Wikipedia

Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations/Archive 10

< Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations
(Redirected from Talk:Indo-Aryan migration/Archive 10)
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 59.89.154.11 in topic "Theory"
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

ASI and ANI are hypothetical construct, due to lack of Ancient DNA

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Fowler&fowler: and other editors of this page, please take note.

This page has NO mention of this - ASI and ANI are hypothetical construct, due to LACK of ancient DNA from South Asia currently. There can be no conclusion to South Asian genetic studies without Ancient DNA studies from the region, many studies have noted this over and over again!

There is also two genetic section in this page (I'm not sure why?) first one is good and short but second genetic section named Genetics: ancient ancestry and multiple gene flows has way too much emphasis on speculative genetic conclusions (same studies which emphasizes Ancient DNA for conclusion) has large paragraph after paragraph with odd quotes, it would be best to shorten it to make way for Ancient DNA study that comes out next month.

New genetic studies will be based on Ancient DNA from South Asia, it will be much more conclusive and helpful in understanding demographic shift that took place in the region than this speculative mess right now. 117.192.204.225 (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

And who are you? You seem to know how Wikipedia works; no anonymous editing please.
  • Which studies state that ASI and ANI are "hypothetical constructs," "due to a lack of ancient DNA from South Asia"? Is this your personal opinion, or based on sources which say so? The only mention of "hypethetical construct" with regard to ASI/ANI at the web is at two responses from some "Jaydeep," at Eurogenes.blog and at Nj's arya blog.
  • You seem to suggest that Reich, and the follow-up studies, are incorrect; if there are serious criticisms of Reich (700+ citations), then they should be added; otherwise, we give an overview of the relevant scholarly literature, such as Reich. See also WP:TRUTH.
  • The section "Fundamentals of the Indo-Aryan Migration theory" gives an overview, while the subsequent sections elaborate on this overview.
  • The coming-up ancient DNA study will surely be interesting; and removing the pre-whole gnome sequencing research is surely worth considering. The section is so long because of the extended polemics from the (recent) past on the origins of the Indo-Aryans, and the (mis)use of studies which suggested that the Indo-Aryans originated in India. See, for example, The Out-of-India Theory (OIT) challenge: can we hear a viable argument for once? at Eurogenes.blog.
  • "Speculative mess" is a misplaced qualification for this effort to provide an overview of the various points of view on the origins of the Indo-Aryans and ancient migrations, including the outdated one which propagate Indian origins, and are favoured by mythologists. See this overview of arguments from mythologists. And see these publications for some serious points of view:
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indo-Aryan migration theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indo-Aryan migration theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indo-Aryan migration theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Cranial study supports Indo-Aryan migrations

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Paleoeuropeoid (steppe herder) infiltration into South Central Asia during the Bronze Age (Dubova et al. 2016). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Aryan-Dasa conflict

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

I don't see how this is relevant to the article. It's out of place, since it has nothing to do with the development of the theoretical insights on Indo-Aryan migration); at best, it belongs at the section on literary research. Yet, as this section mentions, "Just as the Avesta does not mention an external homeland of the Zoroastrians, the Rigveda does not explicitly refer to an external homeland[46] or to a migration." So, what relevance does this WP:UNDUE info then have for insight into Indo-Aryan migrations? At best, this one part of a sentence could be used, that also doesn't speak about migrations:

Bridget Allchin and Raymond Allchin state that from the Vedas, it is evident that the Indo-Aryans were not the only inhabitants of the region they called Sapta-Sindhava or land of seven Indus rivers.[1]


References

  1. ^ Bridget Allchin, Raymond Allchin. The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan. Cambridge University Press. pp. 307–208.

Apart from that, this text is copied from Religious violence in India#Vedic period, without attribution. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you added that info there yourself. Nevertheless, it's out of place here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan The one who added it to Religious violence in India#Vedic period was me. Why will I attribute my own edit? How is IndoAryans coming into conflict in a land they were living in not relevant?
The statements I added are fom reliable sources. Not just that, many are actually based on Vedic literature. I don’t see why one source should be presented as the truth and the other removed. Tony Balantyne calls them Aryan invaders.
Also from so many reliable sources, it is clear that Dasas and Dasyus were different than Aryans. I don't say they were necessarily of an ethnic stock, they are also speculated to be other Aryans, but with some differences still. The Aryans themselves warred among each other.

: If someone disagrees with what they say, then you should add other scholars with a different view. Outright removing it is not good practice. It took me a lot of time to contribute this content. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Sock

Multiple experienced editors are telling you on multiple pages that you are adding WP:UNDUE content. You need to pay attention to that.
It is also a problem if you copy large chunks of text from one article to another. We do not want the burden of having to maintain the same problematic content on multiple pages. If the content is really appropriate for both the pages, you need to decide which is the main article for the content, and summarise it in another, and you need to display the {{Main article}} to indicate which is which
Your sourcing is also consistently a problem. You are using the work of a colonial historian to talk about ancient Indian history, a book on Religion of the Vedas in an article on the history of migrations, and so on. Why don't consult the sources that deal with the subject directly? That would give you an idea of the weight you should give to these issues, and how to cover the subject at an appropriate level. You should also use modern sources, as required by WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
You should't use numbers to remove reliably sourced content. I may not be that experienced but I know what I'm adding.
Also not all colonial-era historians should be seen as unreliable. It should depend on whether the author is known to have a bias or be inaccurate. Hermann was a German Indologist, and his claims are based accurately on Vedic texts.
But if users disagree on it, then I won't insist on it. It is to be kept in mind that colonial-era historians are used on many pages including where Kautilya3 edited like Persecution of Hindus with Will Durant. I'm only adding their views and statements, not claiming it all as undeniable fact. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Sock
I added Will Durant? You must be joking. If I did, you are welcome to go and remove it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

::::: I never said you did, I said he was there on an article you edited. He was added by someone else. What i meant was while you edited the article, you haven't removed it. So why here? On Persecution of Hindus, Will Durant's statement is clearly shown only as his view, not as a fact. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Sock

Good. I have blocked Will Durant from getting added on various pages over the years. The one liner that exists on the Persecution of Hindus is the maximum amount of coverage that we can accord to such dubious, out of date sources.
If you are interested in understanding the Arya-Dasa relations, I recommend looking at
You will find that authentic history is a lot different from the polemics that people cherry pick from religious books. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
All of the people I have added are reliable scholars and there is no "polemics", it is clearly all genuine. I didn't claim they were always at war. It is known Aryans and Dasas often allied with each other against their enemies. The Vedic Aryan king Sudas and his family is himself thought to be a Dasa according to the Allchins. The intermixing of Aryans with other cultures and language like of Dasa is also talked about in the sources. I have mostly added about violence because I was originally creating a section about conflict.
We should add all views of reliable scholars, but there is no point in removing conflict especially when the Vedic texts itself mention conflict and ruining of settlements.
The advantage with Hermann is that he extensively quotes the Rig Veda's memntions of the conflicts. Which is why I used him in the first place, because of the reliance on primary sources rather than relying motsly on speculations.
It is clear Indo-Aryans and non-Aryans engaged in both intermixing and conflicts. I am not talking about Aryans wiping out non-Aryans. But there was conflict and at the same time and intermixing as well. There is no point in excluding it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Sock

See top of this tread for why there is no point in including it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

: There is a point in including a conflict mentioned by the earliest Vedic text. This is not about "Aryan invasion". But some yes there was a conflict and some land was fought over. As for whether it was a full-fledged invasion, or a conflict-and-amalgamation scenario, that should be left up to the scholars. It is "DUE". MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Sock

Rakhigarhi DNA

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The Caravan (27 april 2018), Indus Valley people did not have genetic contribution from the steppes: Head of Ancient DNA Lab testing Rakhigarhi samples:

“It will show that there is no steppe contribution to the Indus Valley DNA,” Rai said. “The Indus Valley people were indigenous, but in the sense that their DNA had contributions from near eastern Iranian farmers mixed with the Indian hunter-gatherer DNA, that is still reflected in the DNA of the people of the Andaman islands.”

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

And it cites this preprint, which perhaps (?) merits citation in article (?) Narasimhan, Vagheesh M.; Patterson, Nick J.; Moorjani, Priya; Lazaridis, Iosif; Mark, Lipson; Mallick, Swapan; Rohland, Nadin; Bernardos, Rebecca; Kim, Alexander M.; Nakatsuka, Nathan; Olalde, Inigo; Coppa, Alfredo; Mallory, James; Moiseyev, Vyacheslav; Monge, Janet; Olivieri, Luca M.; Adamski, Nicole; Broomandkhoshbacht, Nasreen; Candilio, Francesca; Cheronet, Olivia; Culleton, Brendan J.; Ferry, Matthew; Fernandes, Daniel; Gamarra, Beatriz; Gaudio, Daniel; Hajdinjak, Mateja; Harney, Eadaoin; Harper, Thomas K.; Keating, Denise; Lawson, Ann-Marie; Michel, Megan; Novak, Mario; Oppenheimer, Jonas; Rai, Niraj; Sirak, Kendra; Slon, Viviane; Stewardson, Kristin; Zhang, Zhao; Akhatov, Gaziz; Bagashev, Anatoly N.; Baitanayev, Baurzhan; Bonora, Gian Luca; Chikisheva, Tatiana; Derevianko, Anatoly; Dmitry, Enshin; Douka, Katerina; Dubova, Nadezhda; Epimakhov, Andrey; Freilich, Suzanne; Fuller, Dorian; Goryachev, Alexander; Gromov, Andrey; Hanks, Bryan; Judd, Margaret; Kazizov, Erlan; Khokhlov, Aleksander; Kitov, Egor; Kupriyanova, Elena; Kuznetsov, Pavel; Luiselli, Donata; Maksudov, Farhad; Meiklejohn, Chris; Merrett, Deborah C.; Micheli, Roberto; Mochalov, Oleg; Muhammed, Zahir; Mustafakulov, Samridin; Nayak, Ayushi; Petrovna, Rykun M.; Pettner, Davide; Potts, Richard; Razhev, Dmitry; Sarno, Stefania; Sikhymbaevae, Kulyan; Slepchenko, Sergey M.; Stepanova, Nadezhda; Svyatko, Svetlana; Vasilyev, Sergey; Vidale, Massimo; Voyakin, Dima; Yermolayeva, Antonina; Zubova, Alisa; Shinde, Vasant S.; Lalueza-Fox, Carles; Meyer, Matthias; Anthony, David; Boivin, Nicole; Thangaraj, Kumarasmy; Kennett, Douglas; Frachetti, Michael; Pinhasi, Ron; Reich, David (31 March 2018). "The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia". bioRxiv: 292581. doi:10.1101/292581. --Presearch (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Presearch. Thanks; already did: "Narasimhan et al. (2018) conclude that ANI and ASI were formed in the 2nd millennium BCE" ff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Rig Veda

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

User:MonsterHunter is a blocked sockpuppet of User:DinoBambinoNFS. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DinoBambinoNFS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Whenever I try to add the text about migration from Rig Veda? one or the other editor makes up some reason. In the past I had added about Aryan-Dasa conflict. However I let it go as it wasn't exclusively aboit migration nor it was worth edit-warring.

This time I however did add about verses from Mandala VI of Rig Veda that may be considered to be of migration. The source I used is from the reliable Aligarh Muslim University and historian Irfan Habib.

These two User:MBlaze Lightning and User:Capitals00 who has tried to edit-war with me in the past, blame me falsely of copyright violation and using outdated translation.

First the text I wrote is not same as what is in the source by Irfan Habib and another author.

Here's what I wrote, Irfan Habib and Vijay Kumar Thakur state that the distinctions presented in the Rig Veda between the Dasyus and the Aryans who spoke Indo-Iranian dialects, suggest that they hadn't moved in from the cooler highlands and higher altitudes much earlier, thus still preserving a distinction in their complexion from the older inhabitants of the tropical plains. They consider a verse from Rig Veda's Mandala VI (47.20-21) as evidently evoking a time of such migration.

Here's the relevant excerpt from the source: All this strongly suggests that the Aryans, as speakers of Indo-Iranian dialects, had not much earlier moved in from cooler highlands or higher latitudes so as still to preserve a sense of distinction between their complexionand that of the older inhabitants of the tropical plains. The following verse from Rig- veda's Mandala VI (47.20-21) evidently evokes a time of such migration.

Even to the untrained eye it is visible what I wrote is not copied and not the same.

Also the translation I added they keep claiming as outdated, notwithstanding even other recent translations as recent as 2014 gave made the same translation. Read the relevant verses here, (https://books.google.com/books?id=5-i0AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA484).

If these two have contradictory opinion of other scholars, they can add it. If all they want to do is deliberately remove by making baseless accusations, then that isn't welcome. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Sock

New text

Here is the passage that got added:

Irfan Habib and Vijay Kumar Thakur state that the distinctions presented in the Rig Veda between the Dasyus and the Aryans who spoke Indo-Iranian dialects, suggest that they hadn't moved in from the cooler highlands and higher altitudes much earlier, thus still preserving a distinction in their complexion from the older inhabitants of the tropical plains. They consider a verse from Rig Veda's Mandala VI (47.20-21) as evidently evoking a time of such migration:Mandala VI (47.20-21) evidently evokes a time of thr migration, "Gods, we have reached a country void of pasture; the land, though spacious, was too small to hold us. Brihaspati, provide [for us] in war for cattle; find a path, Indra, for this faithful singer. Day after day, from their seat he, Indra, drove them, alike, from place to place, those dark-looking creatures. The Hero slew the meanly-behaving Dasas, Varchin and Shambara, where the waters gather."[1]

References

  1. ^ Irfan Habib, Vijay Kumar Thakur. The Vedic age and the coming of iron, c. 1500-700 B.C. Tulika Books. p. 16.

