Lead[edit]

User:Joshua Jonathan - sorry, hate to keep pinging you, but the lead implies that those dates are factual. Doug Weller talk 11:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC) @Doug Weller: I've added a nuance; hope this helps. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very much, thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indigenous Aryan position (August 2016)[edit]

I have edited the following changes. Explain your position.

This is the position of 'Indegenous Aryan' theorists. They call IVC as Indus Saraswati Civilization.

Crawford88 (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for discussing.

Your edits in general are making things appear as if Indigenist Aryanism is a mainstream theory, which should not be done as per the RfC consensus on Talk:Indigenous Aryans. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At least give me a day before unilaterally reverting back. I'm not a n33t living in my mother's basement.

Crawford88 (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not how it works. When there is a dispute about content, we retain the WP:STATUSQUO until agreement is reached. By repeatedly reinstating a contentious edit, I am afraid you are WP:Edit warring.
  • You haven't answered the question: do you have a reliable source that calls these writers "scholars," or is it your own opinion?
  • The policy of WP:COMMONNAME is written for article titles, but it tells you what common names are and why they are important. There is nothing there that says one should use uncommon names everywhere but article titles. If we do an RfC for which name should be used here, what do you think the consensus will be?
-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citing supporters (Nov 2016)[edit]

Let me explain my position. Citing someone who's antagonistic to a theory is bad and unethical. One is free to cite anyone who supports it be it Kak,Danino, Elst or anyone else. Crawford88 (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you start discussions, please state what issue you are talking about, or give a pointer to the edit you are discussing.
As for whom we cite, please see WP:RS, WP:THIRDPARTY and WP:SECONDARY. "Supporters" are WP:PRIMARY sources or "first party" sources. They should be avoided as far as possible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then why even bothering with Kak's statement? I'm removing that. Crawford88 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The poinr of contention is this edit, which changed
"The Vedic-Puranic chronoly has been used to lend credit to the idea of Indigenous Aryans. According to the "Indigenist position", the Aryans are indigenous to India.[1]"
into
"The Vedic-Puranic chronology lends credit to the idea of Indigenous Aryans. According to the "Indigenist position", the Aryā, is not a racial term but "an adjective that means noble or pure".[2]"

References

  1. ^ Trautman 2005, p. xxx.
  2. ^ "How Europeans Misappropriated Sanskrit To Form The Aryan Race Theory". Huffington Post India. Retrieved 2016-11-04.
There are several problems with this edit:
  • Changing "has been used to lend credit" into "lends credit": the Vedic-Puranic chronology in itself does not lend credit to the Indigenous Aryans position; the interpretation by indigenists does so. Presenting this as a fact, instead of as a matter of interpretation, is misleading.
  • Removal of sourced info, namely "[According to the "Indigenist position",] the Aryans are indigenous to India. (Trautman 2005, p.xxx)"
  • Replacing this info with irrelevant, distracting text from a reputably non-reliable source. This is disruptive. Join the two sentences together, with a proper attribution, makes this very clear:
"According to the "Indigenist position", the Aryans are indigenous to India. According to Rajiv Malhotra, the Aryā, is not a racial term but "an adjective that means noble or pure"."
  • The quote is misquoted. Malhotra does not write "the Aryā, is not a racial term"; he writes "The Sanskrit word "arya" is an adjective that means noble or pure." He does not refer here to "the Aryans," but to the term "arya." Sigh....
  • The quote is taken out of context. Malhotra rants here against 19th century ideas of an "Aryan race"; echoes of these ideas can be found with the indigenists. This sentence is illustrative for the lack of knowledge and the misrepresentations of this author:
"Early romantic claims that Indians were the ancestors of the Europeans were gradually replaced by the new myth that a race called "Indo-Aryans" was the common ancestors to both."
The correct term would be "Indo-Europeans." "Indo-Aryans" refers to the people/culture which gave rise to the Iranian and northern Indian languages. By the way, the blue-eyed blond haired fenotypes have Scandinavian origins; the Indo-Europeans had a darker skin and were not blue-eyed... To complicate matters even more: R1b, dominant in the north Sea males (over 50%), may be related to the first farmers, which came from Anatolia. So far for the famous, "pure" Aryan race, a breeding-stock of different genes and cultures.
  • Regarding "Citing someone who's antagonistic to a theory is bad and unethical." This refers to Trautmann, Thomas (2005), The Aryan Debate, Oxford University Press. Read WP:RS again.
  • Regarding "One is free to cite anyone who supports it be it Kak,Danino, Elst or anyone else." No, one is notfree to cite such authors as one pleases, especially not when they're being used to replace reliable sources.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"has been used to" gives it a sinister tone which violates WP:NPOV. Do you also say that similarity between IE languages "lends credit" or "has been used to lend credit" to IAMt?
I replaced it with another quote with citation. The cited quote was wrong. There isn't an indigenous Aryan proponent who claims Aryan to be a race. If you meant IE, the article should use that word, and not the word Aryan.
Read the Malhotra article source once again and [[1]]. You are nitpicking.
Also, please explain to me why Malhotra or Danino or Elst cannot be cited here, apropos Kautilya3.
And a few more citations opposing the racial claim of the word 'Aryan',
  • "“Our study clearly shows that there was no genetic influx 3,500 years ago,” said Dr Kumarasamy Thangaraj of CCMB, who led the research team, which included scientists from the University of Tartu, Estonia, Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Chennai and Banaras Hindu University."[1]
  • "In the classical view of the Aryan invasion the Aryans are a particular ethnic group, speaking a particular language. However in Vedic literature Aryan is not the name of the Vedic people and their descendants. It is a title of honor and respect given to certain groups for good or noble behavior. In this regard even the Buddha calls his teaching Aryan, Arya Dharma; the Jains also call themselves Aryans, as did the ancient Persians. For this reason one should call the Vedic people simply the "Vedic people" and not the Aryans."[2]
  • "Rosenberg and the Ariosophist writers, in turn, derived their racist and political doc­trines from more reputable scholars who were nonetheless wrong in their historical appraisal of the Aryans of India"[3]
Crawford88 (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Aryan Race: Time to Forget About It?".
  2. ^ "The Myth of Aryan Invasion of India (PDF).
  3. ^ "IN SEARCH OF THE CRADLE OF CIVILIZATION" (PDF).

There's a differenc ein credibility between the idea of Indigenous Aryans and the common origin of the Indo-European languages: the former is fringe, the latter is commonly accepted in the academics. So, "lending credibility" is in accord with the status of this "theory." As for the discussion on Aryan race etc., I don't see any claim in the artcile that the Aryans were a race. This is not a WP:FORUM for discussing the supposed merits of fringe-theories. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Primary sources & Kak[edit]

Regarding this removal, see WP:PRIMARY:

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Continuing.. it says, "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.". There are no interpretation I'm doing with Malhotra's article. That's why I used quotations. Crawford88 (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources[edit]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Memory-list:

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vedic Foundation[edit]

I have re-inserted info from the Vedic Foundation per WP:SELFSOURCE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories