there is very little evidence supporting their claims. The Indian sanskirt language has many burrowed words from the ancestor PIE language, making it not the home of the "Aryans" or PIE's This is associated with the steppe theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 ( talk) 07:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Change:
the superior court of the state of California
To:
the Superior Court of California
per the Court's own standards.
189.189.255.82 ( talk) 16:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree to the opinion of Sreekanthv.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7678538942425297587&q=vedic&hl=en I find that there are several points in this video unopposed in the Indo-Aryan Migrations. I think these can be added to the text. Presence of Shiva linga in Harrappan civilization and archeology of Dwaraka are some of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viswanath2006 ( talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
What business has this article in that project? The "science" in this article is thorughly debunked by both genetics and linguistics. It could however, be part of a WikiProject: WishfulThinking. Wogsinheat ( talk) 10:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)wogsinheat
One of the authors of the 2009 Harvard paper:
He further states that the study 'supports the view that castes grew directly out of tribal-like organizations during the formation of Indian society'.(Breaking India Appendix A) So the jati structures emerged tens of thousands of years prior to any arrival of the Aryans into India.(Breaking India Appendix A) Furthermore, this jati structure was not one of higher/lower status but simply one of endogamy within a given community.(Breaking India Appendix A) 176.67.169.146 ( talk) 02:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
There are number of reference tags in that article that identify original research. Please provide references to acceptable published material before removing tag. Sbhushan 21:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
There are also a number of what could be taken as pejorative terms when describing persons who do not subscribe to the Western theory, they are described as "Hindutva" or "Hindu Nationalists" which I would describe as ad hominum. Why not just discuss their ideas rather than try to label them. It seems more like "give a dog a bad name and then hang him." 18:19, 3 November 2014 User:Chandraputra
It is bit unfair that in the beginning of the article itself, it is defined by Witzel who is a strong critic of the theory. Come on! thats not fair! will you start an article by the reference from a critique only? And his statements give a very biased view for any reader hence it loses its neutrality. First you write what the theory is and what the people say about it in intro. One can mention that there are criticism and then in a separate heading at the last of the article write "Criticism" and write what Witzel says! We need to be fair not like this.
Sreekanthv ( talk) 15:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The stqatement of the article, talageris view would be "within Hindu nationalism" is POI. His position is a refusal of the AIT and as that not nationalistic. If you have any work, which accuses him that way then you have to quote or at least to refer to the same. Otherwise please change the phrase to "within India". 217.13.79.226 ( talk) 19:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to add a link to the Kurgan hypothesis in this article, but thought it was better to ask before I do so, because a lot of people seem to object to my edits (and I want to avoid an edit war).— Khabboos ( talk) 14:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan, CorporateM, Bladesmulti, and AmritasyaPutra: WP: OR states "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article." Directly related is even bolded. None of the genetics studies mention Indigenous Aryans or Aryan Migration. Migrations occurring 40,000 years ago have nothing to do with Aryan Migration, which is a specific hypothesis with a specific timetable. Lastly, the well known academic books on Indian history don't discuss Aryan Migration/Indigenous Aryans using genetics studies. VictoriaGrayson Talk 01:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Evolution-Creation is a false analogy Ivan. Edwin Bryant, undoubtedly a top expert, says he is "agnostic" about Indo-Aryan Migrations. He says "I find most of the evidence that has been marshaled to support the theory of Indo-Aryan migrations into the subcontinent to be inconclusive." Witzel himself acknowledges that "Denial of immigration into the area of an existing culture has recently been asserted by some archaelogists as well; they posit a purely local, indigenous development." VictoriaGrayson Talk 01:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that Out of India theory be merged into Indigenous Aryans. I think that the content in the Out of India theory article can easily be explained in the context of Indigenous Aryans, and the Indigenous Aryans article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Out of India theory will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. VictoriaGrayson Talk 18:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
(Please place any discussion on the merger proposal in this section.)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Request admin assistance in merging histories. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
In any "Indigenous Aryan" scenario, speakers of Indo-European languages must have left India at some point prior to the 10th century BC. I don't see how this works. According to Indo-European Languages, our speakers were in Antatolia in 4200BC, Tocharia 3700BC, Germany 3300BC, and so on. 10th century is too late. We can't put this totally fallacious argument in Wikipedia voice. Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm going to read more on this topic, so I'm copying this thread from Talk:Vedic period#Issues of Dispute by Indoscope, to have more sources.
Sources
|
---|
Indoscope ( talk) 07:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC) References
|
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
"The Indo-Aryan controversy" is about the revisionist/Indigenous Aryans scenarios. To state "no mention of indigenous aryans" is factually correct, but misses the point. The book itself is, so the review is too. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This looks like OR to me. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
So, what's wrong with this section? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Blades, but Elst has no reputation whatsoever, and Klostermaier is dubious too. And to state that "Witzel has not supported mainstream but made his own speculations and discarded others" and "there is little credibility in what Michael Witzel is saying" - Witzel defines the mainstream! It's the other way round: if Witzel criticises Kazanas and the likes, it's relevant.
And to state "Neither of the theories of hypothesis have any acceptance, because there is no firm evidence of migrations and that is what others usually agree with" is nonsense. The IAMt is widely accepted. Read Anthony "The Horse, the Wheel and Language" for a detailed overview, and Witzel's 2001 and 2005 criticisms of the indigenous Aryans thesis.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk! 21:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
21:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Edwin Bryant criticizes Witzel's logic in the book Indo-Aryan Controversy, for example on page 477, 480 etc. VictoriaGrayson Talk 14:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Since Joshua is making a serious effort to explain what is going on in this debate, I am going to add my two cents too, this time regarding how the academic disciplines play a role here (because I work in a University and interact with people from a variety of disciplines and know something about how they work).
Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Blaed, are you seriously suggesting that the IAMt is fringe? The iAMt is scientific. Witzel is a top-authority. The IAMt is not "refuted"; only some non-scholars think so. Read these quote again, from Mallory & Adams (2006), The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World:
Regarding Kazanas: do you actually understand what Kautilya3 is communicating here? Let's repeat:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I read a bit of Kazanas's paper last night and his "final reply". (Will need the paper volume to get hold of the critiques.) But the important bit is that Kazanas's meaning of "indigenous Aryans" is that Aryans entered the Indus Valley before 4500 BC and got integrated with Harappans (or may be they were the Harappans). I don't know why he has to call this theory "indigenous Aryans." But, for us, this gives a new interpretation of "indigenous Aryans" that we have to consider, in addition to the three interpretations that Witzel lists. I think we have to give Kazanas's interpretation due prominence here, because it is the only properly academic source that the indigenists have. (It was good enough to get published in JIES, at least with special concessions.) Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I previously gave a weblink to a yahoo groups post [16] for Mallory's editorial note on the Kazanas paper. I now have the source [1] and can confirm that the yahoo groups post is accurate. Curiously, he also quotes a paragraph from Bryant, which seems topical in the light of our recent discussions:
So the Indo-Aryan migration view is the "normative view." The indigenist view had been "marginalized." So, it should be "allowed" in the debate. It does not mean any acceptance that the indigenist view is "probable." How different this is from what we have been led to believe here, viz., that Bryant has supported the indigenist view and that the migration view has now become a fringe view?