What the hell is it trying to say? Who are "Dasyus"? There is no mention of them on this page. "Indo-Iranian dialects"? What are those? "The distinctions"? What are they? I see only one here, viz., "dark-looking". "They hadn't moved in ... much earlier? Why these double negations and circumlocutions? "Evoking a time". What time? This page is on Indo-Aryan migrations. There is plenty of much more straightforward information already given in the article. We don't need this WP:SOAPBOXing junk added in. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The word Dasyus is there on page 15 of the source of Irfan Habib, read it. The similar Dasas too is itself mentioned in Rig Veda. But I can change it. Habib and Thakur categorically state that the information from Rig Veda is depicting a migration. Other things such as when and where aren't there in the Rig Veda. And they don't matter. But Irfan Habib and Aligarh Muslim University are reliable. "IF YOU DISAGREE WITH A SOURCE, DON'T CENSOR IT."
This similar group of people including User:Kautilya3 and User:Capitals00 has been making baseless accusations for long. When one stops reverting, another shows up. I don't want to cross the 3RR limit or revert again. So I ask them to first prove their accusations and not make fictional claims while constantly reverting. But let's not start an edit-war and make baseless accusations. If you have a contrary opinion of another scholar, you can add it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
As for soapboxing, the content isn't propganda or my personal view. These views of migration and conflict are shared by other scholars as well. I can add contrary views as well, but there can be no pick and choose by Wiki editors of who is right or wrong. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Sock
I am not interested in what is in the book. I am talking about the text you contributed, and for which you need to take responsibility and justify it. This is an article on migrations. Why are you talking about skin color? The text you contribute here, should be relevant, on-topic and succinct. It fails on all three counts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

:::I am not interested whether you are interested in or not. it's a reliable source. As for relevance, how is something that is talking about a migration of Indo-Aryans not relevant to the page about their migration? I am not talking about skin color, the source is. Besides it is talking about complexion, not in racial terms. We don't edit based on what you don't like. Your accusations are non-genuine and just meant to suppress what you don't like. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Sock

There are many reliable sources on this subject. We are here to write an encyclopedic article, not to quote, rephrase, or even mention most of the sources. I, and others, judge that the text you want to add is a copyright violation. You may want to read it again, extract any points that may be useful to the article, and suggest a new piece of text. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

:::::Richard Keatinge I don't understand how anyone can call my edit a copyright violation. I didn't copy the statments in the book by Habib. Only the Rig Vedic verse is copied for showing which verse is being talked about, nothing else. Outside the Vedic verse, everything else is added by my own summary of what Habib said. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Sock

It might help if you compare your text with Habib's. To me they look remarkably similar. Also, as Kautilya3 has pointed out, the entire text is unhelpful to this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter, we are expected to read and understand the sources, and express their substance in our own words. Contrived circumlocations like "They hadn't moved in ... much earlier" might be used in the sources for whatever reason, but we can't replicate them here. They are not encyclopaedic. The whole paragraph that you can contributed can be easily summarised by saying something like:

The Rigvedic verses VI.47.20-21 suggest an awareness among the Vedic Aryans of their recent migration.

Whether this fits into the article or where it fits is another question. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Narasimhan et al. 2018 preprint: "The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia"

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

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

@Kautilya3: from Eurogenes Blog, Andronovo pastoralists brought steppe ancestry to South Asia (Narasimhan et al. 2018 preprint) , citing The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia:

We document a southward spread of genetic ancestry from the Eurasian Steppe, correlating with the archaeologically known expansion of pastoralist sites from the Steppe to Turan in the Middle Bronze Age (2300-1500 BCE). These Steppe communities mixed genetically with peoples of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) whom they encountered in Turan (primarily descendants of earlier agriculturalists of Iran), but there is no evidence that the main BMAC population contributed genetically to later South Asians. Instead, Steppe communities integrated farther south throughout the 2nd millennium BCE, and we show that they mixed with a more southern population that we document at multiple sites as outlier individuals exhibiting a distinctive mixture of ancestry related to Iranian agriculturalists and South Asian hunter-gathers. We call this group Indus Periphery because they were found at sites in cultural contact with the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) and along its northern fringe, and also because they were genetically similar to post-IVC groups in the Swat Valley of Pakistan. By co-analyzing ancient DNA and genomic data from diverse present-day South Asians, we show that Indus Periphery-related people are the single most important source of ancestry in South Asia — consistent with the idea that the Indus Periphery individuals are providing us with the first direct look at the ancestry of peoples of the IVC — and we develop a model for the formation of present-day South Asians in terms of the temporally and geographically proximate sources of Indus Periphery-related, Steppe, and local South Asian hunter-gatherer-related ancestry. Our results show how ancestry from the Steppe genetically linked Europe and South Asia in the Bronze Age, and identifies the populations that almost certainly were responsible for spreading Indo-European languages across much of Eurasia.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Supplementary material p.181: "Simple Statistics Confirm Iranian Agriculturalist-Related Ancestry in the ASI". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the main BMAC population contributed genetically to later South Asians. I have a feeling that this observation is going to be of the most consequence as we go forward. If the BMAC contributed no genetic input to South Asia, how did it contribute its gods? Or did it contribute its gods? Have we been mistaking the BMAC religion to be Indian religion just because its books happened to be preserved in India?
The "Tale of two subcontinents" map is brilliant. For the first time, we are getting an integrated picture of all the migrations as well as the spread of agriculture. The 'Indus periphery' by 2000 BC goes all the away from the Hindu Kush to the Deccan, even while the Aryans themselves were still limited to the Punjab. (By the way, the other "subcontinent" is Europe? lol.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The BMAC contributed religious ideas to the Indo-Aryans, who moved further south. But thr BMAC people and religion are not the most important points; that are the genetic evidence for the IS-migrations, and the genetic evidence for earlier Iranian migrations, which contributed to the IVC. So, no 'pure' origins of (parts of) the Indian population, no Indigenous Aryans, and no 'pure roots' in the IVC. Some more comments:
The formation is the other open question. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess I am focusing on the question that interests me the most. The Rig Veda is accepted most scholars to be of historical value. But whose history is it describing? What you are saying, viz., that the Aryans stopped by the BMAC, picked up their religion for no good reason, and moved on further south, doesn't make sense. If they believed in their religion then they should have mixed with them. In fact, they should have mixed with them before they picked up their religion. And, if that religion moved south, the mixed people that followed that religion should have mixed south as well. But this paper says they didn't. So, this tidbit from this paper immensely complicates the historical import of the Rig Veda.

As for the IVC and the Iranian migrations, it doesn't upset anything the historians have been saying. Contending theories such as the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis already assume a connection. Of course this puts the Hindu nationalists in a deep soup. But they are in it already from the Rakhigarhi DNA [1]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Some more responses, including Tony Joseph, who's a must-read, of course:
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan:, thank you for all the work. Can you update Wikipedia:Genetic research on the origins of India's population? which is not updated since 2014, I think. It will be helpful in summarizing and pointing people in future. I have summarized recent paper this, pardon me if I am incorrect:
  • AASI+Iranian Agriculturist=Indian Perophery (InPe) in IVC (with no BMAC input)
  • InPe+Steppe_MLBA=ANI
  • InPe+AASI=ASI
  • ANI+ASI=Modern Indians
  • I it OK?--Nizil (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct, I think. I won't update the overview page at the moment; too much work. It's a fascinating article, Narasimhan et al. (2018). Not even so much for the affirmation of the IA-migrations, but for the insight into the history of the IVC and the Dravidians. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I read Narasimhan et al. (2018) today and yet to absorb it fully. It is truly amazing how we are untangling history with genetics. I am waiting for Rakhigarhi DNA studies which will be very important to clarify lot of things in IVC and Dravidian history. Update that overview page whenever you can, no hurry. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Note that the Indus_Periphery DNA is being used as a proxy for Indus Valley DNA. The fact that this paper appeared at this time without the Rakhigarhi data means that the latter is being delayed, perhaps for a long time or even indefinitely. It is hard to get accurate DNA from archaeological samples. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to contact moderates here and page is closed. I was going over comments from Vagheesh Narasimhan (author of the paper) on twitter, he has said that Indus_InPe = Iran Neolithic + AASI + W.Siberian hunter-gatherer, it is not just Iran Neolithic + AASI. Please take note of his comment on twitter. https://twitter.com/vagheesh/status/981720966320545792 117.198.245.64 (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You're right, of course. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing this info. (Chetan vit (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC))

I don't think a preprint paper should be used as a wikipedia reference. Until it is accepted by a peer-reviewed journal, I think it shouldn't be used as reference. The study has many flaws. To give one example: one of his tables show Q1a in steppe populations but not in South Asian populations. This goes against migration from steppe. He is using BMAC outlier data to prove migration into the IVC. The study reeks of pseudoscientific apporach; it starts out with a conclusion in mind and does not discuss alternatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.50.180.203 (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please remove the unsourced paragraph below from the article. Reason : it is a very strong statement, and no academic citation/proof is given. A news paper article by some journalist is given, and it appears like some communist is trying to make his opinion appear as the voice of Wikipedia, by making use of this newspaper article..

This linguistic argument is supported by archeological, anthropological, genetical, literary and ecological research. Genetic research reveals that those migrations form part of a complex genetic puzzle on the origin and spread of the various components of the Indian population. Literary research reveals similarities between various, geographically distinct, Indo-Aryan historical cultures. Ecological studies reveal that in the second millennium BCE widespread aridization lead to water shortages and ecological changes in both the Eurasian steppes and south Asia,[web 1] causing the collapse of sedentary urban cultures in south central Asia, Afghanistan, Iran, and India, and triggering large-scale migrations, resulting in the merger of migrating peoples with the post-urban cultures.[web 1] 117.207.237.214 (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The sentence is from the WP:LEAD, which summarizes the article; you'll find the referneces there. Your remark "it appears like some communist is trying to make his opinion appear as the voice of Wikipedia" displays a bias in your attitude. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Shifting to endogamy during the Gupta reign

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, In the section "Genetics: ancient ancestry and multiple gene flows" , it's written that that a shift to endogamy took place possibly by the enforcement of social values and norms by the Gupta Rulers. The problem with the above assumption is that the Gupta rulers did not rule the whole subcontinent and like all kingdoms of the Indian subcontinent,they only ruled specific regions of the subcontinent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:South_Asia_historical_AD375_EN.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:South_Asia_historical_AD450_EN.svg

so, endogamy in the Dravidian speaking South-indian(Tamil Nadu) population could not be enforced by the Indo-European speaking Guptas. Moreover, the data in the paper http://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1594 which is cited doesn't exactly seem to agree with what's written here. Quoting some lines from the paper "In eastern India, populations such as the West Bengal Brahmins (WBR) and the TB populations continued to admix until the emergence of the Buddhist Pala dynasty during the 8th to 12th centuries CE"

Now the Guptas ruled the Bengal region so we should have seen a similar stop in ANI and ASI/AAA/ATB admixture in the Bengali Brahmins but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Moreover, they also noticed ANI and ASI/AAA related admixture in Marathas till much later. Quoting some lines from the paper " The evidence of more recent admixture among the Maratha (MRT) is in agreement with the known history of the post-Gupta Chalukya (543–753 CE) and the Rashtrakuta empires (753–982 CE) of western India, which established a clan of warriors (Kshatriyas) drawn from the local peasantry "

Timdrake91190 (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC) tim

Yes, the dating of the shift to endogamy is still uncertain. That is why we say "possibly".
"enforced ... by the Gupta rulers" is no good. I will change it to "enforced ... during the Gupta rule". The agency cannot be attributed to the rulers without evidence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
By the way, the Tamil dynasties imported the Aryan (north Indian) norms a long time ago. But the rest of South India wasn't affected, and we don't have the caste system there in the same form. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Indo-Iranians

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
closed discussion

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 changed

The Proto-Indo-Iranian culture, which gave rise to the Indo-Aryans and Iranians, is often believed to have developed on the Central Asian steppes north of the Caspian Sea as the Sintashta culture (2100–1800 BCE)[1][2][3]

back into

The Proto-Indo-Iranian culture, which gave rise to the Indo-Aryans and Iranians, developed on the Central Asian steppes north of the Caspian Sea as the Sintashta culture (2100–1800 BCE)[1][2][3]


References

  1. ^ a b Anthony 2007, pp. 408–411.
  2. ^ a b Anthony 2009, pp. 390 (fig. 15.9), 405–411.
  3. ^ a b Kuz'mina 2007, p. 222.

calling it pov-pushing.

