Talk:Out of India theory

Haven't seen a more noodle article yet!

It feels like all warring editors divided the article area and went on writing eloquent prose. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Prior contributors

There may be multiple prior contributors to this article that need to be integrated, please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sbhushan/OIT and User:Sbhushan/OIT. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean the contents from that userpage? I've just added a map from that userpage. it's very revealing; to my personal opinion, anyone who seriously suggests that those Indo-Aryans first migrated as far as Europe, and then southward into India - well, have a look at that map... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Fringe

WP:FRINGE:

"We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

None of these hypothesis are facts, they are only proposals, not supported by scientific theories. Are they all fringe? Only those theories can be added to this category, that are explicitly supported by a reliable source as fringe, for example Christ myth theory is a fringe theory or Aliens built pyramids. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. Since we are "nut cases", we find it worthwhile to write about fringe theories. Scientists won't bother. So, looking for scientific evidence of the "fringeness" of theories would be a red herring. Deciding whether a theory qualifies to be a fringe theory is an integral part of how much scientific weight we give to a theory. If the scientific weight is zero or close to zero, then it is obviously a fringe theory. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Just like astrology,(based on archaeological evidences but not scientific), these proposals are not considered as facts, but if they have been abnormal in their usual form(like Aliens made pyramid), then it is fringe. Those who support them are fringe advocate. But here, whole thing is different. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

"Aliens made pyramids" would not even be a fringe theory. It is a really a hoax. We label fringe theories as such because they have the appearance of a scientific theory and, so, our readers are likely to carry away a mistaken impression from our coverage. But we are covering the theory, not because it has any merit, but rather because people might want to know what the theory is. But this particular page is so bad that I don't think anybody will understand anything about what it is saying. Sorry if I am offending anybody. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Some people try hard to prove, while hoax are not even taken seriously. You are correct about this page. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya, not sure I agree that WP sees fringe as being by definition anything which has low "scientific weight". An openly non-scientific concept, or a concept which is simply not well known, could slip into this definition. To be a fringe theory it has to be misunderstood by a significant number or type of people as having a "high" "scientific weight" when it does not. Note that this does imply that we should be able to find sources stating that there is a notable misunderstanding. Perhaps it is helpful to make a distinction between "minority" positions, which are sometimes quite respected, and "fringe" positions, which are generally by definition known as being criticized by the mainstream.

To be clear: I am not sure what my position would be about the subject of this article. Part of the problem is simply that the theory is hardly discussed anymore by serious mainstream scientists. Arguably it has never been more than a side remark in serious discussion, and never one which attracted many fans in science (outside of non scientists who saw this as somehow interesting for reasons of national pride?). So it has a possible problem with WP:NOTE.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

From Prema Kurien's A place at the multicultural table : the development of an American Hinduism. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-4055-9: The adherents include western archeologists such as Jim Shaffer, leading Indian archeologists such as B. B. Lal and S. R. Rao, and an Indian linguist, S. S. Misra, few other contemporary exponents of this thought are Shrikant Talageri, and K. D. Sethna (all based in India), David Frawley (based in the United States), and Indian or Indian American computer scientists such as N. S. Rajaram, S. Kalyanaraman, and Subhash Kak (a professor of engineering at Louisiana State University). The Belgian scholar Koenraad Elst has a research degree (Ph.D.) in an area relevant to the topic (linguistics and the Aryan debate).

From "Ancient Indian Warfare" in Oxford Bibliographies Online: William Jones held his famous talk at the Asiatic Society in Calcutta in 1786 explaining that the Sanskrit language had closer affinities with Greek and Latin than could possibly have been produced by accident.

There has been serious scientific discussion about the topic covered widely in secondary reliable sources with scientific evidence given in favour and opposition of the hypothesis by competent researchers. Do the non-adherents label it as fringe? I believe the disucssion is still going on in the scientific community. Two academic current sources discussing the theory in extreme detail: 1. Bryant, Edwin (2005). The Indo-Aryan controversy : evidence and inference in Indian history. London New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-7007-1462-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) 2. Trautmann, Thomas (2007). The Aryan debate. New Delhi New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-569200-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) The first book completely supports this theory the second one partly supports and partly refutes. Yes, this page is in bad shape. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have read both Bryant's and Trautmann's books from cover to cover, and I can tell you that Bryant does not support OIT. He certainly treats the theory with respect and tries to be fair to all the arguments, but he makes it clear in the last chapter that he does not think it is likely to be true. Paul B (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Debate! In a civilised manner! Nice. To poke the fire: A theory that is supported by both Frawley and Elst (and don't forget Feuerstein) is almost by definition fringe - or would that be a tautology, in this case? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

None of them are known as fringe advocates. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You're serious? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to brand people like that. My assessment of David Frawley is that he knows his Hinduism, but he is by no means a scientist. Koenraad Elst had a good promise to become a scientist, but he chose not to be one. To the best of my knowledge, he never published anything in a scientific journal; submitting his ideas to scientific scrutiny is not something that appeals to him. Raking up the emotions of gullible Indians is his forte, not that they really needed his help!