Also found on the same page of Bryant is this sentence:
It is an upadhi, born out of "ignorance." How enlightening! Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
References
We need to eventually balance the treatment in the article by separating the proposed theories and their criticisms. Right now, I feel that the criticisms come too quickly. This is probably one of the things that Bladesmulti is probably trying to argue. Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Given the scope of this article, I'd welcome a section on Kak. but please do notice of the following: in 2002 Kazanas was allowed to publish in "The Journal of Indo-European Studies", probably the only publication by an "Indigenist" in the JIES. [2] [3] Mallory, editor of the Journal of Indo-European Studies, and emeritus professor at Queen's University, Belfast, and a member of the Royal Irish Academy, introduced this with an explanation, in which he stated: [3]
Many regard the scholarship of the Indigenous Indo-Aryan camp so seriously flawed that it should not be given an airing [...] I indicated that I thought it would be unlikely that any referee would agree with [Kazanas'] conclusions [...]"
Michael Witzel commented, "It is certain that Kazanas, now that he is published in JIES, will be quoted endlessly by Indian fundamentalists and nationalists as "a respected scholar published in major peer-reviewed journals like JIES" -- no matter how absurd his claims are known to be by specialist readers of those journals. It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars."
Mallory also quoted a paragraph from Bryant:
This does not mean that the Indigenous Aryan position is historically probable. The available evidence by no means denies the normative view—that of external Aryan origins and, if anything, favors it. But this view has had more than its fair share of airing over the last two centuries, and the Indigenous Aryan position has been generally ignored or marginalized. What it does mean, in my view, is that Indigenous Aryanism must be allowed a legitimate and even valuable place in discussions of Indo-Aryan origins." [4]
So, those theories are not really favoured by mainstream science. But anyway, that's what this article is for: to give an overview, whithout burning them down right-away. Does the lay-out I've chosen now "work"? For each (sub)topic: theoretical background, "Indigenous" arguments, counter-argument? It's not he "best" lay-out qua readability, I'm afraid, but it may be the most balanced. What do you think? Peace, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
References
I suspect that part of the confusion surrounding the issue is the misunderstanding that the mainstream model somehow implies a more-or-less complete replacement of the pre-existing population, at least in the northern part of the subcontinent. Any amount of archaeological and genetic continuity is of course not to be expected in such a "catastrophic" scenario. But I don't know anybody who actually supports such a scenario. Even the most ardent invasionists probably did and do not. Even among white supremacists as encountered on Stormfront and various "human biodiversity" forums such a view would be considered ridiculous from what I've observed. Everybody seems to agree that any migration wave would eventually have merged into the pre-existing population, though not without significantly (even profoundly) affecting the cultural, linguistic and genetic landscape, and resulting in a sort of mixed culture. Mutual lexical influence and typological (especially phonetic) convergence with the Dravidian languages have long been taken as linguistic evidence for intense contact and cross-cultural merger of Indo-Aryans with native populations. Hell, the Nazis explicitly acknowledged the Indians as a mixed population in order to explain their decidedly non-Nordic appearance. How could replacement lead to a racially mixed population, I wonder? If we look at analogous medieval or modern events such as the Magyarisation of (previously Slavic-speaking, and perhaps partly Romance-speaking) Pannonia, the Turkification of Anatolia or the Hispanification of Central and much of South America we see exactly that, relatively small groups of invaders or immigrant populations overwhelming the natives, but eventually mixing with them to such an extent that diverse "melting-pots" just like India arise. In Mexico, the majority of the population is actually Mestizo, and Nahuatl as well as various other indigenous languages are still spoken in sometimes significant numbers! Mexican culture is equally acknowledged as heavily mixed, with strong pre-Columbian elements. Nothing could be farther from the "replacement" scenario, and there is no reason to give it credence. After all, in South Asia too, there are several indigenous families of languages, and traces of even more in the form of substrate influence, which Witzel, among others, has examined (his writings on the subject are available online), and these are by no means limited to the south. Just like Mexican culture is heavily indebted to Aztec, Maya and other indigenous Mesoamerican cultures, so is it highly likely that the role of pre-Aryan South Asian cultures was highly significant in the development of ancient Indic culture(s) as well. I'm not sure if the replacement scenario is the result of honest confusion or a straw-man erected to combat the migration consensus. After all, at least part of the Hindutva movement seems to be equally uncomfortable with a mixing scenario and just as obsessed with (cultural as well as racial?) "purity" than white supremacists. But some sympathetic observers who are under the impression that Indo-Aryan migration is designed to deny the originality and validity of South Asian culture somehow and to portray it as derivative of white European culture, that the Indosphere is thus entirely dependent on white achievements and in this way inferior, which would explain the "white academics are trying to keep the brown man down using the Aryan invasion club" sentiment, appear to be honestly mistaken in this way.
A side-note regarding the placement of the ultimate Indo-European homeland – curiously, the Anatolian hypothesis, which archaeologists are so fond of, has its major weakness in the exact problem of accounting for the origin of the Indo-Iranian languages; it doesn't seem to have a scenario how Anatolian farmers spread to the adjacent Iranian Plateau and to South Asia (inconveniently, they cannot have been those who introduced farming there, as Mehrgarh as well as Jhusi was already in the Neolithic ca. 7000 BC, when the expansion out of Anatolia was supposedly only beginning, and the Neolithic on the Iranian Plateau is similarly old or even older), nor, crucially, can it plausibly account for the deep, old and continuous contacts of Indo-Iranian with Uralic as evidenced by loanwords in Proto-Uralic and later stages, as Jaakko Häkkinen has pointed out. This is, incidentally, an even greater problem for OIT, but it makes perfect sense with the steppe homeland. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 04:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I jus found this page, Linda Hess, The Indigenous Aryan Discussion on RISA-L: The Complete Text (to 10/28/96). It's an extended, scholarly discussion in which Edwin Bryant also participates. I've read only a few parts so far, but it looks very interesting. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The page The Lost River is about a book by Michel Danino that fits into the topic of thi page. I have called it a fringe theory topic and asked for material to be included on the page, which would not have been needed otherwise. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:The Lost River#Danino, Kazanas & mainstream scholarship, which might give us a better idea of what it means to work with a fringe theory label. Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Does Elst actually conclude that the OIT is correct? Or does he merely propese it, as a theoretical possibility? Anybody read the book? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
So, what's left? Kazanas? See map, from a self-published paper. Kak? "It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars." Michel Danino? Nope; he does not state that "[T]he simplest and most natural conclusion is that the Vedic culture was present in the region in the third millennium" is also the correct conclusion. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Enough, gentleman. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The Indophobic, racist and patronizing comments need to stop. VictoriaGrayson Talk 19:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Edwin Bryant:
it is now increasingly difficult for scholars of South Asia to have a cordial exchange on the matter without being branded a “Hindu nationalist”
VictoriaGrayson Talk 00:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
On the one hand, I don't see any of the comments as Indophobic (either in the original sense of fearing Indians or in the more common modern sense of disliking Indians), patronizing, or racist. Maybe I have missed something. I don't see any reason why any particular theory about the origin of Indo-European languages is necessarily either pro-Indian or anti-Indian. The Indians have, by any reasonable historical analysis, been civilized longer than the Europeans. In recent centuries, Europeans have been racist toward Indians (among others), either out of European pride or out of ignorance of India's long and proud history. That has very little to do with where a great language family that is spoken by most Indians and most Europeans originated. (Any theory that it originated in Europe is fringe even among fringe theories.)