I also changed the header

Central Asia: formation of Indo-Iranians according to the steppe theory

back into

Central Asia: formation of Indo-Iranians

User:KIENGIR reverted my changes, edit-summary I don't see them "pov-pushing", on the contrary, these are serving neutrality as in many cases there are more origin theories that are blurry

"Often believed to" is editorializing, and therefore pov-pushing. "Believe" suggests a subjective opinion contradicted by facts, whereas the Sintashta-origin is mainstream scholarship. And I really don't see the necessity of expanding that header; it's the same kind of editorializing and pov-pushing. But maybe KIENGIR can explain how this is explicitly an explanation given by the steppe-theory, what those other origin theories are, and how they justify the expansion of this header? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, first of all I'd argue if it is necessarily editorializing, it better reflects than we should not take this as something carved in a stone, but i.e. the most common hyphothesis. How could be something treated to be a pov-pushing if a removal of such part makes the info look like as undisputed fact, not as is was written before? (this was my general approach in both of the cases, without entering to the details).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC))
It is carved in stone. The only serious contender was the Anatolian hypothesis, which is now dead (even though I can't understand why it was taken seriously). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The editor who made the edits made a series of disruptive edits at a range of articles; these two edits fitted their pattern. Kautilya3 made a good point, about the Anatolian hypothesis; I also don't know of any other hypothesis, do you? Kuz'mina's The Origin of the Indo-Iranians was published by BRILL; that's the top-league. Parpola's The Roots of Hinduism (2015) was published by OUP; not bad either. And even in the case on te Anatolian hypothesis, Indo-Iranian still ultimately derives from the steppes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Anatolian hypothesis and other non-Kurgan models are not mainstream. When something is not mainstream, we can't give it the same weight as a mainstream one. Regardless of PIE homeland; when we talk about a specific IE group (in this Indo-Iranians), the used content should be specific too (e.g. discussing II homeland/migration). Looking at recent studies like Damgaard et al. 2018 and Narasimhan et al. 2018, all of them suggest somewhere in Central Asia or South Ural Mountains as the homeland of Indo-Iranians. So again Kurgan/Steppe theory is the leading theory here not alternatives ones like Anatolian, Armenian (Caucasus/South Caucasus) and the others. Plus as Joshua Jonathan said, look at works by specialists like Kuzmina and Asko Parpola. --Wario-Man (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I see, but as well reflecting to Kautilya3, to tell about any theory in such historical circumstances to be "carved in a stone" is a bit far, as you also pinpoint "somewhere in Central Asia or South Ural Mountains". Of course, WP supports primarily mainstream scholarship, I just wanted to draw the attention to be careful having the necessary neutrality, was not aware of the former disruptive edits claimed by Joshua Jonathan.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC))
I understand. Apologies for my tone; I was annoyed, spending quite some time on checking those edits, gradually finding out they were less than sub-standard. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Issues of "neutrality" arise when there are multiple views among reliable sources. But there aren't multiple views here. There are only objections raised by non-specialists, amateurs or pseudo-scientists. But the scientists who specialise in the area all agree, except for the Anatolian model which I have already mentioned. So, this demand for the so-called "neutrality" is basically a push for pseudo-science, which we are not going to accept. You are wasting your time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Please read carefully again my earlier comment, if it would not be entirely clear. I've never supported any "push" for any pseudo-science, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC))
We understand. It's just that we've seen so much extreme pov-pushing on this topic over the years, that we tend to perceive such behaviour quite soon. Kind of deformation?... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, but Kautilya3 has a real prejudicative and hostile tone...anyway, from my behalf, I already closed the issue, just wanted to be sure.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC))
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced statement in 1.1

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The last paragraph of 1.1 is unsourced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration#Linguistics:_relationships_between_languagesViciouspiggy (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Anthony (2007) is not a source? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Ancient DNA study of skeletal remains of IVC.

Latest comment: 5 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/harappan-site-of-rakhigarhi-dna-study-finds-no-central-asian-trace-junks-aryan-invasion-theory/articleshow/64565413.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rioter 1 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Desperate and confused. Razib Khan, No steppe ancestry in the the Rakhigarhi samples = non sequitur:

I haven’t heard anything definitive, but this is what I have heard: that the genetics they could analyze indicates continuity, but none of the steppe element ubiquitous in modern North India (and that there was contamination in the Korean lab). The Rakhigarhi samples date to 2500 to 2250 BC last I checked. That means they shouldn’t have any steppe ancestry if the model of the relatively late demographic impact of Indo-Aryans after 2000 BC is correct.

Basically, the whole article is kind of a non sequitur. I do understand that many archaeologists think there was continuity culturally. And there could have been. But taking into account the genetics of the modern region of India where Rakhigarhi is located, there was a major demographic perturbation after 2250 BC.

And Lhendup G. Bhutia, The Genetic History of Indians: Are We What We Think We Are?, OPEN, 20 April 2018:

“I KNOW PEOPLE won’t be happy to hear this,” geneticist Niraj Rai says over the phone from Lucknow. “But I don’t think we can refute it anymore. A migration into [ancient] India did happen.” As head of the Ancient DNA Lab at Lucknow’s Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeosciences (BSIP), he earlier worked at the CCMB in Hyderabad and has been part of several studies that employed genetics to examine lineages. “It is clear now more than ever before,” he says, “that people from Central Asia came here and mingled with [local residents]. Most of us, in varying degrees, are all descendants of those people.”

"Rai is part of a new global study" - that is, Narasimhan et al. 2018, The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia, mentioned in a previous tread.
And Rohan Venkataramakrishnan, Do Rakhigarhi DNA findings debunk the Aryan invasion theory or give it more credence? A confusing news report draws conclusions that seem to contradict the findings of the study on the Indus Valley Civilisation., Scroll.in:

Who were the people of the Indus Valley Civilisation? This hotly debated question is likely to be answered in one of the most anticipated scholarly studies of the last few years and, if recent reports are anything to go by, the results of that research paper will be made public soon. On Wednesday, an Economic Times report put out a preview of those results based on comments by one of the authors, but drew conclusions that left experts scratching their heads, because they seemed to contradict the findings mentioned in the report.

That "recent report" is Hartosh Singh Ball, Indus Valley people did not have genetic contribution from the steppes: Head of Ancient DNA Lab testing Rakhigarhi samples, The Caravan, quoting Rai:

Rai said that he and his team at the BSIP agreed to be a part of the March 2018 paper “after two years of intense discussion and analysis of our own data sets.” He continued, “There is no question of the model being flawed. It is a most solid piece of work—no new study will overturn it. Our own work which will be out very soon provides solid evidence for the model.” [...]

The work by Rai and his team will provide direct evidence for the model proposed by the March 2018 paper from the Reich Lab, which has bearing on a number of questions of great interest pertaining to the Indian past. The preprint states, “Our results also shed light on the question of the origins of the subset of Indo-European languages spoken in India and Europe. It is striking that the great majority of Indo-European speakers today living in both Europe and South Asia harbor large fractions of ancestry related to … Steppe pastoralists … suggesting that ‘Late Proto-Indo-European’—the language ancestral to all modern Indo- European languages—was the language” of the steppe pastoralist population.

In other words, the preprint observes that the migration from the steppes to South Asia was the source of the Indo-European languages in the subcontinent. Commenting on this, Rai said, “any model of migration of Indo-Europeans from South Asia simply cannot fit the data that is now available.”

Same article:

This story makes ZERO sense. The 'Aryan' migration theory says that this migration happened AFTER the Indus Civilization and, therefore, there will be NO Steppe-related genetic presence in sites like Rakhigarhi - which is exactly what is found! [...] — Tony Joseph (@tjoseph0010) June 13, 2018

this confirms what i reported, harappan dna has no steppes DNA. the conclusion the article draws from it is idiotic. If Rakhigarhi has no steppes DNA while most of us today have some steppes DNA then somebody came here in some numbers from the steppes. [...] — Hartosh Singh Bal (@HartoshSinghBal) June 13, 2018

With other words: the article in the Economic Times is bullshit, drawing conclusions which are not supported by the studies to which Rai contributes, nor taking into account the statements he made on these studies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Yup, bullshit is exactly what it is. It was spin taken too far, so badly and so poorly that it is entirely embarrassing. I have no idea how these scientists will be able to hold their heads up any more. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
We are all Harappans, Outlook Coverstory 2 Aug 2018-Nizil (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Is this paper important here?: Archaeological and anthropological studies on the Harappan cemetery of Rakhigarhi, India -Nizil (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
New coverage
Rakhigarhi DNA.-Nizil (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: see Central Asia and Indo-Iranian and We were wrong: wrong about what?!? I recall Shinde stating somewhere that ASI first formed, and that ANI formed out of ASI + steppe-people. Which is different fro what Narasimhan stated: ASI is AASI + Iranian farmers. Are Reich c.s. now suggesting that the Iranian component came from the BMAC? If so, does this mean that the Harappans were mainly indigenous? That would be very welcome for some indigenists, and yet, would also be a great twist to Aryanism! Do you recall where Shinde explained his take on ASI and ANI? See also Razib Kahn august 31, 2018 and september 26, 2018 (I have to read it, yet). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The obvious candidate for "wrong" is the claim that there was no BMAC ancestry in South Asia. We discussed that somewhere else. I recall saying that, if that were the case, it would enormously complicate the picture. "Where did Indra come from?"
About IVC being "Iranian" (or "Mesopotamian" in my terminology), I have an open mind. It doesn't matter particularly where they came from, as far as we are concerned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a slide here, labelled "We were wrong". (You need to register, if you haven't already.) It doesn't say anything new. It appears that the "Null hypothesis" that assumed that the ASI didn't have West Eurasian ancestry was wrong. I have no idea what "West Eurasian" means here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The whole drama has now shifted to the BMAC, from my point of view. What exactly happened there?

The study arrived at these conclusions after detecting the signals of the migration in the ancient DNA. To quote: “Outlier analysis shows no evidence of Steppe pastoralist ancestry in groups surrounding BMAC sites prior to 2,100 BCE, but suggests that between 2,100-1,700 BCE, the BMAC communities were surrounded by peoples carrying such ancestry.”[2]

The Indo-Aryans destroyed the puras of these people, but didn't mix with them? Were they the Dasas that hoarded wealth? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
It could be that Reich means that their initial ANI-ASI hypothesis was wrong in the way they envisioned the constituent parts of ANI-ASI. I'll have to check their publications... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
A null hypothesis turning out to be wrong happens quite frequently. And, scientists advertise it too, to generate excitement about their results. The effect it had on the lady is exactly what is intended. But we know better. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I read your links and I have to say that none of you are making any sense here. You're not judging based on evidence, you're judging based upon nonsense that linguists -- who have no understanding of history (I've even checked their videos in South Asian studies) and whose books are based on old colonial theories that never had any degree of weight on them beyond a desire for racial supremacy against Blacks and Jews -- are now trying to desperately support a theory that has been debunked over and over and over. This is what, the 120th debunking since 2014? I don't understand this desperation to believe in the Aryan Migration Theory, nothing in history supports it and none of these Western indologists (who have only linguistic and philosophy degrees without any real understanding of history) claim this theory is true.

I checked your links and your own links prove the "Junks Aryan race theory" is right.

From: https://theprint.in/talk-point/does-rakhigarhi-skeleton-dna-confirm-dravidian-ancestry-or-reignite-aryan-invasion-debate/110576/

His first paragraph: "It is too premature to associate the Rakhigarhi findings to either Dravidian or Aryan ancestry. There is nothing called Aryan DNA or Dravidian DNA for that matter. As an anthropologist, I can say that anthropology has not been able to establish a skeletal feature that is Aryan or Dravidian in nature. The two are only language groups, not races."

Your very wiki purports that this is an "ethnolinguistic" debate. Are Aryans and Dravidains defined by ethnicity or not? Your counter proof is admitting it is not.

Your other link: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192299

States there was differences in burial based upon evidence of leprosy in bodies. Nothing about Aryan invasions, nothing showing evidence for any Aryan invasion.

This link:

https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/20180910-rakhigarhi-dna-study-findings-indus-valley-civilisation-1327247-2018-08-31

Rai claimed with full confidence it would be there to prove the Aryan Invasion theory. He repeatedly said it would be there, because if not then there could never have been an invasion or migration. Why? Because the lack of gene intermixing and lack of smashed architecture would be counter proof of the opposite. Now, he's admitting it's not there and that this so-called migration, which should have evidence in the burials, no longer makes sense. Did everyone just up and leave the same vicinity and head north to get massacred by supposed invaders? Does that make sense? Where is the evidence that this migration or invasion ever took place? If it's not there, then Hindutva's arguments are being proven correct. It isn't deception, their is no evidence for the invasion which supports their argument.

None of you seem to be using logic and reason here, you seem to just be badmouthing Hindutva for the crime of being Center-Left instead of the Marxist-Left of the Indian Congress Party. I don't know why people are calling the BJP right wing, evidently putting the death penalty on Hindu extremists, supporting women's rights, supporting a successful vaccine campaign, and supporting eco-friendly solutions like planting trees is "right-wing" in Modern Western discourse while everybody praises Saudi Arabia's "reforms" as they bomb Yemen to death or ignore Asia Bibi's suffering as Pakistan tries to find excuse after excuse to lynch her even after she's been proven innocent of a blasphemy charge.