Amritasya gave a long list of people, scientific and unscientific included. When somebody that has actually read the science responded, it doesn't seem like he knows what to say.

There is also the problem that some scientists, for whatever reason, decide to dabble in amateur science of another flavour. For example, B. B. Lal, an archaeologist by profession, dabbles in comparative linguistics. "I know my Sanskrit. So what is the problem?" he says. Subhash Kak, an engineer by profession is even further away. If the OIT folks clean their list of supposed scientists, and present a reasonable list, we can at least begin to look at them. But I think they really don't know the difference between real science and pseudo science. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Just like Byrant had written, that some accept linguistics as important source, but some consider them to be pseudoscience. It not uncommon to see people considering such linguistics as pseudoscience. That would put all of these proposals into same league. Scientific theory only believes on early migrations based on homo sapiens. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Which people consider linguistics to be pseudoscience? And, why? Kautilya3 (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Not all, just specific ones. See Pseudoscientific language comparison - second and third paragraph, it is limited with a few concepts, I wouldn't know many and that article is not very big. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

(inserting in the middle so as to keep the context) @Bladesmulti: That page says "linguistic comparisons are considered pseudoscientific by linguists when they are not based on the established practices of comparative linguistics, or on the more general principles of the scientific method." This is real linguists complaining about pseudoscientific people. The page doesn't say that linguistics itself is pseudo-scientific. So, we are back to square-A with the argument you made. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I said some, it includes those linguistics that have been disputed, and not really confirmed, I was talking about those linguistics that have been related with these theories, That's why I started with Edwin Byrant, about whom we were discussing before. And that wikipage was just an idea that how pseudoscience is possible among the linguistics. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

From the lead: "George describes it as "lunatic fringe" and "devoid of scholarly value"." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not actually about OIT, nor he is claiming them to be something that would qualify as fringe theory. There's no reason to claim these as fringe theories. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Like Paleolithic Continuity Theory, they have some academic support. But I think that it is not the reason that they become fringe theories. Most of the historians agree that Kurgan/indo-aryan migrations might have happened, not that they did happen. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent deletion

@VictoriaGrayson:, I was not entirely sure why you deleted the content you did. Your edit-summary said OR and SYNTH, but the content seemed to have sources. I am not an expert on OIT, but I do know something about heredity, gene sequencing, and using those things to map population movements; and it seems to me that the sources are adequate in that respect. If this is a questions of due weight (which seems a legitimate concern) surely that argues for trimming and not deletion? Or is there something I am missing? Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

None of the genetics studies mention Out of India theory. Thus WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my! That is a rather bold deletion. I hope you have the stomach for a long drawn out battle! Kautilya3 (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

VictoriaGrayson, a study does not have to mention OIT to be relevant. As an example, I looked at the Chaubey et al source. While I agree that far too much detail was used in those sections, Chaubey's basic point was that DNA evidence makes it unlikely that a large-scale migration from the Indian subcontinent ever happened. The proponents of OIT are saying that such a migration did happen; it is essential to their theory, and so contradictory evidence is relevant. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Your response is a perfect example of WP:OR.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not. OR is presenting content that does not have a source, or using a source to reach a conclusion not supported by the source. If Chaubey were used to say "therefore OIT is false" it would be OR. Chaubey is used to say "Chaubey says DNA evidence shows no major migration happened out from India." This is exactly what the source says, and stating that is not OR. It is not SYNTH either, because we are discussing a single source at present. I would appreciate it if you would engage more fully here, rather than restricting yourself to one line responses. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

WP: OR states "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article." Directly related is even bolded. The genetic studies don't mention OIT. Furthermore, I challenge you to provide a reliable source that talks about OIT using genetic studies.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

And I have demonstrated that it is related, because the source talks about migration out of India. WP:OR does not say the source needs to refer to the topic by its common name. There's a god reason for that, too; OIT has traditionally been the province of linguists and historians, not biologists. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that talks about OIT via genetic studies. This is the second time I am asking. Please prove these are "related" as you claim.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that any source that talks about large-scale human migration out of the Indian subcontinent subsequent to the initial colonization, is irrelevant unless it uses the specific phrase "Out of India Theory?" Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, what think you of this? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that talks about OIT while citing genetic studies. Just one. This is the third time I am asking.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Answer my question. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Dbachmann added the tags more than a year back on which VictoriaGrayson acted. Unless the sources explicitly connect it to OIT, which is the article topic, we are not to do it. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this on user:Cullen328‎'s talk page. Generally speaking the source material should establish relevance to the subject of the article, in addition to verifying the information. If the source does not use the same exact term as the subject of the article, but is relevant, a supplementary source should be used establishing the connection between the two concepts or terms. If it is necessary to compare the subject of the article to alternative theories, a source should be used that does the same, rather than us contrasting the two where the sources do not.