I will point out that this subject area is covered by ArbCom discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. As the arbitrators have clarified, the ancient history of the Indian subcontinent is inextricable from the history of modern states that have too often been at war. Anyone engaging in disruptive editing can be subject to sanctions, so be civil and avoid disruptive editing, and racism and prejudice contribute to disruptive editing. I didn't observe any anti-Indian, patronizing, or racist comments, but maybe I missed something. I certainly don't want to see any anti-Indian or racist comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't see Indo-phobic (dislike of Indians) comments when there were Indo-phobic comments, or maybe I missed them. However, I may have been looking at India through a sympathetic American perspective as an American who sees the United States and India as two countries with many common aspects despite different cultures and histories. India and the United States are the world's two most populous democracies. They are two countries having proud heritages of religious pluralism. India is a Hindu-majority country, but it is not a "Hindu" country in the sense of making Hinduism an essential part of Indian-ness. The United States is likewise a Christian-majority country, but it is not a "Christian" country in having an established church, or making Christianity an essential part of American-ness. Also, one of the major threats to civil society and religious pluralism in the United States is Christian fanaticism, a desire to make tie Christianity (and particular denominations of Christianity) to an American identity. Likewise, I understand that one of the threats to civil society and religious pluralism in India is Hindu fanaticism.
So when I read criticisms of Hindu scholarship, I read "Hindu scholarship" as "scholarship serving a Hindu agenda" rather than as criticisms of scholarship by Hindu scholars (some of whom have been great scholars since before there were American scholars). I read those comments as comparable to criticisms of "Christian scholarship" in the United States or Europe as meaning "scholarship serving a Christian agenda", which is biased scholarship. I personally do deprecate scholarship by would-be scholars who serve particular Christian agendas rather than the agenda of truth (and truth is one of the proper values of Christianity and Hinduism), and likewise I agree with deprecation of scholarship that primarily serves a Hindu agenda. Of course any comment deprecating scholarship by Indians in general, or by Hindu Indians in general, is racist. A comment deprecating scholarship by those who put religious agendas before the academic pursuit of truth is not racist. Those are my thoughts as a human with a respect for freedom, as an American, and as a Christian. Maybe that explains why I didn't think that any comments were racist.
If any comments really deprecated all Indian scholarship, that is either racist or otherwise bigoted.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what the argument is about. But the significance of the award was already mentioned in my first mention of it: Powerful forces are now pushing this theory. The Sanskrit department project to "prove" that the Aryans were indigenous, inviting Frawley for its launch, the rumours that the Sanskrit department is being given mandate to revise high school history books, and Frawley getting Padma Bhushan, are all obviously related. The same players and the same ideas pop up everywhere. Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC) And every time AmritasyaPutra uses the word "So", assume that he is throwing up yet another red herring to waste everybody's time. We should ignore it and move on. Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I just looked at the nightmare that this article is becoming. It is at least twice as long as is necessary for a fringe theory. Jonathan and Bladesmulti, while perhaps well-meaning, have turned this into a monster. This is an encyclopedia article, not a doctoral dissertation. Every single reference to Indogenesis does not need to be cited here. Every single trivial quote from George the yoga teacher does not need to be included. This article is totally out of control. And now you want to include a history of British colonialism to motivate why Hindu fundamentalists and Indian nationalists want to abandon science and place the origin of humanity (or at least Indo-Europeans) in the Ganges or Indus basin. Step back and get some perspective on this. Cut half of this article and you'll have an appropriate Wikipedia-length article (although still too long for a fringe theory). -- Taivo ( talk) 19:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
While working today on this raticle, I realised that the "Indigenist" arguments consist of two parts:
The "scenarios" are scundary to these arguments; the "real" scenario seems to be the alignment of the Vedic-Puranic Indian chronology with the Harappan Civilisation. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Gentleman, I think you're all right here (and that's not my usual 'dimming the flames'). I remember an interview by someone with Israel Finkelstein (if it was him), a scholar on ancient Israel c.q. the Bible. The interviewer was an American fundamentalist, and they knew each other for years already. It was hilarious. The scholar totally disagreed with the fundamentalist (of course), but was also sympathetic to him; the fundamentalist was indeed a nice and funny guy, despite his, ehm, "bijzondere" lines of reasoning. Gosh, I also remember this video of an American Hindu fundamentalist, going around the nieghbourhood to share his message. Rings at the home of a Christian fundamentalist.... You can imagine the heated discussion that followed... (no offense intended here; I love dutch "Gereformeerden", also Christian fundamentalists; I use to have very nice and warm conversations with them. One person once told me, when we were watching the clouds: "Imagine, the Lord could be coming on a cloud right now." I imagined, and yes, that would be great! It was awesome to sit together and share her thoughts.)
Realizing what's going on here, what's at stake, makes it understandable. At least to me. And interesting. After all, I'm a psychologist of religion. So, I'm hooked, and I want to know more.
Vic is also right. Gordon White is a top scholar. And yes, it seems very likely that there is a continuity between the Harappan Civilisation and later developments - though it's not only the Harappan Civilastion, or the Vedics. But that's another discussion, though related.
And AP, it's dawned on me how you are feeling here. It's worthwhile to have this article (though it's getting quite long), and to gain an understanding of what's going, and why this is important to many people.
To share one last personal thought: I don't believe there's a God out there. But this night my daughter was wide awake, so I was lying with her in bed, waiting for her to fall asleep. and I thanked God for the privilege to have a duaghter and a wife to love, knowing that way too soon everything wiil be different, when the daughter is grown-up and has left the house, and either my wife or myself appears to have a terminal disease. So, I thanked the God who does not exist, to my opinion.