And by the way, I have read some of Western Indology's writings. All they do is make-up guesswork without any archaeology, history, and they don't even use logical fallacies to counter other arguments. Their basis of argument is Edward Said's claim that former Colonized nation-states have no right to an opinion because they were colonized. It's in the introductory of a book I took the time to review. Western Indology's arguments is literal make-believe without any verified evidence. Here's my review and examination of the contents of one such author as proof, which I took the time to review and by the way, I was firmly in Western Indology's camp until reading their actual arguments. They're so bad and have no basis or foundation in history, that it makes no sense to defend them. https://jarinjove.com/2018/07/06/unifying-hinduism-errors-in-reasoning/ and here's my examination of the Oxford Book of Indian philosophy, it's amazing how many lies are in it. The racial aspect of the Aryan race theory was debunked in 2014, yet they use a Nazi conspiracy theory and celebrate it: https://jarinjove.com/2018/06/24/indology-is-a-worthless-academic-discipline/ Superfriend223 (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Some more reporst on this study:

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Joshua repeatedly cites EARLIER articles than the Niraj Rai article which found no DNA trace as proof that it is wrong, most of Jonathon's "proof" is news articles which are mainly speculation and not an honest attempt at discerning the truth. Given the fact that there has been no credible challenge and most articles arguing against the Niraj Rai's genetic findings, it seems clear that the Aryan Invasion Theory has no evidence to back it up anymore. Also, many of you seem to have no understanding of what Indologists actually are. If you read the Oxford Handbook of Indian Philosophy, they explain that they're literally just translators who make-up their own personal views about a religion without any evidence. They are not archaeologists, they're not scientists, and they're not historians. Many of them now seem to be denying the Islamic genocide of India ever happened without ever addressing the historic information, of Muslim historians copiously cited, in Will Durant's work Our Oriental Heritage written in 1935. I don't believe any of you seem to understand that Indologists are the least credible people to go to for information about facts because they don't do any research of their own at all. They make-up things as per Hermenutics outside of Legal Hermeneutics philosophy. I don't expect any changes since it seems whatever is said by one-side is seen as far-right bigotry and none of you give a damn about the facts or are willing to change your minds from your preconceived, racist views. Oh, and by the way, the IndiaTV rebuttal makes no sense as Tony Joseph is literally arguing that he believes in the Indo-Aryan invasion because he has no evidence. It seems Joshua Jonathan repeatedly posts news sources that have no scientific value, claim Hindutva is the boogeyman, and uses politically charged language to ridicule other political groups while claiming to be objective with their own political biases. As in typical racist fashion. Superfriend223 (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Shinde et al. (2019)

Latest comment: 5 years ago25 comments6 people in discussion

Rakighari-paper

Finally, the [Rakhighari] paper is out. Shinde et al. (2019), An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers. -Nizil (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

See also: First ancient DNA from Indus Valley civilization links its people to modern South Asians. Nizil (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, the study is published. Is there any change needed in the article? Nizil (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow, for sure! This is big:

The Iranian-related ancestry in the IVC derives from a lineage leading to early Iranian farmers, herders, and hunter-gatherers before their ancestors separated, contradicting the hypothesis that the shared ancestry between early Iranians and South Asians reflects a large-scale spread of western Iranian farmers east. Instead, sampled ancient genomes from the Iranian plateau and IVC descend from different groups of hunter-gatherers who began farming without being connected by substantial movement of people.

But.... Tony Joseph in IndianExpress:

“It means the West Asian migrants who mixed with the First Indians to form the population that spread agriculture in northwestern India and built the Harappan Civilization were not yet farmers when they came to India. They came before agriculture had begun anywhere in the world,” said Tony Joseph, author of ‘Early Indians’ in a tweet. This is significant in that it explains that farming is likely to have started independently in India through an exchange of ideas rather than a mass migration as such.

See also Eurogenes.blogspot.
Anyway: Indo-Aryan migrations, IVC, History of agriculture in India, Elamite theory; quite a number of articles for which this is relevant. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Once again, I think a big hullabaloo is being raised about a trivial issue. Ancient Iranian DNA exists and it is in fact the "predominant" part of the Rakhigarhi DNA. But it dates from before 10,000 BCE, i.e., before farming started.

This does not mean that movements of people were unimportant in the introduction of farming economies at a later date; for example, ancient DNA studies have documented that the introduction of farming to Europe after 6500 BCE was mediated by a large-scale expansion of Western Anatolian farmers who descended largely from early hunter-gatherers of Western Anatolia. (p.5)

In fact, if any Iranian farmer DNA is to be found, it would be in the vicinity of Mehrgarh. The claims that the South Asians "independently developed" farming is neither demonstrated nor contradicted by the study.
But, hopefully, this is the final burial of the "Rigveda in the Sarasvati" theory. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I.e. I disagree that this is anything "big" or "surprising". The bloggers are unnecessarily misleading. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The Week article confuses me. Title says "New DNA study debunks Aryan invasion theory". Nizil (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Again? ;) Shinde means that the Aryan migrations were not an invasion. And that the Vedic culture which developed in India was carried by a population which mostly descended from the Harappans - but not entirely. Sharma has taken Shinde out of context. But see also this interview with Shinde; big sigh... Luckily, there are also authors with a realistic worldview. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Razib Khan's comments, with a link to on Narasimhan (2019), the formal publication of Narasimhan (2018) in Science. See also this summary in Science, which clearly states (of course) that Vedic culture is related to the Aryans, wbo migrated to India. And responds, in a very polite but nevertheless dismissive way, to Shinde's observation that the Aryan migration left no archaeological traces. -- Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Nizil Shah, it is all spin. The Deccan College people are expert spinners.
The traditional indigenist theory is that the IVC was "Aryan". The IVC people supposedly woke up one day, started speaking Sanskrit and composing the Vedas. When the Rakhigarhi DNA was first extracted, these people believed that it would be full of ANI genes, thereby debunking the theory that the "Aryans" came from somewhere.
Now, they found that there were no ANI genes. So, how does Shinde explain the presence of ANI genes in the present day population? By ignoring them. In the recent interviews he makes no mention of ANI at all. Rather he claims that the present day populations are "direct descendants" of the Rakhigarhi people. How? Where? No idea. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:, Shinde told things in the press conference which are neither mentioned in the paper nor supported by the studies. His co-authors do not fully agree with him either. -Nizil (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

new study disproves aryan invasion theory

please update all sections mentioning aryan invasion or migration as a theory that has been disproven: genetical study disproves aryan invasion theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.98.51.50 (talk • contribs) sept 7, 2019 (UTC)

Nope. See previous section. This ToI-article cofuse Shinde's personal beliefs with the scientific findings of Reich c.s. The Cell-article does not claim there waz no Aryan migration. Shinde's "interpretation" is embarrassing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Some sympathy, JJ. If they don't say stuff like that, they will be branded anti-national, and asked to go to Pakistan! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Guess you're right. Nevertheless, from the ToI-article:

The study explains the spread of Indo-European languages to likely later migrations. "...a natural route for Indo-European languages to have spread into south Asia is from eastern Europe via central Asia in the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE, a chain of transmission that did occur as has been documented in detail with ancient DNA. The fact that Steppe pastoralist ancestry in south Asia matches that in Bronze Age eastern Europe provides additional evidence for this theory, as it elegantly explains the shared distinctive features of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages." The mature IVC was spread over northwest India between 2600-1900 BCE.

Speaking to TOI, Dr Niraj Rai of the Birbal Sahni Institute of Paleosciences, who conducted the genetic research on the Rakhigarhi skeletons, defended the extrapolation of data on the basis of one genome sample.

"One sample means a billion people. That is the power of genetics. We have conclusive data and evidence to prove that there was no Aryan invasion.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
We really shouldn't rush in to change everything with a primary source. We should wait until it's been discussed. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
the point the artice making is that it is not foreign aryan invaders that brought the IVC . IVC is indigenous to India and Indo European languages were later spread to the same indigenous population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.179.224.184 (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
What's the news then? No scholar argues that the Aryans initiated the IVC, except for fringe Indigenous Aryans "theorists." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
This is a very interesting blogpost: The antiquity of west eurasian ancestry in south asia. I don't recall the details, but Taharaj or Moorjani published on an element in India-s ancestry which was present before 12,500 years ago, and unmixed for most of that time. Intriguely, this blogpost also notes that R1a may have been present in India for thousands of years - hence the impression that it originated there? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The Telegraph-reporter actually did read the article: Rakhigarhi DNA does not contain 'Aryan’ genetic trace. Study does not rule out the theory of Aryan invasion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
David Reich responds: Indus Valley Civilisation is largest source of ancestry for South Asians: David Reich. He's very polite and diplomatic! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
This makes some sense: Two new genetic studies upheld Indo-Aryan migration. So why did Indian media report the opposite? - Scroll. -Nizil (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Article needs to be changed. Because Dr. Sinde has proven that the aryans were indigenous and aryan and dravidians were same. Manojjha5432 (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Manojjha5432: please read the thread you've just contributed to. Shinde has made personal statements which contradict his recent publication, and are not supported by his co-authors. As a matter of fact, Shinde et al. (2019) confirms the Indo-Aryan migration. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
The Wire on Shinde's spin. Ah, and Tony Jospeh comments: New reports clearly confirm ‘Arya’ migration into India! See also this additional commentary in The Hindu. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Another blog on the ancientness of the connection between IVC and Iranian farmers: The Origins of the Neolithic in the Indian subcontinent. As noted by other bloggers also (The Antiquity of West Eurasian Ancestry in South Asia), that the split between Iranian and Indus Valley hunter-gatherers took place before the start of the Holocene, was already implied by previous research. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Further confirmation of Narasimhan (2018)

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The first link isn't proof of the Aryan migration theory, it's a claim that Scythians migrated. There's no mention of any Aryan migration, in fact it completely disproves your point, as it claims the people who settled on North-East India seem to be either Scythians or Sarmatians. So... what does that have to do with anything, unless you mean to say that Indo-Aryans are debunked?
The second link claims a "possibility" but assumes they simply settled in North-East India according to the evidence and didn't head southward. This neither proves the Aryan Race or Aryan Migration theory and seems to again debunk it.
Moreover, your two links contradict each other, so what are you even arguing? You clearly didn't even read them as they directly self-contradict in information given. --Superfriend223 (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
For the record:
Related:
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
These are all echo-chamber articles without any scientific evidence provided. Some of these a blogs, not even news sources. What are you doing, Jonathon? Superfriend223 (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Narasimhan et. al. was just published in Science (big deal, kudos to the authors) after being peer reviewed, and seems like its primary conclusion underwent some rewording. Two main conclusions relevant to this article:
1. "Early Holocene populations of Iran and South Asia ... [sic] were likely the characteristic of the IVC."
2. Steppe migrants made up less than 30% of post-IVC ANI population
Mr. Naik (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Narasimhan et al. (2019) and the advent of farming

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

@Krakkos, Skllagyook, and Florian Blaschke: Narasimhan et al. (2019) p.11 has been puzzling me for months. They give two possibilities for the origins of the Iranian farmer-related ancestry. One is, or so they seem to suggest, is that this ancestry came from east-Iranian hunter-gatherers. The other is that it came with farmers who brought farming to India. Yet, they then state that the Iranian component lacked Anatolian farmer ancestry, which was common in Iran after 6000 BCE. I've alway thought that this meant that those Iranian farmer related people couldn't be agrarians, and somehow stayed out of contact with (Anatolia-related) farmers, either in some enclave in Iran; or in India, arriving there long before they mixed with the Indian hunter-hatherers-turned farmers.
Yet, their real argument seems to be that IE-languages did not arrive in India with the advance of farming, since there was no substantial Iranian (farmer) migration towards India after 6000 BCE. They state so, because the Anatalian, widespread in Iran after 6000 BCE, is lacking in India.
Well, that's in line with the fact that farming seems to have originated in northern India more or less independent from the ferticle crescent. But note this from Mascarenhas et al. (2015):

new, possibly West Asian, body types are reported from the graves of Mehrgarh beginning in the Togau phase (3800 BCE).

And note that Narasimhan et al. state that IVC was a mixture of ancient Indian hunter-gatherers related people and Iranian farmers related people; those AHG may or may not have been the first Indian farmers; but it could also be those Iranians who became the first farmers. So, while their real point is that IE-languages were not introduced by Iranian farmers, they argue that farming was not introduced from Iran by these Iranians. What are your thoughts? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
PS: it was Shinde et al. (2019), An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers who suggest that this Iranian-farmers related population split-off 12,000 years ago:

[p.4:] the Iranian-related ancestry in the IVC Cline descends from a different group of hunter-gatherers from the ancestors of the earliest known farmers or herders in the western Iranian plateau.

That seems to be the source of my puzzlement: where did those people stay, c.q. when did they move into India? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

 
Vavilov model from 1930s
I am not entirely sure what you are saying, but I would expect that the spread of farming does not necessarily involve large-scale migration, especially when it spreads into populated areas. Dispersion, diffusion etc. would be at play. On the other hand, spread of languages is likely to involve large-scale migration. The new language speakers would need to be of sufficient number to supplant the earlier languages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: I'm somewhat busy, but will try to look at this when I can. Skllagyook (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Those studies relate the advance of farming in Iran with the advance of Anatolian genes in Iran, which is lacking in the Iranian component in India. Yet, the timeframe of the introduction of this Iranian component in India coincides with the start of the regionalisation phase of the IVC. And farming in northern India is related to Iran/Mesopotamia. So, somehow I don't buy it, that those Iranians werenot farmers. Where did those Iranians hide-out not becoming farmers, and why did they the become farmers in India, mixing with locals? If they already were in India, as Narasimhan et al. seem to suggest, why didn't they mix earlier? And if they were in Iran, not being farmers, why would they move to India, to become farmers there? It makes more sense if they were farmers who brought new techniques to India, and mixed with the local population. But then, still, how about this claim that the advance of farming in Iran coincides with the advance of Anatolian ancestry in Iran? Could it be that hunter-gatherers who took over farming, next became part of a farmer's mating network? See also Lazaridis et al. (2017), Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East:

We reject the hypothesis that the spread of agriculture in the Near East was achieved by the dispersal of a single farming population displacing the hunter-gatherers they encountered. Instead, the spread of ideas and farming technology moved faster than the spread of people, as we can determine from the fact that the population structure of the Near East was maintained throughout the transition to agriculture.

But, on the other hand, Razib Khan, The day of the Dhasa:

...it may, in fact, be the case that ANI-like quasi-Iranians occupied northwest South Asia for a long time, and AHG populations hugged the southern and eastern fringes, during the height of the Pleistocene.