There are cases where a source does not need to establish relevance, because others do. An example of this might be as follows: In contrast, alternative theory ____ is widely considered better(citation that specifically makes this comparison). That alternative belief says _____ (source further explains alternative belief; does not need to mention article-subject)

However, in every circumstance, at least one source should verify relevance to the subject of the article before information is introduced. CorporateM (Talk) 05:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, peace. A cursory search yields no linking source which says that the OIT may itself be addressed using genetic methods. However, the article section here explicitly says that Elst's version of the theory, which is sourced, says that Aryans migrated out of India into central Europe. The source in question deals with migration out of India. CorporateM, is this link still too tenous? If your answer is a yes, I am willing to drop it; I would just rather hear that from somebody who didn't come into this conversation insisting that they are right. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Mine is an outside opinion here, because I don't care either way about the issue of this article. If the OIT says that the Indo-European languages have originated in India and spread to the rest of Asia and Europe, then the fact that there was no large-scale migration of people out of India is certainly relevant. We would be remiss not to mention that. (I do know that languages can spread without large-scale migrations of people but they are much less likely to do so.) Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Also from WP:OR: "synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". those studies on genetics do not mention the OIT, do they? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Not really, paragraphs may have been added years ago and no one really observed. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 The section you linked to "Chronology" has only one source (citation 13), which appears to be to be a 404 error on my computer at least. I may have misunderstood. CorporateM (Talk) 13:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry. Without intending disrespect for any one, I have to say that we have wikilawyering and POV-pushing going on. The first sentence of the article says: "The Out of India theory (OIT)... is the proposition that the Indo-European language family...spread to the remainder of the Indo-European region through a series of migrations.". So, migrations are considered the basis of the OIT. The lead paragraph that VictoriaGrayson deleted says, "And Hemphill (1998) finds "no support for any model that calls for the ultimate origins of north Bactrian oasis Oxus Civilization populations to be inhabitants of the Indus Valley." So, this is directly contradicting the main thesis of OIT. And, the justification for deletion is that Hemphill et al. don't mention OIT by name? This directly relates what I said in the previous section that we can't expect scientists to name and worry about every fringe theory in existence. Scientific papers don't debate. They present facts. When the facts contradict the theory, they have to be mentioned here. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to urge all the people arguing against "synthesis" to read WP:SYNTHNOT. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to be civil and assume good faith, weighing the sources carefully and providing thoughtful input. Accusing an editor of wikilawyering and POV pushing I think has the effect of disrespecting editors and creating a contentious editing environment. Sticking to the sources, we do really need a source about the Out of India Theory that makes the relevance connection to the material if the content were to be included. CorporateM (Talk) 19:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I guess we can wait for such; the use of genetics to understand historical population movements is a new field, and it will not be long before somebody makes the connection, methinks. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

But the deleted section is relevant to the Out-of-India theory. They don't mention it explicitly because it's a crackpot theory not endorsed by mainstream science. Your argument VictoriaGrayson is equivalent to "research on evolution does not directly refute creationism, therefore it shouldn't be present in the article on creationism since it does not directly mention the word creationism". Just like nobody published real scientific papers that describe evolutionary processes in order to refute creationism, nobody publishes genetics-related papers on Indian population disproving Out of India theory. Papers that prove Indo-Aryan migrations (pretty much all in the section that you deleted) ipso facto refute Out-of-India theory. We're doing disservice to readership by not mentioning them. It gives impression that Out-of-India theory has no downsides at all! Your argument is simply fallacious, to put it mildly. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk Keep discussion in one place. I have asked you before if you are creating a new crackpot theory because migration is not limited with just one single event that may have happened, according to many scholars. You can understand by now that why none of these citations have any mention about those particular migrations, as they have nothing to do with the genetic researches. Evolution has universal acceptance but none of these theories or hypothesis have any universal acceptance. Stay on the subject. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

none of these citations have any mention about those particular migrations Oh yes they do. It's just that you haven't actually read them so you're pulling such claims out of your ass.no offense! There were more than 20 references in the section, and while agree that many of them were original synthesis, many are plainly not. Some of them are tertiary sources that mention genetics research as supportive evidence of Indo-Aryan migrations. E.g. Wells 2002, p. 167., [1] - R1a1/M17 as evidence for IA migrations. Same for the frequency in upper castes which I gave you links for in the other discussion.