All the best, to all of you, as usual.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
06:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
What is meant in this context by "fundamentalist" or "fundamentalism"? I know what Christian fundamentalism is, a school of thought within Protestant Christianity, especially in the United States, that emphasizes the literal truth of the Bible, thus ignoring or disputing accepted scholarship, especially geology as to the age of the Earth. Is the term also being used here to refer to a Hindu school of thought that contradicts accepted scholarship? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
"Prof Witzel was active in erasing information about DFN's missionary nature on the free Internet encyclopaedia, Wikipedia." [21] Do we have any evidence of this? Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I've split-off part of the article to Indigenous Aryans - Overview of arguments per WP:BOLD to reduce the size. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
The mediator has closed this case. See: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-28_Indigenous_Aryan_Theory Buddhipriya 18:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Apropos of this edit and the editorial comment on this revert, here is the third paragraph of Chapter 8 of Bryant(2001) in full:
Apropos of this comment and this "rebuttal" (which forgets this from WP:NOR: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions."), consider the following example.
The fallacy in Bryant's "necessary corollary" should be clear now. But even if his argument were correct, it would still seriously misrepresent the Indigenist position, as I tried to point out elsewhere. rudra 02:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've included tags for the lead paragraph - if the article says that a view is pseudohistory then a citation for this word or an equivalent phrase is required, not an explanation why an individual editor would consider this view reasonable. Also notes are not a forum for individual editors to express their views, preferably the only content of a note should be a {{ cite book}} or similar. Addhoc 13:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the last part of the lead section because of concerns relating to copyright infringement based on this extract. Also the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the overall article. Addhoc 16:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed this reference there are several (mutually exclusive) decipherment claims of the Indus script as encoding a "Sanskritic" language; see also Indus Valley Civilization as there are few things wrong with this:
Pleas provide verifiable reference. Sbhushan 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This sentence:
“ | The proposition of "indigenous Aryans" thus does not correspond to a single identifiable opinion, but to a sentiment that may result in various, partly mutually exclusive, specific claims united by a common ideology. | ” |
is possible original research. The supporting foot-note is:
“ | Thus, Koenraad Elst postulates a Proto-Indo-Iranian Harappan culture, while Nicholas Kazanas argues that the Indo-Aryan Rigveda must predate the Harappan culture. The unifying ideology is apparent in that there is no academic controversy among proponents of "out of India" scenario aimed at resolving such contradictions. | ” |
which obviously isn't a reference to a reliable source. Accordingly, I propose deleting the sentence and supporting foot-note. Addhoc 22:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The astronomical lore in Vedic literature provides elements of an absolute chronology in a consistent way. For what it is worth, this corpus of astronomical indications suggests that the Rg-Veda was completed in the 4th millennium AD, that the core text of the Mahabharata was composed at the end of that millennium, and that the Brahmanas and Sutras are products of the high Harappan period towards the end of the 3rd millennium BC. This corpus of evidence is hard to reconcile with the AIT, and has been standing as a growing challenge to the AIT defenders for two centuries.
The second paragraph In its extreme forms, postulating ..... is all original research. Witzel's statement below that is better classification. I suggest that second paragraph be removed and only statements attributable to Witzel be left. Sbhushan 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Both Witzel and Bryant are publication from same time. So either we can move everything to "Historiographical Context" or leave both in lead. Sbhushan 14:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, Sbhushan, you've just demonstrated that you don't understand the word "historiographical". Wouldn't you agree that WP would be better served if your contributions were to subjects where you knew at least something, and you could keep up with the elementary concepts of the field? rudra 06:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Instead of ranting and raving, do you want to offer constructive suggestions? It might be worthwhile looking at "collaborate". You care to explain why Bryant should not be in lead also, since what Bryant is saying is not much different than Witzel and also "sets the scope" and doesn't belong in "why" of historiographical. On your matter of expertise, I seriously doubt you have much understanding of the subject matter. You believe that your words should carry more weight than the published authors. Do you care to show where have you published in peer reviewed literature regarding this topic? Are you aware of current Wikipedia guidelines regarding credentials? Sbhushan 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
As long as you provide verifiable content, I don't have any problem with most controversial statements you can find. But if you want to use Wikipedia as a platform to push your POV, then I will insist on proper citations. Take a look at
WP:ENC. On the Aryan migration page, the quality of evidence in support of Aryan Migration is very limited. How about you demonstrate your expertise by adding good quality content there? Let us see if you can walk the talk.
Sbhushan
12:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I moved the article to Theory of Indigenous Aryans in India as this a theory in relation to India, and a similar theory (at least in Iran) exists for the hypothesis that Aryans are indigenous to Iran, to conform with other such articles. Khorshid 02:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I am moving this to " Indigenous Aryans (India)" for the reasons expressed above: this is no "theory" but an ideological sentiment. Until we have an article on similar sentiment in Iran, Indigenous Aryans can be a redirect. All scholarly debate belongs on Indo-Iranians, not here. dab (𒁳) 12:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised to see that there is no discussion on possible link between this article and PCT! -- UB 12:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
TALK about extreme POV. Some ham handed theory dreamed up by German with vested interest is not psuedo science and the new "Out of India" theory is? We all know that theories can be laid out to support one's POV. I will not name names here but some posters have obvious intersts in lurking on wikipedia and such other outlets to stamp out any interest or support that Out of India theory may generate among lay people. These are really well known tactics, but unfortunately some people keep falling for it. Let there be a "scientific" discussion on merits of both theories. Frankly the jury is still out! Till then please refrain from using extreme POV and mouthing rhetoric.