Qustions, questions... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not particularly acquainted with the pre-Indo-European genetic history of South Asia. It seems like recent studies contract each other in certain respects. Hopefully, future studies will straighten out these uncertainties. Krakkos (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, Iranian hunter-gatherers:
This person argues, convincingly, that previous DNA-research already pointed to a longer presence of this west-Eurasian ancenstry in India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding genetic studies to South Asian ethnic groups pages

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Fowler&fowler: @Kautilya3: Was there any consensuses on adding genetic studies to South Asian ethnic groups pages? I thought there was not? either way, there has been recent vandalism on Vedda people page, Tamil people page, Telugu people page and Brahui language page. Ilber8000 (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

See this IP hopper. Ilber8000 (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a local consensus not to do so in caste-articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
144.48.170.36 (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The Aryan theory is a propaganda theory developed during the British rule in India to change the mindset of indians and consider white race as their own race

See WP:FORUM and WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Citing with too many authors

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

@Santoshdts: regarding this, see Template:Sfn, harvid. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Thanks for the reply, the Narasimhan et al. 2019 had more than 10 authors. I have cited the first four followed by et al. in the source. That solved the problem. Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 13:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
if you have more than 10, et al is the route to go.--Hippeus (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Tag bombing

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

@Tharikrish: you're adding a lot of tags, but when are you going to explain them? This one, "reason="southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene."," seems to refer to Kivelid et al. (2003), The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations, without providing the source. Idem for this one. That's dubious, and requesting an explanation for a 'contradiction' with a source from 2003 is also dubious. What's your intention with all these tags? Pinging Skllagyook, Ilber8000, Kautilya3 for comments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is definitely WP:tag bombing. Tharikrish, you are better advised to raise your issues here and discuss them with other editors instead of placing an inordinate number of tags. The "contradictory-inline" tags placed in the middle of quotations from reliable sources are quite unwarranted. You definitely need to explain these. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I have tagged a lot of obvious issues, mainly weasel words, which could be easily resolved. Some of terms like "some/most scholars" are within quotes, but are weasel words nonetheless. It will be better if it could be explained who this scholars are, as they may have been already cited elsewhere in the article. In some sections, a lot of alternate opinions are bunched together, which I agree can't be avoided. Even if some are within quotes, they create a jarring experience for a general reader. Framing it for e.g. as "contradictory to earlier study", or "recent studies dispute the observation" etc. will make the argument transparent and improve the readability, especially for non-experts. A few new concepts suddenly leap out of the text without a context. It is difficult of a general reader to follow the article to the end without loosing track. Sorry if the tags are quite a few, but I believe most could be resolved easily by copyedit. TharikRish 22:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Go ahead, and do the work. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Sure, this is the intention, Inshallah. TharikRish 08:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Inshallah? Welcome! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Race science

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

@A.j.roberts: this addition diff is too much, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Riseley’s Flawed ethnographic study, and 1891 publications, are the source of much of the later racial, rather than linguistic arguments, and if anything they deserve more space, for turning a literature study into a controversial theory, still being investigated today, e.g. The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia: Vagheesh M. Narasimhan1,*,†, View ORCID ProfileNick Patterson2,3,*,†, ... - Science - 06 Sep 2019: Vol. 365, Issue 6457, eaat7487 DOI: 10.1126/science.aat7487
A.j.roberts (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Which "racial arguments"? How did Riseley’s studies "turn[...] a literature study into a controversial theory," and how's this explained by your addition? And what's wrong with Narasimhan, in your opinion? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
This article is semi-protected for a reason, the subject is controversial, as the contradictory reverences to South-Asian origins, for PIE, and R1a1 subclades support. A.j.roberts (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Indo-Aryan migration:

What’s your objection to a paragraph Riseley, as the originator of the ethnographic / racial theory of an Aryan invasion / elite replacement in South-Asia, given the next several dozen are arguing, for or against the conclusions of his publications? A.j.roberts (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Was he the originator? And do subsequent authors respond to his conclusions? If so, you should explain that in the article, not give a lengthy expose of his ideas.

You removed the following text diff:

By the 1880s, his ideas had been "hijacked" by racist ethnologists. For example, as an exponent of race science, colonial administrator Herbert Hope Risley (1851–1911) used the ratio of the width of a nose to its height to divide Indian people into Aryan and Dravidian races, as well as seven castes.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Trautmann (1997)
  2. ^ Walsh (2011)

So, in your text, the article jumps from Muller to Risley, without explanation, giving a lengthy and unnecessary expose of his ideas. And then you jump to narasimhan et al. (2019). Why? Do you want to inmply that theirs is a racist study? This is not even WP:SYNTHESIS, it's unbalanced and chaotic. NB: Ershad Ali (2019), Ethnic Composition of Indian Population refers to both Risley and Narasimhan. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The text you’ve substituted, “By the 1880s, his ideas had been "hijacked" by racist ethnologists ....” Neither cites a source, and is not in line with WP:TONE.
While your justification for removing my edit, WP:SYNTHESIS, suggests neither the Science Daily, or associated papers explicitly make that assertion ([3]), to quote the article:
 A second line of evidence in favor of a steppe origin is the researchers' discovery that of the 140 present-day South Asian populations analyzed in the study, a handful show a remarkable spike in ancestry from the steppe. All but one of these steppe-enriched populations are historically priestly groups, including Brahmins -- traditional custodians of texts written in the ancient Indo-European language Sanskrit. "The finding that Brahmins often have more steppe ancestry than other groups in South Asia, controlling for other factors, provides a fascinating new argument in favor of a steppe origin for Indo-European languages in South Asia," said Reich.
Which is in line, with the summary you removed: A 2019 Genetic study of 140 present day South Asian populations identified a handful of populations with significant steppe ancestry, all but one of these populations had a historic priestly function, and we’re traditional custodians Indo-European Sanskrit texts, which the study argues supports a steppe origin for the language family, and confirmation of a population inflow into South-Asia. (source: "Largest-ever ancient-DNA study illuminates millennia of South and Central Asian prehistory". ScienceDaily. Retrieved 2020-09-23.)
The summary is shorter, removes explicit racial / caste labels, is the latest, and apparently the largest study to date, so would you please explain your action. Similarly would you please explain why you feel a single, non-lead sentence, in a 15 section, hundred plus paragraph article, on the widely cited article, is WP:UNDUE. Ditto for the more neutrality worded paragraph, on the the 1885 study, and subsequent 1991 publications, that the cited articles debate.
A.j.roberts (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I find it extremely hard to follow your "argument"; your jumps in reasoning seem to omit steps in your thought, just like the added text jumps from topic to topic without an explicit rationale, or sources which make those connections.
You stated: Riseley, as the originator of the ethnographic / racial theory of an Aryan invasion / elite replacement in South-Asia. The article says that it was Muller who "introduced the notion of two Aryan races, a western and an eastern one, who migrated from the Caucasus into Europe and India respectively," not Risley. Risley elaborated on these ideas. But that connection is lost with your removal of the 'bridging text'. How can you add a lengthy piece of info on Risley, without explaining the connection between Risley and Muller?
And what's the connection between Narasimhan and Risley? Which source or author makes that connection? Yes, Narasimhan elaborates on the idea of Indo-Aryans migrating into India - but that has nothing to do with Risley. If anything, it just confirms Muller's basic notion of two sets of related Aryan people, who migrated to Europe and India respectively. But that has nothing to do with outdated race-theories, as you seem to suggest. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Almost impossible to do is one editor keeps reverting, alleging WP:UNDUE, if more than a sentence on Risley is added, and restores their preferred: “By the 1880s, his ideas had been "hijacked" by racist ethnologists ....”
Which per my last comment, is not encyclopaedic language, see: WP:TONE
As to the Narasimhan Paper, and derivative articles, READ the quoted summary of the observations on steppe Ancestory, above, and then read either Risley‘s own paper, book, or the summary, on the Wikipedia page, or in the cited articles, all are online, and free to access, and see if you can spot something.
A.j.roberts (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
"Spot something" - see WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Your exposé diff is WP:OFFTOPIC, and the addition of Narasimhan et al. (2019) is WP:OR. I have accordingly shortened it diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Removing the work “Brahmins“ for a summary published in a WP:RS, and cited along with the original published paper, is not WP:OR, as opposed to repeatedly removing the abbreviated summary, and inserting, the un-cited sentence, “By the 1880s, his ideas had been "hijacked" by racist ethnologists ....”, and per my last comment also not compliant with WP:TONE.
A.j.roberts (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Name change

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Joe Roe: is it possible to move this page to "Indo-Aryan migrations", plural? Several authors, including Parpola, propose multiple waves of migrations. See, for example, Levman, Bryan Geoffrey (2013). "Cultural Remnants of the Indigenous Peoples in the Buddhist Scriptures", Buddhist Studies Review 30 (2):

The eastern ethnic groups were looked down upon as inferior by the incoming Aryans from the northwest. The centre of the Aryan homeland (Āryāvarta, ‘the abode of the noble ones’) lay west of the intersection of the Yamuna and Ganges rivers, while the Buddha belonged to the Sakyas (P, Skt. Śākya), an eastern sub-Himalayan ethnic group, in the eastern borderlands. Like the other eastern groups, the Sakyas were of ‘mixed origin’ (saṃkīrṇa-yonayaḥ), which presumably meant that their ancestry was part Aryan and part indigenous, the former component probably being in the minority (Dutt 1960, 52; Emeneau 1974, 93; also in Dil 1980, 198; Deshpande 1979, 297). The Baudhāyana-dharmaśāstra (1.1.2.13–4) lists all the groups (including that of Magadha, where the Buddha spent much of his teaching career) outside the pale of the Āryāvarta; just visiting them required a purifiatory sacrifie as expiation.18 In Manu (10.11, 22) the Vaidehas, Magadhas, Licchavis, the Mallas, and the rulers of Kusinārā and Pāvā (cities of the Malla ethnic group, and the near neighbours of the Sakyas) — that is all the eastern clans including the Dravidians — are deemed to be the result of mixed caste marriages and treated ‘as though being non-Aryan’ (Oldenberg 1882, 399).

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, sounds uncontroversial.   Done. – Joe (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: that's quick! Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Theory versus Facts.

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The Indo Aryan Migrations is a theory or collection of theories but not an absolute fact. The writers/editors have presented it as a well documented historical event even though there are many contradictions to it. Unless there is breakthrough evidence in its support it would be much logical to present it as a theory. This article is semi-protected so I am not able to edit this, Whoever can please do so. SoulEditsx (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. White supremacists at Wikipedia are deliberately trying to extend the British propaganda with vested interests and conveniently saying they couldn't access some links.


You've conveniently not considered the links you yourself had nothing to say anything about.

The first few links only support Max Muller's translation was fake. So, judging them on not having evidence for AIT is a gross injustice.

They claim they know Max Muller translation was fake. But nothing in the Wikipedia article shows that. Instead, they glorify a racist.

Here are new article citations debunking Aryan Invasion Theory: https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/rakhigarhi-dna-study-questions-aryan-invasion-theory-claims-author/articleshow/71001985.cms (Debunks both Invasion and migration)

In search of the cradle of civilization: new light on ancient India Subhash Kak, David Frawley Quest Books, 2001(cited by 20) In this ground-breaking book, three renowned scholars show that there was no" Aryan invasion," and that India, not Sumer, was the cradle of civilized humanity.

The paper concludes Indians came from a genetic pool predominantly belonging to an indigenous ancient civilisation. https://www.deccanherald.com/national/new-dna-study-challenges-aryan-invasion-theory-759635.html

The Myth of Aryan Invasion of India-M Lal Goel University of West Florida, accessed, 1996

Solid Evidence Debunking Aryan Invasion - David Frawley

https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2019/09/06/new-study-debunks-aryan-invasion-theory.amp.html#aoh=16044667426235&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/haryana/new-dna-study-debunks-aryan-invasion-theory-828918 https://theprint.in/india/aryan-invasion-theory-gets-a-setback-from-dna-study-of-2500-bc-rakhigarhi-skeletons/287454/ https://www.telegraphindia.com/amp/india/rakhigarhi-dna-does-not-contain-aryan-genetic-trace/cid/1703089#aoh=16044667426235&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

journal, Cell (bit.do/e76Ne)

There is now overwhelming scientific evidence that proves that the Aryan Invasion Theory is a myth. It is fiction. It belongs in the Big League of unscientific theories (which some still believe in), alongside creationism, anti-evolutionism, the myth of Noah’s ark, and flat earth theory. The Aryan Invasion Myth: How 21st Century Science Debunks 19th Century Indology by A.L. Chavda

Max Muller: Persistent mistranslations of samskrtam and Hindu scriptures Sarma N Gullapalli http://www.anantaajournal.com/archives/2018/vol4issue1/PartB/4-1-17-129.pdf

F. Max Muller and a. B. Keith:" Twaddle", the" Stupid" Myth, and the Disease of Indology Herman Tull Numen 38 (1), 27-58, 1991 (Cited by 24) https://brill.com/view/journals/nu/38/1/article-p27_3.xml

If a link is inaccessible from Holland you probably shouldn't assume.