OOIT/Indigineous Aryans and Indo-Aryan migrations are two sides of the same coin. The reason for removal of the entire genetics sections is plainly retarded. Someone needs to comb through all of its references and restore the relevant parts. Genetics is a very important counter-evidence against OOIT that must be mentioned. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you are trying to do research on something that doesn't exists, do any of these [2] [3] mentioned about Indo-European migration, or Kurgan Hypothesis, or OIT(most needed for this page)? They haven't. From where you discovered such synthesis, it is irrelevant to discuss. If you have problem with other references, you can fix them or write about them on a new section. You have incompetence in English and understanding of citations, I have to say your discussions are not helping anyone or anything anymore at the moment, you should drop it, and if anything further needs to be said, do it in a civil way. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, for Wikipedia, it seems that 2+2 is 4 only if a reliable source says that it is. Hopefully, we won't need an inline-attribution when we find such a source. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

2+2=4 is perfectly fine. See WP:CALC. WP:SYN explains in some detail when combining information is acceptable and when it is not. There will always be grey areas of course. The matter is complcated by WP:PARITY, which allows weaker sources for mainstream opinion when fringe views are being expounded by equivalent sources, but this is only in cases when the connections have already been made by the source, not by the editor. Paul B (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, WP:SYN is a very confusing document. One should always read it along with WP:SYNTHNOT, and even then things are not always clear. The main point is that whether a particular piece of synthesis constitutes "original research" is not expected to be "obvious". So, we need to put our thinking hats on. I see people refusing to do that. If the sources spell it out in black and white, things would be rather more convenient. Then we wouldn't need to think. It is a pity. We are trying to author an encyclopedia in this fashion. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You are quite right that each case is different and there are many difficult areas. The evolution example illustrates it. You can argue that a creationist claim is contradicted by scientific evidence for evolution even if the scientific source makes no mention of creationism, since evolution is by definition contrary to creationism. In this case the various histories of haplogroups are not obviously linked to the introduction and spread of specific languages, so a connection has to be made by the editor. Paul B (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

In this case the various histories of haplogroups are not obviously linked to the introduction and spread of specific language - yes they are, because only upper castes have introduced and retained the Vedic traditions and social order, and incidentally they also retain higher frequency of the invading genes. There are multiple studies on that and standard reference works mention that as irrefutable evidence for Indo-Aryan migrations, ergo we must do so as well. Ancient history of the haplogroups themselves is irrelevant for this particular case. Who care where they originate 15-40k years ago - that's way beyond the Indo-European timeframe. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk. I couldn't understand that comment. Our main concern in this thread is whether the genetic studies are relevant to OIT. My position is that they are because the genetic studies show there has been no outgoing migration whereas OIT says there is. A lot of people don't seem to see this as a contradiction. Beats me why. Bringing in religion, castes etc. digresses the discussion far too much. Can we just focus on migration? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Are genetic studies relevant? Yes they probably are. But the relevance has to identified by the sources, not by the editor. They are also frankly hell to map onto specific events like the advent of a language. In the past these genetics sections have become quagmires of competing and deeply confusing claims. Just last year an IP appeared who repeatedly touted a study that contained the words "our study basically discards Aryan theory" [4]. And just today, we've had this edit. Also many "scientific" studies often come with agendas. One would expect "invasive" genes to be more prominent in the upper echelons of society: because invaders typically become or merge with the upper classes. And of course invasion/migration has been a continuous process throughout history - there wasn't just a single event. That does not tell us who introduced a language or a culture (did the "invaders" acculturate to an existing system, impose their own, or something in between?). Of course the argument you present - that evidence of invasive genes in upper castes supports the into-india theory - has been made. Bryant summarises those arguments, though that was some years ago (part of the problem with this issue is that the evidence changes so rapidly that reliable sources become dated quickly). But what we need are sources that say this directly "Here's genetic evidence. This supports population history model X and weakens model Y". Paul B (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Admin Assistance

Assistance in merging the histories of this article and Indigenous Aryans is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Merging the histories is out of the question, as the two articles have very different histories. History merging is only for cases where the history of what is effectively one article has been broken, most commonly as a result of a copy-paste move. Merging of the content of the articles, on the other hand, is something which any editor can do, and an administrator is no more able to do it than any other editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)