How many such germans do you know? On other hand, you may know many. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.92.51 ( talk) 20:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
TN, you have shown erratic behaviour at other Hindu topics, but if you now stoop so low as to tout "Indigenous Aryans", you have lost any shred of credibility you may have had left. We have been through lengthy disputes with editors who tried to depict this thing as something other than Hindutva national mysticism. The result is up for anyone to see: "IA" isn't a single "hypothesis", but a sentiment including a range of positions that may rank from eccentric fringe views on the sane scale, to unmitigated jingoist pseudohistorical propaganda on the other end of the scale. The "OIT" is a hypothesis, albeit an utterly discredited one, but you will note it has its own article. -- dab (𒁳) 15:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah ok I didn't realize the OIT had a separate article. Please target the edit content and not the editor. Trips ( talk) 16:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
TN, what part of WP:DR, WP:CONSENSUS do you find difficult to understand? This is an article with some history. You seem to thing that the definition of the IA meme given in the lead is "undue". Care to back this up with anything resembling a coherent statement? If we couldn't cite Witzel's characterization of IA as an idea in Hindu nationalism, there wouldn't be any grounds for having this article in the first place. This article documents a sad case of confused national mysticist propaganda. Every religion has these guys, see Islamism or Christian fundamentalism. The Hindu zeaolts are not an ounce better or worse than their counterparts of other faiths. Nor do I believe for one minute that all or even most Hindus are national mysticist morons. These people are a minority, ok? I am sure most Hindus are nice and rational people. We nevertheless need to document, neutrally and encyclopedically, the existence of the unpleasant underbelly of religious faith, and this article is one such instance. Now please stop blanking references, and, if you can, stop associating yourself with this stupidity by giving the impression of defending it. Crackpots like Purushottam Nagesh Oak give a bad name to whichever group they are trying to tout. Trying to defend such cranks instead of documenting them as an isolated lunatic minority makes this worse. Trying to portray Oak as a sane Hindu author does the same to Hinduism as trying to defend Herbert W. Armstrong as a sane Christian author would do for Christianity, ok? If you do not think PN Oak was a Hindu fundamentalist, I would very much wonder who you would let in to this term at all. dab (𒁳) 11:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I will ignore the rant at a strawman. I removed a massive quote entirely talking about politics and Indigenous Aryans, but this has disproportionate weight in the article. Its like repeatedly quoting Koenraad Elst on Aryan Invasion theory or other articles which has been removed swiftly. Witzels views were also grouped and moved from the header as there is only so much a linguist can be quoted on his views in this case, especially one that supports the "Japhetic race" claim and evangelism. I also slightly expanded the arguments section. Since I know you wont read the changes before reverting, Bergunder views were already summarized before the massive quote, which is what I removed. Trips ( talk) 11:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
There you go, apparently theories concerning history are all about politics. Trips ( talk) 12:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Can a version be formulated first at the talk page, Then all parties should have their say and then it should state if they accept it. There are policies on this and how to arrive at conclusion that is acceptable to all. Talk page is meant for that - list the disputed items and lets iron it out first before editwarring. Wikidās ॐ 16:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
You didn't restore any "scholarly cited content" you idiot, because I didn't remove any. This is typical edit-warring, you have reverted me on the basis of perceived motive alone. Do you know anything about the article topic to even argue on what grounds you are reverting my relatively minor edits? Trips ( talk) 04:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The quote is large and overstates one point of view in the article. Additionaly, Bergunders views have already been summarized before the quote. I am acting on precedent, there was a situation like this, where user:Soman removed a lengthy Elst quote in a short article, I forget which. Trips ( talk) 04:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
TN, your changes lend legitimacy to a completely discredited idea, please explain. Dance With The Devil ( talk) 07:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Be more precise with what you want an explanation for? Trips ( talk) 07:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
this article isn't about "theories concerning history". If it was, we'd delete it as ridiculous fringecruft. It is, instead, an article on a particular brand of national mysticism, revived by Goel and friends in time for the 1999 election and touted for the duration of BJP rule 1999-2004, to a point where serious scholars felt it necessary to debunk it, but utterly discredited and exposed as a propaganda stunt by 2005. As such, it is a topic of Indian politics and religious fundamentalism of the past decade or so. If you would read the article instead of trolling it, there wold be no need to point this out to you. It concerns "history" about as much as Space opera in Scientology scripture, Vril, Vimana or Atlantis. dab (𒁳) 09:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what you are trying to make it look like. Again you probably aren't acquainted with any of the work, you don't know what arguments it consists of, only that it is involved in Hindu nationalism, which you have repeated time and time again. Trips ( talk) 11:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Let it go Bachmann. The edits included are accurate and barely tread on your POV. Trips ( talk) 10:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The theories of aryans in 2 different wikipedia articles are:
I want to create a new realistic article to merge these two articles into a single the Indo-Aryan article with a theory which holds that the Indo-Aryans are mix of migratories and native Indians. Considering an analogy for the purpose of justification of the theory : When the Islamic invaders came to India, they captured most of north India. This does not mean that the existing people were pushed to the south - this is quiet obvious today because Hindus are still a majority in North India. Similarly, when the Aryans came long ago, they also captured Northern India and the natives were not pushed south in this case either. The confusion in theory comes because the Aryan invaders adopted Indianism and Mughals did not. (Here I am not mentioning adopted Hinduism because it was a period when there were no boundary lines of "RELIGIONS". Only when Pentium 2 came, a postfix of 1 is added to the first pentium release and before that it was just Pentium. Similarly the people just believed in Gods, there were several local deities, Gods, etc. There was no concept of another religion. So, it was Indianism that was adopted).
A realistic thought would lead to a conclusion that the Indo-Aryans are a mix of both natives and migratories, but they belong to different castes as of today. What can well be said is that the so-called Dravidians are pure natives to India. Again I use the word so-called because the word was generated because of external elements entering India. Before that, there were only the natives isolated from all sides of the continent.
The policy of Wikipedia is to provide reliable and correct information to the possible extent. All information posted require citations and references. Here there are 2 articles Indo-Aryan migration and Indigenous Aryans. Both are long articles and have reliable citations and yet contradict each other in the basic idea itself. So it is evident from this that one or both of these articles has to be deleted when speaking about correctness. And if we speak that there is a theoretical contradiction, then, the realistic theory that I have mentioned is another possibility.
So my request is to consider merging Indo-Aryans as a single article or create an article with the realistic theory. Vayalir ( talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Indo-Aryan migration, a very common and crude supposition that the Indo-Aryans migrated to India -- I take it you have not in fact read the article. -- dab (𒁳) 16:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the article speaks to much of Indians, and there is very little evidence supporting their claims. The Indian sanskirt language has many burrowed words from the ancestor PIE language, making it not the home of the "Aryans" or PIE's This is associated with the steppe theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 ( talk) 06:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the article speaks to much of Indians, and there is very little evidence supporting their claims. The Indian sanskirt language has many burrowed words from the ancestor PIE language, making it not the home of the "Aryans" or PIE's This is associated with the steppe theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 ( talk) 07:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Change:
the superior court of the state of California
To:
the Superior Court of California
per the Court's own standards.