White supremacists should not be allowed to review ancient literature or scientific evidence on Indian cultural heritage. Doveranalyst (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Rakighari & ancient DNA (again)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For the readinglist: Romila Thapar, Michael Witzel, Jaya Menon, Kai Friese and Razib Khan (2019), Which of Us are Aryans? Rethinking the Concept of Our Origins. Quote:

But attempts have been made to turn the evidence upside down by claiming it as proof of the absence of an Aryan influx and falsely connecting the Rakhigarhi skeleton with the North Indian Brahmins. Kai Friese demonstrates that this misrepresentation of scientific data is part of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Hindutva history-writing project “to use evidence such as archaeological finds and DNA to prove that today’s Hindus are directly descended from the land’s first inhabitants many thousands of years ago, and make the case that ancient Hindu scriptures are fact, not myth”.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Changing it to a theory

Latest comment: 3 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

The migrations of the Indo-Aryans from outside of India to India are not accepted by all scholars, and some scholars point to evidence saying there was an Out of India migration instead. Therefore, because neither the Out of India theory nor the Indo-Aryan Migration theory from outside of India into India are accepted completely, it would be more accurate and factual to represent the article as a theory (the theory of the Aryans coming into India) promoted by some scholars rather than a fact accepted by all scholars. The article is currently WP:NPOV. Shakespeare143 (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Many other editors have brought up the point I mentioned.Shakespeare143 (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC).
See WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Chariotrider555 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the article is WP:NPOV because I think it is currently biased. 2 other editors have brought up the point I mentioned. I think that because many other editors have brought up the point I mentioned, it would be good to update the article.Shakespeare143 (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Which two? They were probably rebuked as well; the article is regularly updated to prune it from fringe-ideas. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
From just looking at the current Talk page, 3 other editors include TheAtulKaushal, SoulEditsx, and Doveranalyst. Additionally, Khan Academy mentions (regarding the Indus River Valley Civilization) how "One theory suggested that a nomadic, Indo-European tribe called the Aryans invaded and conquered the Indus Valley Civilization, though more recent evidence tends to contradict this claim."Shakespeare143 (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not and should not be a place where every theory is given equal weight. There is a significant established scientific consensus on this subject, so the scientific consensus is what is presented in the article. Presenting the scientific consensus as the generally accepted theory while presenting minority fringe theories as minority fringe theories does not violate NPOV. Furthermore, the scientific consensus on this issue is quite strong, as there are virtually no peer-reviewed articles published by reputable journals that support an Indian origin for the Aryans. The reason why the Indo-Aryan migrations into the India is presented as fact here despite the fact that there is significant public debate regarding the issue is the same reason why global warming is presented as fact: the strong scientific consensus outweighs minority fringe theories. With regards to the Khan Academy article you mentioned, the article does not state that recent evidence contradicts the existence of the Aryan migration into India. It instead states that recent evidence contradicts an Aryan invasion into India through which the Aryans conquered the Indus Valley Civilization, which is something that scholars have not believed for many years. Citing that article does nothing to help your case. At a broader scale, for the "Out of India" theory to be given weight in this article there is a significant burden of proof that needs to be overcome. As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and claiming that the Aryans originated in India is an extraordinary claim because it is directly contradictory to the academic consensus. The existence of people who do not agree with the consensus does not invalidate that consensus. If you want to see this article give serious weight to the "Out of India" theory, go get some serious, peer-reviewed articles from reputable sources that support that theory. I fully support you in this endeavor, because if there is a reasonable debate on the matter then this Wikipedia article should reflect that. However, from my own experience, I doubt you will be able to find such sources, because they simply don't exist. Regards, Leaflemon (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The 'academic consensus' and peer-review is based on interpretations of facts by academics who are not necessarily unbiased. There is not a single academic source that can conclusively show that admixture of gene pools = admixture of religion/culture = discontinuation of existing culture = aryans brought in a new religion and culture to present-day India = (still amusingly used by some Hinduphobes) aryans oppressed the indigenous people and therefore Hinduism is oppressive. It is a big leap going from "we see presence of X haplotype and found some artifacts" to "indo-europeans brought in an oppressive, casteist, misogynistic religion" like Witzel and Thapar claim. Hardly a neutral point of view. There are a number of holes in their argument(s). Unfortunately, the systemic racist ideas of viewing Hindus as superstitious, inferior heathen have brought us to this point in history. The ground was set over 150 years ago to explain 'caste' and the like with invasions, now modestly changed to migration and confirmative biases are hard to challenge and instead pose more questions - and some scholars have recognized that. See this https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/11/4/181. Fortunately though, Wikipedia does not, and more importantly SHOULD not shape people's views given that it is moderated mostly by armchair 'experts' who are moderators.Liberalvedantin (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not claim to present the "truth". Our job is to fairly summarise what reliable sources say about a topic. If all the experts in the world are wrong about something, then by design we will repeat that error. Wikipedia also does not have 'moderators'. – Joe (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
No where did I say that Wikipedia claims to present the truth. You are putting words in my mouth. I said that Wikipedia should not shape people's views as it is prone to subjectivity and bias. Secondly, Wikipedia does have administrators that have " the ability to block and unblock user accounts, IP addresses, and IP ranges from editing, edit fully protected pages, protect and unprotect pages from editing, delete and undelete pages, rename pages without restriction, and use certain other tools." So you can use semantics as much as you want, but there is a system of moderating/arbitrating/judging, whatever you want to call it, involved.Liberalvedantin (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Liberalvedantin, I'm afraid that your knowledge of the current state of affairs of the IAmt is not shaped by that theory, but by certain minterpretations and misrepresentations:

  • admixture of gene pools that there was a migration, and a subsequent admixture, is quite certain;
  • admixture of religion/culture yes, quite certain; over a long timespan, due to 'elite dominance', in which one group, in this case farmers, adjusts to a dominant group, in this case pastoralists with superior weapons and fighting skills. Those farmers and pastoralists may have lived together at some places, with the pastoralists offering protection to the farmers;
  • discontinuation of existing culture no, not a discontinuation due to the IA-migrations. There was a discontinuation of urban life, but elements of Harappan culture continued at a local level, and mixed with IA-culture, prior to the seconf urbanisation and the rise of the sramana-movement;
  • aryans brought in a new religion and culture to present-day India yes, they did;
  • (still amusingly used by some Hinduphobes) aryans oppressed the indigenous people; maybe. Or maybe not. The jati-system seems to have chrystalized at ca. 400 CE. There's a significant resemblance with the Roman Empire, which stagnated in the last few centuries of it's existence. Occupations became hereditary, which contributed to the diminishing of the flexibility of the system, it's ability to adapt to change. The Roman Empire and the Gupta Empire were connected by trade; when the Roman Empite imploded, so did the Gupta Empire;
  • and therefore Hinduism is oppressive that's an Indian narrative, though fact is that the system is not very kind for Dalits, is it?

That indo-Aryans migrated to India is fairly certain; that they brought a new religion is also fairly certain. But Hinduism is not Vedism or Brahmanism; Hinduism is the Brahmanical adaptation to a changing world, in which the Brahmins lost their raison d'etre. They adapted, incorporating local religions and elements of the sramana-movement. This happened between ca. 500/300 BCE and 500 CE; the jati-system is only the concluding part of this development, 2000 (!) years after the IA-migrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

"that there was a migration, and a subsequent admixture, is quite certain; "I never said there wasn't. Read what I said again. My problem is with the synthesis of all of these and the claims that come out of them like your conclusion "yes, they did;" (bring a new religion).
"fact is that the system is not very kind for Dalits, is it?" thank you for proving my point that this is a Hinduphobic stance. We might take bigoted stances without knowing about it, so I don't know your motives. But you use the word system in place of Hinduism, which is what I had said. But ultimately in context of what has been said, you paint Hinduism with an oppressive brush. This is precisely why as I mention above, Wikipedia is edited and administered by a majority of ill-informed and/or biased people like yourself. I suggest that you instead read up on Vedantic passages on equality, the works of Hindu holy men on jati and untouchability, and how Dalits themselves had become religious leaders of their times.Liberalvedantin (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
LiberalvedantinYou are correct that there is Hinduphobic bias on much of Wikipedia.Shakespeare143 (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I mean this is outright Hinduphobia right on this talk page, which is reflected in the content of the pages. And then they accuse me of personal attacks. Liberalvedantin (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I responded, stating (among other things) "{{tq|and therefore Hinduism is oppressive" that's an Indian narrative, though fact is that the system is not very kind for Dalits, is it?" You conveniently missed the main point: "that's an Indian narrative." This equation is not proposed by authors on the Indo-Aryan, or Indo-European migrations; it's your equation, pulled from a different discourse. And I purposedly wrote "system," since I don't, and won't, argue that Hinduism is oppressive. Your editing is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Liberalvedantin your whole Wikipedia page is a testament to the agenda that you are hell-bent on promoting. I don't need to remind you of the challenges faced by Dalits in India be it rape or outright discrimination so please don't try to paint a rosy picture the day your country has a prime minister from the Dalit community then we'll see what to do with your narrative. In fact, all you're doing on this talk page is calling everyone a Hinduphobe who doesn't share your view and you are not able to present any peer-reviewed research paper which proves your claims whereas this whole article is backed up by good resources. Don't make Wikipedia your own political battleground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DataCrusade1999 (talk • contribs) 7 september 2021 (UTC)

Misleading sentence in the lead and inconsistencies

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is written in the lead that the Indo-Aryans borrowed their unique religious beliefs from the BMAC culture, however this is misleading and not supported by the references either. They likely adopted some elements from the BMAC as they stood in cultural contact (BMAC got absorbed into Indo-Iranians). The paragraph should be corrected. More surprisingly, below in the article (section: Archaeology: migrations from the steppe Urheimat) it is written that BMAC is associated with the Indo-Iranians rather than that they encountered another group. There are many inconsistencies and missing citations. So a clean up tag or warning to the reader that it is controversial would be a good idea.213.162.73.204 (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Sinauli Excavations

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The more recent archaeological findings at the Sinauli excavation site have made it quite obvious that we were fed with lies about Aryan migrations all this while, and the celebrated historians. The sad thing is that they are still carrying forward the fake repute instilled in their minds by the British Raj Education System.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAtulKaushal (talk • contribs) 06:25, May 14, 2021 (UTC)

Are there any sources that mention this, and what did the archaeological findings say?Shakespeare143 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I suggest that you check the pages Indigenous Aryanism and Sinauli excavation site for more information. Indo-Aryan migrations did not occur from Europe, to say the least. The archaeological findings suggest that wheel and chariots were in use here long before anywhere else. --TheAtulKaushal (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you read those articles again; the suggestions you mention are nothing but fantasy and imagination. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@TheAtulKaushal: Where did anybody claim that migration happened from Europe? What did you think they found at Sinauli? First wheel to be discovered in India? If you are assuming that people though “wheels” were never used in India before that, you are absolutely wrong. The IAmt only cares for “spoked” wheel. Any child will know that solid wheel existed way before that in different parts of the world. What they found at Sinauli is solid wheel—which at best can be used as carts. Chariots on other hand are designed to move quick, therefore chariots by definition use spoked wheels.
Now coming to the next problem: the horse? What credible evidence do we have to say that those so-called chariots were pulled by horse? Bones? No!; Artefacts? No!; Any motifs that contains horse figure? No!
The burials were decorated with figures of bull-head. Nothing of sorts exist for horse in the excavation. ChandlerMinh (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Max Müller

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

User:Doveranalyst added the following Indigenists talking points diff:

The "Aryan Invasion Theory" promoted by the deliberate mistranslation of the Vedas by Max Muller[1][2][3] paid by the British to Divide and Rule India has been proven wrong by scientific evidence of DNA[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11].

References

  1. ^ DelhiDecember 6, India Today Web Desk New; December 6, 2016UPDATED:; Ist, 2018 11:42. "Remember Max Muller: The man employed to create a distorted translation of the Vedas". India Today. Retrieved 2020-11-02. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ "Fundamentals of Indology wrong and Max Mueller a Swindler - वेद Veda". veda.wikidot.com. Retrieved 2020-11-02.
  3. ^ "Max Muller Expose". www.salagram.net. Retrieved 2020-11-02.
  4. ^ Chavda, A. L. (2017-05-05). "Aryan Invasion Myth: How 21st Century Science Debunks 19th Century Indology". IndiaFacts. Retrieved 2020-11-02.
  5. ^ "Aryan invasion debunked". www.downtoearth.org.in. Retrieved 2020-11-02.
  6. ^ "It's all in the genes: Does DNA call bluff on Aryan Invasion Theory?". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 2020-11-02.
  7. ^ Cairae, Harsh Mahaan (2019-11-24). "Aryans did not invade India or destroy the Indus Valley Civilisation. This is proof". ThePrint. Retrieved 2020-11-02.
  8. ^ Sep 25, TNN /; 2009; Ist, 01:16. "Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study | India News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2020-11-02. {{cite web}}: |last2= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ Tiwari, Ramakant (2019-09-13). "Aryan Invasion Theory deflated". Indus Scrolls. Retrieved 2020-11-02.
  10. ^ arisebharat (2008-01-21). "BBC Accepts that the Aryan Invasion theory is flawed". Arise Bharat. Retrieved 2020-11-02.
  11. ^ DelhiDecember 10, Dinesh C. Sharma New; December 10, 2011UPDATED:; Ist, 2011 10:22. "Indians are not descendants of Aryans, says new study". India Today. Retrieved 2020-11-02. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

It's problematic for a host of reasons:

  • "Aryan Invasion Theory" is a polemical and outdated term, used by WP:FRINGE authors;
  • "promoted by the deliberate mistranslation of the Vedas by Max Muller" - that Max Müller was biased is a well-known fact, but doesn't change the basic facts of the theory; eventual "mistranslations" by Müller are not relevant in this respect;
  • "paid by the British to Divide and Rule India" - WP:REDFLAG, WP:UNDUE for the WP:LEAD;
  • "has been proven wrong by scientific evidence of DNA" - aughh; this is the alternative reality of Indigenists; DNA-research has only proven the IAmt correct.
  • The sentence as a whole is exemplary WP:SYNTHESIS to promote a WP:FRINGE pov.

Regarding the sources:

  • Max Müller translations:
  • DNA-research:

CCMB researcher Thangaraj believes that "it was much longer ago", and that "the ANI came to India in a second wave of migration [after the initial settlement of India by the ASI] that happened perhaps 40,000 years ago." (source:Srinath Perur (December 2013), The origins of Indians. What our genes are telling us., Fountain Ink Archived 4 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine)

Which may well refer to the Iranian farmer related ancestry, as specified by Narasimhan et al. (2019).