189.189.255.82 ( talk) 16:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree to the opinion of Sreekanthv.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7678538942425297587&q=vedic&hl=en I find that there are several points in this video unopposed in the Indo-Aryan Migrations. I think these can be added to the text. Presence of Shiva linga in Harrappan civilization and archeology of Dwaraka are some of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viswanath2006 ( talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
What business has this article in that project? The "science" in this article is thorughly debunked by both genetics and linguistics. It could however, be part of a WikiProject: WishfulThinking. Wogsinheat ( talk) 10:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)wogsinheat
One of the authors of the 2009 Harvard paper:
He further states that the study 'supports the view that castes grew directly out of tribal-like organizations during the formation of Indian society'.(Breaking India Appendix A) So the jati structures emerged tens of thousands of years prior to any arrival of the Aryans into India.(Breaking India Appendix A) Furthermore, this jati structure was not one of higher/lower status but simply one of endogamy within a given community.(Breaking India Appendix A) 176.67.169.146 ( talk) 02:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
There are number of reference tags in that article that identify original research. Please provide references to acceptable published material before removing tag. Sbhushan 21:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
There are also a number of what could be taken as pejorative terms when describing persons who do not subscribe to the Western theory, they are described as "Hindutva" or "Hindu Nationalists" which I would describe as ad hominum. Why not just discuss their ideas rather than try to label them. It seems more like "give a dog a bad name and then hang him." 18:19, 3 November 2014 User:Chandraputra
It is bit unfair that in the beginning of the article itself, it is defined by Witzel who is a strong critic of the theory. Come on! thats not fair! will you start an article by the reference from a critique only? And his statements give a very biased view for any reader hence it loses its neutrality. First you write what the theory is and what the people say about it in intro. One can mention that there are criticism and then in a separate heading at the last of the article write "Criticism" and write what Witzel says! We need to be fair not like this.
Sreekanthv ( talk) 15:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The stqatement of the article, talageris view would be "within Hindu nationalism" is POI. His position is a refusal of the AIT and as that not nationalistic. If you have any work, which accuses him that way then you have to quote or at least to refer to the same. Otherwise please change the phrase to "within India". 217.13.79.226 ( talk) 19:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to add a link to the Kurgan hypothesis in this article, but thought it was better to ask before I do so, because a lot of people seem to object to my edits (and I want to avoid an edit war).— Khabboos ( talk) 14:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan, CorporateM, Bladesmulti, and AmritasyaPutra: WP: OR states "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article." Directly related is even bolded. None of the genetics studies mention Indigenous Aryans or Aryan Migration. Migrations occurring 40,000 years ago have nothing to do with Aryan Migration, which is a specific hypothesis with a specific timetable. Lastly, the well known academic books on Indian history don't discuss Aryan Migration/Indigenous Aryans using genetics studies. VictoriaGrayson Talk 01:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Evolution-Creation is a false analogy Ivan. Edwin Bryant, undoubtedly a top expert, says he is "agnostic" about Indo-Aryan Migrations. He says "I find most of the evidence that has been marshaled to support the theory of Indo-Aryan migrations into the subcontinent to be inconclusive." Witzel himself acknowledges that "Denial of immigration into the area of an existing culture has recently been asserted by some archaelogists as well; they posit a purely local, indigenous development." VictoriaGrayson Talk 01:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that Out of India theory be merged into Indigenous Aryans. I think that the content in the Out of India theory article can easily be explained in the context of Indigenous Aryans, and the Indigenous Aryans article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Out of India theory will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. VictoriaGrayson Talk 18:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
(Please place any discussion on the merger proposal in this section.)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Request admin assistance in merging histories. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
In any "Indigenous Aryan" scenario, speakers of Indo-European languages must have left India at some point prior to the 10th century BC. I don't see how this works. According to Indo-European Languages, our speakers were in Antatolia in 4200BC, Tocharia 3700BC, Germany 3300BC, and so on. 10th century is too late. We can't put this totally fallacious argument in Wikipedia voice. Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm going to read more on this topic, so I'm copying this thread from Talk:Vedic period#Issues of Dispute by Indoscope, to have more sources.
Sources
|
---|
Indoscope ( talk) 07:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC) References
|
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
"The Indo-Aryan controversy" is about the revisionist/Indigenous Aryans scenarios. To state "no mention of indigenous aryans" is factually correct, but misses the point. The book itself is, so the review is too. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This looks like OR to me. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
So, what's wrong with this section? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Blades, but Elst has no reputation whatsoever, and Klostermaier is dubious too. And to state that "Witzel has not supported mainstream but made his own speculations and discarded others" and "there is little credibility in what Michael Witzel is saying" - Witzel defines the mainstream! It's the other way round: if Witzel criticises Kazanas and the likes, it's relevant.
And to state "Neither of the theories of hypothesis have any acceptance, because there is no firm evidence of migrations and that is what others usually agree with" is nonsense. The IAMt is widely accepted. Read Anthony "The Horse, the Wheel and Language" for a detailed overview, and Witzel's 2001 and 2005 criticisms of the indigenous Aryans thesis.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk! 21:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
21:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Edwin Bryant criticizes Witzel's logic in the book Indo-Aryan Controversy, for example on page 477, 480 etc. VictoriaGrayson Talk 14:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Since Joshua is making a serious effort to explain what is going on in this debate, I am going to add my two cents too, this time regarding how the academic disciplines play a role here (because I work in a University and interact with people from a variety of disciplines and know something about how they work).
Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Blaed, are you seriously suggesting that the IAMt is fringe? The iAMt is scientific. Witzel is a top-authority. The IAMt is not "refuted"; only some non-scholars think so. Read these quote again, from Mallory & Adams (2006), The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World:
Regarding Kazanas: do you actually understand what Kautilya3 is communicating here? Let's repeat:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I read a bit of Kazanas's paper last night and his "final reply". (Will need the paper volume to get hold of the critiques.) But the important bit is that Kazanas's meaning of "indigenous Aryans" is that Aryans entered the Indus Valley before 4500 BC and got integrated with Harappans (or may be they were the Harappans). I don't know why he has to call this theory "indigenous Aryans." But, for us, this gives a new interpretation of "indigenous Aryans" that we have to consider, in addition to the three interpretations that Witzel lists. I think we have to give Kazanas's interpretation due prominence here, because it is the only properly academic source that the indigenists have. (It was good enough to get published in JIES, at least with special concessions.) Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I previously gave a weblink to a yahoo groups post [16] for Mallory's editorial note on the Kazanas paper. I now have the source [1] and can confirm that the yahoo groups post is accurate. Curiously, he also quotes a paragraph from Bryant, which seems topical in the light of our recent discussions:
So the Indo-Aryan migration view is the "normative view." The indigenist view had been "marginalized." So, it should be "allowed" in the debate. It does not mean any acceptance that the indigenist view is "probable." How different this is from what we have been led to believe here, viz., that Bryant has supported the indigenist view and that the migration view has now become a fringe view?