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Collapse rant; see WP:FORUM

You've conveniently not considered the links you yourself had nothing to say anything about.

The first few links only support Max Muller's translation was fake. So, judging them on not having evidence for AIT is a gross injustice.

You claim you know Max Muller translation was fake. But nothing in the Wikipedia article shows that. Instead you glorify a racist.

Here are new article citations debunking Aryan Invasion Theory: https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/rakhigarhi-dna-study-questions-aryan-invasion-theory-claims-author/articleshow/71001985.cms (Debunks both Invasion and migration)

In search of the cradle of civilization: new light on ancient India Subhash Kak, David Frawley Quest Books, 2001(cited by 20) In this ground-breaking book, three renowned scholars show that there was no" Aryan invasion," and that India, not Sumer, was the cradle of civilized humanity.

The paper concludes Indians came from a genetic pool predominantly belonging to an indigenous ancient civilisation. https://www.deccanherald.com/national/new-dna-study-challenges-aryan-invasion-theory-759635.html

The Myth of Aryan Invasion of India-M Lal Goel University of West Florida, accessed, 1996

Solid Evidence Debunking Aryan Invasion - David Frawley

https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2019/09/06/new-study-debunks-aryan-invasion-theory.amp.html#aoh=16044667426235&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/haryana/new-dna-study-debunks-aryan-invasion-theory-828918 https://theprint.in/india/aryan-invasion-theory-gets-a-setback-from-dna-study-of-2500-bc-rakhigarhi-skeletons/287454/ https://www.telegraphindia.com/amp/india/rakhigarhi-dna-does-not-contain-aryan-genetic-trace/cid/1703089#aoh=16044667426235&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

journal, Cell (bit.do/e76Ne)

There is now overwhelming scientific evidence that proves that the Aryan Invasion Theory is a myth. It is fiction. It belongs in the Big League of unscientific theories (which some still believe in), alongside creationism, anti-evolutionism, the myth of Noah’s ark, and flat earth theory. The Aryan Invasion Myth: How 21st Century Science Debunks 19th Century Indology by A.L. Chavda

Max Muller: Persistent mistranslations of samskrtam and Hindu scriptures Sarma N Gullapalli http://www.anantaajournal.com/archives/2018/vol4issue1/PartB/4-1-17-129.pdf

F. Max Muller and a. B. Keith:" Twaddle", the" Stupid" Myth, and the Disease of Indology Herman Tull Numen 38 (1), 27-58, 1991 (Cited by 24) https://brill.com/view/journals/nu/38/1/article-p27_3.xml

If a link is inaccessible from Holland you probably shouldn't assume.

White supremacists should not be allowed to review ancient literature or scientific evidence on Indian cultural heritage.

Doveranalyst (talk) 05:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

There at least 15 citations to prove that AIT was a deliberate construct of the British Empire to promote white supremacy. By ignoring, neglecting & deliberately stopping any attempt to modify AIT after scientific evidence of DNA has debunked it, proves how Wikipedia is helping systemic oppression and racism.

A responsible community like Wikipedia must take actions to stop propagating racism. California University had to take down AIT after a law suit clearly stating the blasphemy to Hinduism and promoting slavery and racism if it were to continue. It is a deliberate lie told to Divide and Rule India and continuing it today after the oppressors have themselves confessed, is a gross injustice to humanity.

There was no DNA evidence back then. But DNA evidence today has proven AIT is fake across the scientific community. It is a shame and a rude shock that Wikipedia is taking actions to promote racism glorifying colonization and slavery by helping their fake propaganda of superiority still be spread.

Aryan Invasion Theory Debunked: https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/aryans-did-not-invade-india-or-destroy-the-indus-valley-civilisation-this-is-proof/324223/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Aryan-Dravidian-divide-a-myth-Study/articleshow/5053274.cms

https://indusscrolls.com/aryan-invasion-theory-deflated/

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/indians-are-not-descendants-of-aryans-study-148337-2011-12-10

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/aryan-invasion-debunked-35674

https://indiafacts.org/aryan-invasion-myth-21st-century-science-debunks-19th-century-indology/

https://arisebharat.com/2008/01/21/bbc-accepts-that-the-aryan-invasion-theory-is-flawed/

https://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2019/sep/15/its-all-in-the-genes-does-dna-call-bluff-on-aryan-invasion-theory-2032707.html

https://www.amrita.edu/news/myth-aryan-invasion

Max Muller was a paid employee of the British to deliberately offer a mistranslation of the Vedas. Citations: https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/max-muller-839064-2016-12-06

https://veda.wikidot.com/fundamentals-of-indology-wrong

https://www.salagram.net/MaxURdog.html Doveranalyst (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Here are some new links (none from a blog): https://www.deccanherald.com/national/new-dna-study-challenges-aryan-invasion-theory-759635.html

https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2019/09/06/new-study-debunks-aryan-invasion-theory.amp.html#aoh=16044667426235&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s Doveranalyst (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Joshua has conveniently not considered the links they themself had nothing to complain about.

The first few links only support Max Muller's translation was fake. So, judging them on not having evidence for AIT is a gross injustice.

They claim they know Max Muller translation was fake. But nothing in the Wikipedia article shows that. Instead they glorify a racist.

Here are new article citations debunking Aryan Invasion Theory: https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/rakhigarhi-dna-study-questions-aryan-invasion-theory-claims-author/articleshow/71001985.cms (Debunks both Invasion and migration)

In search of the cradle of civilization: new light on ancient India Subhash Kak, David Frawley Quest Books, 2001(cited by 20) In this ground-breaking book, three renowned scholars show that there was no" Aryan invasion," and that India, not Sumer, was the cradle of civilized humanity.

The paper concludes Indians came from a genetic pool predominantly belonging to an indigenous ancient civilisation. https://www.deccanherald.com/national/new-dna-study-challenges-aryan-invasion-theory-759635.html

The Myth of Aryan Invasion of India-M Lal Goel University of West Florida, accessed, 1996

Solid Evidence Debunking Aryan Invasion - David Frawley

https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2019/09/06/new-study-debunks-aryan-invasion-theory.amp.html#aoh=16044667426235&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/haryana/new-dna-study-debunks-aryan-invasion-theory-828918 https://theprint.in/india/aryan-invasion-theory-gets-a-setback-from-dna-study-of-2500-bc-rakhigarhi-skeletons/287454/ https://www.telegraphindia.com/amp/india/rakhigarhi-dna-does-not-contain-aryan-genetic-trace/cid/1703089#aoh=16044667426235&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

journal, Cell (bit.do/e76Ne)

There is now overwhelming scientific evidence that proves that the Aryan Invasion Theory is a myth. It is fiction. It belongs in the Big League of unscientific theories (which some still believe in), alongside creationism, anti-evolutionism, the myth of Noah’s ark, and flat earth theory. The Aryan Invasion Myth: How 21st Century Science Debunks 19th Century Indology by A.L. Chavda

Max Muller: Persistent mistranslations of samskrtam and Hindu scriptures Sarma N Gullapalli http://www.anantaajournal.com/archives/2018/vol4issue1/PartB/4-1-17-129.pdf

F. Max Muller and a. B. Keith:" Twaddle", the" Stupid" Myth, and the Disease of Indology Herman Tull Numen 38 (1), 27-58, 1991 (Cited by 24) https://brill.com/view/journals/nu/38/1/article-p27_3.xml

If a link is inaccessible from Holland you probably shouldn't assume.

White supremacists should not be allowed to review ancient literature or scientific evidence on Indian cultural heritage.

Doveranalyst (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Shinde et al. (2019) and the Rakhigarhi-DNA, see Rakhigarhi DNA, Ancient DNA study of skeletal remains of IVC, Shinde et al. (2019), Further confirmation of Narasimhan (2018). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, these sources are garbage. We can't rely on press coverage when it comes to prehistory, whether that's Indian newspapers or the BBC (the idea that the latter is somehow the arbiter of scientific consensus is bizarre). This article should be based on secondary, scholarly sources. @Doveranalyst: If the AIT has been as conclusively "disproved" as you say, it should not be hard to find those. – Joe (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
What Max Muller did is irrelevant to the veracity of history. Indeed, we should not use nationalistic Indian sources or the BBC to settle this, since they are non-experts and biased. Only scholarly, reviewed, and reliable sources should be admitted, especially on topics like this that attract the ires of nationalism. The vast majority of historians agree that indeed Indo-Aryan migrations did take place. Eccekevin (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Still not WP:FORUM for WP:FRINGE theories.
@Doveranalyst: Sure the AIT was valid up until it served a purpose - refer to the colonial times and as soon as the archaeological evidence from the Indus Valley started to turn up, the western AIT proponents had to let it go. But the irony is, when you read their work (such as Michael Witzel, Tony Joseph or even David Reich's interview) all they describe is an invasion. But they use the word migration. If you read the archaeological works published in last 15-20 years they don't even use the word 'Aryan' anymore because archaeologically there exist NO evidence or either a migration let alone invasion. Their amusing claims state that all the sudden the entire northern Indian subcontinent gave up their language without any struggle and also leaving ZERO evidence anywhere whatsoever. But when they talk about Rigveda they tell stories of demolishing castles, wars, fights etc etc. They are contradicting left & right. Now coming the "scholarly" term "migration". Shinde et al 2019, adds a small abstraction in the end that since the anatolian hypothesis is disapproved so the natural route of migration of IE language (proto Sanskrit) into South Asia is from the steppes. You can see clearly, they are not proving it. They are working on preconceived conclusions. Looking at the famour "Narasimhan et al 2019", it shows that average 12.6% of steppe ancestry is present in South Asians today. with IE speaker bearing 14.6 % steppe ancestry and Dravidian speakers bear 7.7% steppe ancestry. I don't know which scholar would conclude that the ancestry as little as 14.6% is capable of changing the language of an entire north%mid Indian subcontinent but leaving no archaeological & textual evidence. Another thing is that their own data does not agree with their added abstraction. There are four major issues there - (1) There is NO late harappan sample that they have, to prove their arguments. (2) There is not a single DNA sample found within the South Asia that actually belonge to the so called steppe migrants. (3) Their admixture data published in table S5 in their supplementary data(the spreadsheet) - it shows no significant admixture occurring between 2000-1500BC. The Kalash (29.8% steppe) and Pathan (28.1%) community that they seem to use as proxy of first Indus people to mix with steppe migrants - shows admixture dates of 2562BCE and 1 CE respectively - see their admixture is NOT between 2000-1500BC - NOTE that none of them are Brahmins as per AMT proponents claim of Brahmin being linguistic & Vedic custodians. Now lets look at the Brahmins' admixture dates - Bhumihar (714BCE), Tiwari (984BCE) and Brahmin-Bihar (488BCE), Jatt Sikh (320CE), Bhumihar-UP (609BCE). As I said Narasimhan's own data shows no correlation with their abstractions or assumption of Sanskrit migration into South Asia. (4) Look at the genetic profile of the SWAT valley aDNA (iron age) which is supposed to be the first mixing Indus people with migrants from steppe - there is a scarcity of steppe R1a, which implies that this population (steppe) was a different off-record population. This steppe migrants whose ancestry is present in SWAT aDNA is different from the "central asian" ancestry found in modern South Asians. The data is crystal clear on that. It is looking like the ancestry came later in first Millenium BCE and CE as Indian kingdoms evidently expanded into Afghanistan. Then if you look at the evidence of Sanskrit being indigenous - it is multiple layer. Look at the archeoastronomy evidence in the Surya Siddhanta where it talks about Two pole stars both in north and south celestial poles which occurred in 2200BCE(loosely) but 2900BCE(radically). Our Vedic texts are full of references of Thuban as the brightest north pole star which was around 3000BCE. This is a drop in the ocean. Another is archaeologically dated Mitanni and kassites who are also Mitanni like, these people shows complete similarity with LATE Rigvedic period (books). Even the AIT proponents agree that the separation of Indo-Aryans(Mitanni) from the original Indo-Aryans occurred around 1900 or 2000BCE. Look at the use of Prakritised word satta (seven, Sapta-sanskrit) in their archaeological data and there are several other words that they used were in Prakritised stage. All scholars agree that RIgved was written completely in the Indus region and since the Mitanni belong to the LATE rigveda period and share ZERO similarity with old Rigveda books, this implies that they actually migrated from proper Indian subcontinent around 2000BCE which places the Sanskrit in the Harappan period which had none steppe ancestry. You see, all the data is there. But the majority scholarship considered as reliable here in Wikipedia is the western Narrative. WIkipedia consider all the Indic POV scholars "unreliable" including Eminent Indian scholars and scientists such as BBLal, V Shinde, SR Rao, Niraj Rai, Subhash Kak, etc etc etc. You are only wasting your time here on Wikipedia arguying with these people whose main Job is to ensure that the western Narrative stays alive however flawed it is. Look at all the talk pages they are full of people like us. But completely pushed out and not considered at all. There is evidence upon evidence. Saraswati river's timeline is clearly seen in various Vedic and post Vedic Sanskrit texts. where old Rigveda verses talk about Saraswati river flowing from Mountains to the Ocean, then Mahabharata says Saraswati is disappearing in the dessert. Then newer books show neglection of Saraswati and call Sindhu as grand river contrary to old books. There are nearly 30+ scientific publication about Saraswati Palaeochannel. As I said there is multi layer evidence from linguistics to archaeology, to archeoastronomy etc. But all is being neglected in Wikipedia. because as I said, it is the editor's job to ensure only Western Narrative is reflected in the introduction part and also mostly in the body of the article, even when they have to consider Indic source, they will make sure that it is worded in such a way that it does not carry any weight for the readers and it is apparent in all Indian history related wiki article.--Xavidesh (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Xavidesh: oh really, Sūryasiddhānta talks about 2 pole stars both in north in 2900BCE. So surprising it is for your it seems! Here is a fact for you: there were two stars with significant magnitudes close to southern celestial poles 1) Around 200 BC: Beta Hydri just under two degrees off the South Celestial Pole, 2) Around 2900 BC: Achernar 8 degrees from the South Pole. Both are Almost impossible to be observed from India (at any time in history) due to their negative declination. Even southern crux with -60 (30 degree away from celestial South Pole) declination is visible only at horizon from tropical latitudes Please stop projecting poetic language and Astrological metaphor as literal observations. Now about Thuban: Both Polaris and Kochab (which was the pole star after 1800BCE) are significantly brighter than Thuban ChandlerMinh (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Xavidesh:

don't know which scholar would conclude that the ancestry as little as 14.6% is capable of changing the language of an entire north%mid Indian subcontinent but leaving no archaeological

oh really 14%, isn’t enough for changing language? Look at how many English words we use everyday even when conversing in native language? This change happened not because of British Invasion, but during the last few decade, Simply because the resource rich powerful few decided to use English. Look at how many words of Semitic-origin North Indians speak (Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi etc are replete with Semitic-origin words). It is never about having certain percentage of ancestry; it is all about hegemony. ChandlerMinh (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC) @Xavidesh:

All scholars agree that RIgved was written completely in the Indus region

firstly, there is only one Mandala in which Sindhu has more mention than Saraswati. There is only one Mandala in which mention of Saraswati is excluded but Sindhu is not mentioned at all in three Mandalas(2nd, 3rd and 6th). Another three mandalas mention Indus just once (5th, 7th and 9th). To claim that “RIgved was written completely in Indus region” is ridiculous. May be some parts of it were composed on places situated on banks of river Sindhu.