Also found on the same page of Bryant is this sentence:
It is an upadhi, born out of "ignorance." How enlightening! Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
References
We need to eventually balance the treatment in the article by separating the proposed theories and their criticisms. Right now, I feel that the criticisms come too quickly. This is probably one of the things that Bladesmulti is probably trying to argue. Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Given the scope of this article, I'd welcome a section on Kak. but please do notice of the following: in 2002 Kazanas was allowed to publish in "The Journal of Indo-European Studies", probably the only publication by an "Indigenist" in the JIES. [2] [3] Mallory, editor of the Journal of Indo-European Studies, and emeritus professor at Queen's University, Belfast, and a member of the Royal Irish Academy, introduced this with an explanation, in which he stated: [3]
Many regard the scholarship of the Indigenous Indo-Aryan camp so seriously flawed that it should not be given an airing [...] I indicated that I thought it would be unlikely that any referee would agree with [Kazanas'] conclusions [...]"
Michael Witzel commented, "It is certain that Kazanas, now that he is published in JIES, will be quoted endlessly by Indian fundamentalists and nationalists as "a respected scholar published in major peer-reviewed journals like JIES" -- no matter how absurd his claims are known to be by specialist readers of those journals. It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars."
Mallory also quoted a paragraph from Bryant:
This does not mean that the Indigenous Aryan position is historically probable. The available evidence by no means denies the normative view—that of external Aryan origins and, if anything, favors it. But this view has had more than its fair share of airing over the last two centuries, and the Indigenous Aryan position has been generally ignored or marginalized. What it does mean, in my view, is that Indigenous Aryanism must be allowed a legitimate and even valuable place in discussions of Indo-Aryan origins." [4]
So, those theories are not really favoured by mainstream science. But anyway, that's what this article is for: to give an overview, whithout burning them down right-away. Does the lay-out I've chosen now "work"? For each (sub)topic: theoretical background, "Indigenous" arguments, counter-argument? It's not he "best" lay-out qua readability, I'm afraid, but it may be the most balanced. What do you think? Peace, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
References
I suspect that part of the confusion surrounding the issue is the misunderstanding that the mainstream model somehow implies a more-or-less complete replacement of the pre-existing population, at least in the northern part of the subcontinent. Any amount of archaeological and genetic continuity is of course not to be expected in such a "catastrophic" scenario. But I don't know anybody who actually supports such a scenario. Even the most ardent invasionists probably did and do not. Even among white supremacists as encountered on Stormfront and various "human biodiversity" forums such a view would be considered ridiculous from what I've observed. Everybody seems to agree that any migration wave would eventually have merged into the pre-existing population, though not without significantly (even profoundly) affecting the cultural, linguistic and genetic landscape, and resulting in a sort of mixed culture. Mutual lexical influence and typological (especially phonetic) convergence with the Dravidian languages have long been taken as linguistic evidence for intense contact and cross-cultural merger of Indo-Aryans with native populations. Hell, the Nazis explicitly acknowledged the Indians as a mixed population in order to explain their decidedly non-Nordic appearance. How could replacement lead to a racially mixed population, I wonder? If we look at analogous medieval or modern events such as the Magyarisation of (previously Slavic-speaking, and perhaps partly Romance-speaking) Pannonia, the Turkification of Anatolia or the Hispanification of Central and much of South America we see exactly that, relatively small groups of invaders or immigrant populations overwhelming the natives, but eventually mixing with them to such an extent that diverse "melting-pots" just like India arise. In Mexico, the majority of the population is actually Mestizo, and Nahuatl as well as various other indigenous languages are still spoken in sometimes significant numbers! Mexican culture is equally acknowledged as heavily mixed, with strong pre-Columbian elements. Nothing could be farther from the "replacement" scenario, and there is no reason to give it credence. After all, in South Asia too, there are several indigenous families of languages, and traces of even more in the form of substrate influence, which Witzel, among others, has examined (his writings on the subject are available online), and these are by no means limited to the south. Just like Mexican culture is heavily indebted to Aztec, Maya and other indigenous Mesoamerican cultures, so is it highly likely that the role of pre-Aryan South Asian cultures was highly significant in the development of ancient Indic culture(s) as well. I'm not sure if the replacement scenario is the result of honest confusion or a straw-man erected to combat the migration consensus. After all, at least part of the Hindutva movement seems to be equally uncomfortable with a mixing scenario and just as obsessed with (cultural as well as racial?) "purity" than white supremacists. But some sympathetic observers who are under the impression that Indo-Aryan migration is designed to deny the originality and validity of South Asian culture somehow and to portray it as derivative of white European culture, that the Indosphere is thus entirely dependent on white achievements and in this way inferior, which would explain the "white academics are trying to keep the brown man down using the Aryan invasion club" sentiment, appear to be honestly mistaken in this way.
A side-note regarding the placement of the ultimate Indo-European homeland – curiously, the Anatolian hypothesis, which archaeologists are so fond of, has its major weakness in the exact problem of accounting for the origin of the Indo-Iranian languages; it doesn't seem to have a scenario how Anatolian farmers spread to the adjacent Iranian Plateau and to South Asia (inconveniently, they cannot have been those who introduced farming there, as Mehrgarh as well as Jhusi was already in the Neolithic ca. 7000 BC, when the expansion out of Anatolia was supposedly only beginning, and the Neolithic on the Iranian Plateau is similarly old or even older), nor, crucially, can it plausibly account for the deep, old and continuous contacts of Indo-Iranian with Uralic as evidenced by loanwords in Proto-Uralic and later stages, as Jaakko Häkkinen has pointed out. This is, incidentally, an even greater problem for OIT, but it makes perfect sense with the steppe homeland. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 04:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I jus found this page, Linda Hess, The Indigenous Aryan Discussion on RISA-L: The Complete Text (to 10/28/96). It's an extended, scholarly discussion in which Edwin Bryant also participates. I've read only a few parts so far, but it looks very interesting. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The page The Lost River is about a book by Michel Danino that fits into the topic of thi page. I have called it a fringe theory topic and asked for material to be included on the page, which would not have been needed otherwise. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:The Lost River#Danino, Kazanas & mainstream scholarship, which might give us a better idea of what it means to work with a fringe theory label. Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Does Elst actually conclude that the OIT is correct? Or does he merely propese it, as a theoretical possibility? Anybody read the book? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
So, what's left? Kazanas? See map, from a self-published paper. Kak? "It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars." Michel Danino? Nope; he does not state that "[T]he simplest and most natural conclusion is that the Vedic culture was present in the region in the third millennium" is also the correct conclusion. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Enough, gentleman. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The Indophobic, racist and patronizing comments need to stop. VictoriaGrayson Talk 19:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Edwin Bryant:
it is now increasingly difficult for scholars of South Asia to have a cordial exchange on the matter without being branded a “Hindu nationalist”
VictoriaGrayson Talk 00:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
On the one hand, I don't see any of the comments as Indophobic (either in the original sense of fearing Indians or in the more common modern sense of disliking Indians), patronizing, or racist. Maybe I have missed something. I don't see any reason why any particular theory about the origin of Indo-European languages is necessarily either pro-Indian or anti-Indian. The Indians have, by any reasonable historical analysis, been civilized longer than the Europeans. In recent centuries, Europeans have been racist toward Indians (among others), either out of European pride or out of ignorance of India's long and proud history. That has very little to do with where a great language family that is spoken by most Indians and most Europeans originated. (Any theory that it originated in Europe is fringe even among fringe theories.)