Secondly to make any such claim, you need to define what exactly you mean by Indus region. Indus is not 1000s of miles away from Aryavarta. Indus is a 3000+km long river. “Indus region” can mean many thing—Sindh, Punjab and even Kashmir and Ladakh. If you are trying to prove that people moved to Indus region from Saraswati valley after the latter dried and then went on to create urban centres it is outright anachronistic. According scholars (such as Kak) the river supposedly dried up in the early 2nd millennium BCE. Which means that, according to your theory, Harappa and Mohanjodaro came after 1900BCE. Which is laughable at best! Now coming back to your assumption that Vedic People and Harappan people are the same: 90% of Indus script seal and inscribed objects were found at Indus Valley, mainly at Mohanjodaro. All of this artefacts are dated well ahead of Kak’s date of Sarasvati’s extinction. Only less than 10% were found near Gaggar-Hakra paleochannel. Only way to prove that Saraswati people moved to Indus Valley and created magnificent citadels and infrastructure is to date the Indus artefacts to a period after 1900BCE. Or push the date of drying up to a pre-3300BCE era. Now you may come up with argument that most “Harappan type sites” are India. That may be true, but true only because Pakistan is a broken state and excavation on their side is nothing compared to what Indian state invest in archaeology. A Harappan type site is best defined by the Indus script seals found at various locations; as I said above, less than 10% of those seals have been found in India despite active excavation on Indian side.

Now the question of relation between Saraswati and Indus: Indus River flows through India too when a river go extinct people will move to the another nearest river i.e, from Saraswati valley to Indus Valley. Indus never went extinct. Hence, if you see RigVeda admiring Indus more than Saraswati in some parts, it is only because the next major river for them was the Indus. It doesn’t mean everything that was found on Indus Valley sites were created by the same people that authored the Vedas. Only Mandala of RigVeda in which Sindhu is mentioned more times than Saraswati is 1st Mandala (22:8). Even if we assume that this mandala is a later book, it still only proves that people moved to Indus Valley, but not necessarily that everything that found on Indus Valley sites were created by the same people that authored the Vedas.

No scholar today argues that RVeda was composed outside of India. The question is only how much of the content in it were inspired from within and outside the subcontinent. ChandlerMinh (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Note the racial angle

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Virtually all the experts cited in this article are white. Dozens of Indian experts and western writers in agreement with them have very different conclusions, which the white experts reject out of hand as Hindutva fascism, refusing even to read them. At least acknowledge that this is white people's version of history, instead of pretending that it's the unchallengeable absolute truth.

Then again, you can ignore my point and delete my protest, because you have the power. But the Wikipedia has lost all legitimacy on the subject of India because of its racist point of view. Sooku (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There is bias in the article.Shakespeare143 (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
It's called WP:RS. Ever wondered what it says about the state of Indian scholarship? Those "western writers in agreement with them" are the usual fellow-travellers: Frawley, Elst, and a few others. Note that Narasimhan is Indian, just like Romila Thapar, maybe the most acknowledged Indian historian. But alas, she's Marxist, isn't she? The usual refrain, just like 'racist bias'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Thapar is Marxist or not.Shakespeare143 (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I do agree that most of the sources which meet the WP:RS are, possibly, 'biased' as per the other editor's stance. It's a matter of fact that Indology as an academic study started in Europe during the Colonial era so don't be surprised that it's heavily biased and racist. More specifically, it's during the Victorian era, these theories or scholarships were being popularised and funded that because Max Muller found 'linguistic' similarities between Sanskrit and that of other EU languages. Although he explicitly mentioned that the usage of 'Aryan' is heavily tied up only in the linguistic sense, the idea is being picked up by the colonial era 'Indic' scholars and other race theory researchers who deliberately exploited the linguistic similarities towards racial theories, thus, eventually to the AIT sponsored by the Colonial empire, since India, at that time, was heavily repressed and exploited so you cannot expect the academic theories that they produce will be gratifying to the people of that culture. Most of the modern scholars quote or cite those, at some point or at least through a proxy to the original colonial theories. That's also the reason why we can see most of the 'academic sources', including journals and academic publications that meet the WP:RS is 'heavily' of Western origin which deliberately keeps people away as part of the gatekeeping mechanism. And people like Romila Thapar and other such scholars are 'allowed' in since they share the western narratives, she once argued against 'free-speech' in modern times in one of her interviews, since anyone can critique and challenge her works and no such gatekeeping exists other than in western academia. The reason for so-called "leftist" bias exists on Wikipedia is, in the name of 'academic freedom' scholars write their theories and when someone from the indigenous origin tries to refute, they'll be labeled as "right-wing" or, presumably, as "Hindutva". I do not neglect that Hindutva exists, but when responses to the Western theories, funded by the colonial empire or openly biased sources, is put forth, they're labeled as Hindutva which is false-positive, which make their further claims and future conversations on Indic responses automatically neglected since they're already given a label although they submit substantial compelling pieces of evidence. It's no surprise that only western sources, that fit into the popular biased narrative which also qualifies per WP:RS as a "source" in this particular matter. Joshua Jonathan does make a valid point that, if we need things to be placed on this website, they must abide by this website's policies i.e. sources that meet WP:RS, which is the irony. —WikiLinuz (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
See Ram Kelkar (12 april, 2021), The Nationalists Try – But India Remains Among the World's Oldest Melting Pots for the perennial 'argument' that the IAmt is a colonial oppressive narrative. Sad fact is that Indigenists do not provide solid arguments; their main ammunition is polemics and distorted presentations of academic scholarship.
regarding

[1] Most of the modern scholars quote or cite those[...] [2] That's also the reason why we can see most of the 'academic sources' [...] is 'heavily' of Western origin [3] which deliberately keeps people away as part of the gatekeeping mechanism.

  • ad [1]: do they? And if they do, is that their main source of information, c.q. facts? Is the genetic research of people like Narasimhan, or the historical analysis of people line Romila Thapar, based on 19th century publications?
  • ad [2]: so, because scholars cite 19th century sources, the relevant scholarship is mostly of western origin?
  • ad [3]: and because scholars alledgedly cite 19th century sources, non-mainstream publications are not considered to be meeting scholarly standards?
As a reminder: it is Indigenists who heavily rely on outdated 19th scholarship, not present-day mainstream scholars. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality-tag

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

@BawinV: you added a neutrality-tag diff, edit-summary There's a lot of WP:OR, and neutrality concerns in this article in its use of language and tone and sources, but without any further explanation at the talkpage. Given the contentious nature of the topic, the factuality of which is often disputed by people who wish to ignore the scholarly data, merely placing a tag without further explanation won't suffice. Specifically:

  • which statements or sections are WP:OR?
  • which statements or sections are violating WP:NEUTRAL?
  • which language and tone is non-neutral?
  • which sources are not neutral?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You, as the major contributor of this article, I contend your credibility if that's what you want to hear from me. "Given the contentious nature of the topic, the factuality of which is often disputed by people who wish to ignore the scholarly data..." or the scholarly data you have willfully ignored in order to downplay alternate research. This has to reach a wider audience of editors, not just the close associates or the author of this article. And you removing the neutrality tag is only making all of this look fishy. The talk discussion topics raised by other editors before mine also bring up the same concerns of bias and inconsistency. I think it's about time this lack of WP:NPOV is fixed. I withdraw my comments. I'm not interested in this topic anymore. Ronherry (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Please be specific; also, explain which "scholarly data" has been ignored. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

User:BawinV, I think you need to read Wikipedia's norms on constructive tagging. Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Reference error

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Boynamedsue: could you check reference number 90 in this article, which you added a few hours ago? I suspect that there's a typo in the reference name, but it's throwing an error. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Wham2001, I'm not sure what you mean by this, what was the error you noted? Boynamedsue (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

If you check item 90 in the references list there's an error message that reads Cite error: The named reference parpola was invoked but never defined. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi everyone,

in the section titled "Indigenous Aryanism", can you add a small note that states the main article is on Indigenous Aryanism (using a format like {{main|Indigenous Aryanism}}? There is not enough information in this one small section to cover everything about that topic, so if readers are taken to an existing article specifically dedicated to the topic, it would be more helpful for them. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

There's already a link. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
More specifically, this section is not trying to summrise Indigenous Aryanism. It is just stating the fact that such a thesis exists. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you everybody for the explanation. So the {{Main}} template is only used when there is no link in the section already? 98.179.127.59 (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It is used when the section is a summary of the main article. See template:Main. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

If I am right, Wikipedia allows the other point of view also, so please add a sentence in the introduction, "However, DNA evidence suggests that there was no Aryan migration into India." This, this and this can be cited as sources for the same.-Terrorism2increase (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it can be the last sentence of the introduction.-Terrorism2increase (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, these are not reliable sources for the subject at hand, viz., DNA evidence. Scientific research is published in peer-reviewed journals. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
We've discussed Shinde's personal convictions before; he was lucky to collaborate with real scientists, but missed the opportunity to take a serious stance. See this note. A.L. Chavda is nonsense; see here for his rambling and misinformed views on Indian history. The guy cherry-picks "information," meanwhile ignoring the bulk of contemporary research, and presenting a parody of the IAmt as the scholarly view to be abandoned. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, you give too much AGF to Shinde. I regard the Deccan College as a form of scientific insurgency. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The contents in the links posted by OP are garbage. The paper (first author Shinde, BTW) has this: "These individuals had little if any Steppe pastoralist-derived ancestry, showing that it was not ubiquitous in northwest South Asia during the IVC as it is today". I am just putting this out once again. Anyone using "AIT" just gives away their game. Chaipau (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Laughter riot

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03769836211052101

Enjoy! TrangaBellam (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ahem. Not a single degree (see the programs tab) is remotely linked to history or archeology.
ICHR used to be the the crown of all journals on history and allied fields, published from India. Atleast till a couple of decades back. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Fascinating career for our author. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
A journal—admired by Eric Hobsbawm to be "the richest venue for vigorous discussions on Indian History"—publishing ridiculous articles by a non-qualified author about our subject not only raises valid concern about the reliability of peer-review process under the current political regime but also protects our article from upcoming shenanigans.
This is not the first time, I am seeing journals published by institutes which are controlled by the Government of India publishing anti-AMT narratives in hitherto reliable journals. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not laughing. I am seriously concerned. If the journal has been hijacked by the BJP, all the articles published in it under the BJP administration will have to be declared as unreliable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The editor-in-chief is the president of ICHR, Arvind Jamkhedkar, the Chancellor of the Deccan College. So I am not surprised stuff like this is appearing in the journal. All the editors are also members of ICHR. I can't recognize any of these names. Perhaps you can. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Here is Deccan College for you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Here's an article (published today) detailing the infiltration of Hindutva into ICHR. The report mentions one Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana; I am hearing of the organization for the first time but our article was written by Vanamonde93.
That being said, I will appreciate anybody who can email me a copy of the article. I am not a subscriber. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@Kautilya3, I am acquainted with none but have come across Kapil Kumar from Twitter. Tanwar's book on Kashmir is on my to-read list. I faintly recall Kadam being in the news for inviting G. D. Bakshi (!) to speak about AMT/AIT at Dept. of History, JNU, Delhi.
Both Kadam and Kumar being in ICHR is worrying. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

India is a place where pseudoscience is preached in schools as science. Therefore Such publications in hitherto reliable journals are no surprise. ChandlerMinh (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Theory"

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

@WikiLinuz - you reverted my earlier edit which stated in the lead section that this is a "theory".

Throughout the article, in numerous sections, there is this mention of it being a theory.

Based on that, I edited the lead section and added the above.

Look forward to hearing back from you... StolenFocus007 (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a fact, not a theory. And we're not talking about scientific theory either. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 18:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
How can it not be a theory when it is called a theory ? 59.89.154.11 (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
It is literally mentioned in the article that it is a theory . 59.89.154.11 (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migrations/Archive_10&oldid=1255756910"