I will point out that this subject area is covered by ArbCom discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. As the arbitrators have clarified, the ancient history of the Indian subcontinent is inextricable from the history of modern states that have too often been at war. Anyone engaging in disruptive editing can be subject to sanctions, so be civil and avoid disruptive editing, and racism and prejudice contribute to disruptive editing. I didn't observe any anti-Indian, patronizing, or racist comments, but maybe I missed something. I certainly don't want to see any anti-Indian or racist comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't see Indo-phobic (dislike of Indians) comments when there were Indo-phobic comments, or maybe I missed them. However, I may have been looking at India through a sympathetic American perspective as an American who sees the United States and India as two countries with many common aspects despite different cultures and histories. India and the United States are the world's two most populous democracies. They are two countries having proud heritages of religious pluralism. India is a Hindu-majority country, but it is not a "Hindu" country in the sense of making Hinduism an essential part of Indian-ness. The United States is likewise a Christian-majority country, but it is not a "Christian" country in having an established church, or making Christianity an essential part of American-ness. Also, one of the major threats to civil society and religious pluralism in the United States is Christian fanaticism, a desire to make tie Christianity (and particular denominations of Christianity) to an American identity. Likewise, I understand that one of the threats to civil society and religious pluralism in India is Hindu fanaticism.
So when I read criticisms of Hindu scholarship, I read "Hindu scholarship" as "scholarship serving a Hindu agenda" rather than as criticisms of scholarship by Hindu scholars (some of whom have been great scholars since before there were American scholars). I read those comments as comparable to criticisms of "Christian scholarship" in the United States or Europe as meaning "scholarship serving a Christian agenda", which is biased scholarship. I personally do deprecate scholarship by would-be scholars who serve particular Christian agendas rather than the agenda of truth (and truth is one of the proper values of Christianity and Hinduism), and likewise I agree with deprecation of scholarship that primarily serves a Hindu agenda. Of course any comment deprecating scholarship by Indians in general, or by Hindu Indians in general, is racist. A comment deprecating scholarship by those who put religious agendas before the academic pursuit of truth is not racist. Those are my thoughts as a human with a respect for freedom, as an American, and as a Christian. Maybe that explains why I didn't think that any comments were racist.
If any comments really deprecated all Indian scholarship, that is either racist or otherwise bigoted.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what the argument is about. But the significance of the award was already mentioned in my first mention of it: Powerful forces are now pushing this theory. The Sanskrit department project to "prove" that the Aryans were indigenous, inviting Frawley for its launch, the rumours that the Sanskrit department is being given mandate to revise high school history books, and Frawley getting Padma Bhushan, are all obviously related. The same players and the same ideas pop up everywhere. Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC) And every time AmritasyaPutra uses the word "So", assume that he is throwing up yet another red herring to waste everybody's time. We should ignore it and move on. Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I just looked at the nightmare that this article is becoming. It is at least twice as long as is necessary for a fringe theory. Jonathan and Bladesmulti, while perhaps well-meaning, have turned this into a monster. This is an encyclopedia article, not a doctoral dissertation. Every single reference to Indogenesis does not need to be cited here. Every single trivial quote from George the yoga teacher does not need to be included. This article is totally out of control. And now you want to include a history of British colonialism to motivate why Hindu fundamentalists and Indian nationalists want to abandon science and place the origin of humanity (or at least Indo-Europeans) in the Ganges or Indus basin. Step back and get some perspective on this. Cut half of this article and you'll have an appropriate Wikipedia-length article (although still too long for a fringe theory). -- Taivo ( talk) 19:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
While working today on this raticle, I realised that the "Indigenist" arguments consist of two parts:
The "scenarios" are scundary to these arguments; the "real" scenario seems to be the alignment of the Vedic-Puranic Indian chronology with the Harappan Civilisation. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Gentleman, I think you're all right here (and that's not my usual 'dimming the flames'). I remember an interview by someone with Israel Finkelstein (if it was him), a scholar on ancient Israel c.q. the Bible. The interviewer was an American fundamentalist, and they knew each other for years already. It was hilarious. The scholar totally disagreed with the fundamentalist (of course), but was also sympathetic to him; the fundamentalist was indeed a nice and funny guy, despite his, ehm, "bijzondere" lines of reasoning. Gosh, I also remember this video of an American Hindu fundamentalist, going around the nieghbourhood to share his message. Rings at the home of a Christian fundamentalist.... You can imagine the heated discussion that followed... (no offense intended here; I love dutch "Gereformeerden", also Christian fundamentalists; I use to have very nice and warm conversations with them. One person once told me, when we were watching the clouds: "Imagine, the Lord could be coming on a cloud right now." I imagined, and yes, that would be great! It was awesome to sit together and share her thoughts.)
Realizing what's going on here, what's at stake, makes it understandable. At least to me. And interesting. After all, I'm a psychologist of religion. So, I'm hooked, and I want to know more.
Vic is also right. Gordon White is a top scholar. And yes, it seems very likely that there is a continuity between the Harappan Civilisation and later developments - though it's not only the Harappan Civilastion, or the Vedics. But that's another discussion, though related.
And AP, it's dawned on me how you are feeling here. It's worthwhile to have this article (though it's getting quite long), and to gain an understanding of what's going, and why this is important to many people.
To share one last personal thought: I don't believe there's a God out there. But this night my daughter was wide awake, so I was lying with her in bed, waiting for her to fall asleep. and I thanked God for the privilege to have a duaghter and a wife to love, knowing that way too soon everything wiil be different, when the daughter is grown-up and has left the house, and either my wife or myself appears to have a terminal disease. So, I thanked the God who does not exist, to my opinion.
All the best, to all of you, as usual.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
06:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
What is meant in this context by "fundamentalist" or "fundamentalism"? I know what Christian fundamentalism is, a school of thought within Protestant Christianity, especially in the United States, that emphasizes the literal truth of the Bible, thus ignoring or disputing accepted scholarship, especially geology as to the age of the Earth. Is the term also being used here to refer to a Hindu school of thought that contradicts accepted scholarship? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
"Prof Witzel was active in erasing information about DFN's missionary nature on the free Internet encyclopaedia, Wikipedia." [21] Do we have any evidence of this? Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I've split-off part of the article to Indigenous Aryans - Overview of arguments per WP:BOLD to reduce the size. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)