Demise007

Welcome!

Hello Demise007! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (Demise007) is used to identify you instead. In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - theWOLFchild 12:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

February 2016

I reverted your edit to Sanskrit because it appeared unconstructive. Please discuss the matter at the article's talk page if you think your edit was useful. Thanks. —  Rebbing  talk  12:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

rebbing lemme tell you what is unconstructive: Supporting theories which are not certainly proved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Demise007 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 23 February 2016

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sanskrit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. - ^theWOLFchild 12:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sanskrit. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - ^theWOLFchild 12:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Sanskrit. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. - ^theWOLFchild 12:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

reply

rebbing WOLF Unconstructive? bahahahha here i thought supporting a baseless theory which has no proof and certainly is a hypothesis which mis-leads is un constructive lol, i am ready to give references & proofs, leave them alone guys lol makes me laugh.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Demise007 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 23 February 2016 UTC

Yo, I looked at your past edits, and it appears you're "edit warring," which is strictly forbidden and will quickly get you blocked. Before attempting to make any further changes to that article, please read WP:WAR and WP:3RR.

Also, per WP:MINOR, "[a]ny edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if the edit concerns a single word, and it is improper to mark such an edit as minor." Edits like this, this, this,this, or this are not minor edits. —  Rebbing  talk  12:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Gotta take all the possible screenshots of what you guys support and say, how BIASED you are, lemme tell all of it to the people who's heritage you guys tend to destroy by mis-guiding them , how you can you keep so much hatred inside for some regions?

do you think outta your butt ? They won't conquer your land certainly as their religion and teachings are way more good for peeps like you to understand indeed rebbing

rebbing I added stuff with proof, ever heard about Swami Vivekanada, he himself cleared Aryan BS, there are many more "PROVEN" papers which say so but you guys ain't worried b/c you guys don't want to contribute to something good actually.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Demise007 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 23 February 2016‎

@Demise007: - If you disagree with the content of any article, you are free to discuss, and even debate, the matter on the article's talk page, as long as you do so with civility and within the guidelines of the project. What you're doing right now on the Sanskrit page, as well as with your abusive edit summaries, is considered disruptive editing and it will lead to you being blocked. Please read through the 'welcome' template that I added to the top of this page. There are plenty of links to useful information that will help you to contribute more effectively. - ^theWOLFchild 12:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thewolfchild well Sure i would like to discuss BUT think for a second (Personal attack removed)& you believe that hypothesis of aryan theory, let me ask you a question, If sanskrit is Indo-EU, i am from EU why can't i see any of the sites or scriptures consisting of "sanskrit" in my land? where is it ? this simple question even clears the aryaan theory hypothesis which you guys have shared, i don't know whether you have shared b/c you think of it as "proven" (Personal attack removed). I am born in EU i don't see any sanskrit or Vedic stuff in my history, how the flying RAT can their sanskrit be Indo-EU Aryan stuff? lol Well that makes me say that, i am not the ONE who maintains wikipedia, YOU guys do, for the sake of GOOD please research and revise your topics & correct them ASAP. Your half knowledge can be good for you but not good for someone who wants to learn.. no offense bud, just giving example. Revise the Stuff for sake of being "good" at-least. Being said this, it clears why 90% of wikipedia is mis-leading regarding their heritage. Abusive-Edit-Summary ? Correcting things the straight way is abusive? but sharing what is wrong is not @Thewolfchild: ? Dude please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Demise007 (talk • contribs) 13:00, February 2016

You're arguing with the wrong people. You need to discuss this at the article's talk page if you want these changes made; I'm only enforcing editing policy, and your childish insults aren't particularly persuasive, especially since they're so poorly written. — Rebbing talk 13:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Demise007: - I have removed some of the insults from your comments above. Consider this (another) warning; such behavior is not permitted or tolerated here, per WP:CIVIL. With that said, you should know that I'm not here to argue with you, or even debate that particular article. I have never even read it, never mind contributing to it, so your comments are misplaced. (There are over 5 million articles and tens of thousands of active users here). I noticed your mass removals on the recent changes and responded. Seriously, tone it down and start using some civility and maturity, or your account will be blocked from editing. This is no joke. You'll be blocked and you won't be able to contribute to this article that has upset you so much. You won't be able to right any wrongs. Please reconsider your approach here. - ^theWOLFchild 13:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Should i insult you in good British Accent Sir? Just correct those topics if you can't at-least inform the peeps who can, you know the amount of being "surprised" is the reason why can't i even type without some good heavy laughs lol— Preceding unsigned comment added by Demise007 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 23 February 2016

I would suggest showing that you can grasp even the simplest and most basic concepts of editing here before you do anything else. You are criticizing others (about things you apparently know very little of), and yet you can't even sign and indent your posts properly. I have wasted enough time with you. I'll be watching for further violations, but I won't be indulging you anymore of your talk page nonsense. - ^theWOLFchild 13:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

"(about things you apparently know very little of)" lol yea, the theory ofcourse smh. Yea i have read regarding your rules of editing, don't go so hard for it, show that kind of motivation is sharing truth for good. The thing is i am thinking, is it even worth to start a debate here? i think not, i am pretty much familiar with my own people's history. i should correct those who;s stuff you guys have been playing with. @Thewolfchild: Rest i would like to leave this here if someone is willing to correct things :

1. - http://www.stephen-knapp.com/aryan_invasion_theory_the_final_nail_in_its_coffin.htm
2. - http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/amythofaryaninvasionsofindia.pdf

@Thewolfchild: Thank you for the good time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Demise007 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 February 2016

"i should correct those who stuff you guys have been playing with" - Well, you go do that then. Show us all! (good luck with that) Bye. - ^theWOLFchild 13:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Nah, i don't need a good luck for that, if i am telling them that "this website is wrong, that source is right" i think it is doing something good or not? Well don't worry about all that.. just go through the links shared and if possible, ask others to go through it too. The Aryan theory is weak and not proved while on the other hand, stuff against aryan hypothesis makes sense and IS proved. Please correct the info ASAP after going through above articles. @Thewolfchild:

Woot? i say Woot?

1- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AAryan_invasion_theory/Archive_1

2- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AAryan_invasion_theory/Archive_2

There were discussions on this in past despite of THAT, the thing is not corrected & researched. @Thewolfchild: @Rebbing:

NOTED* , this should be against wikipedia rules, why the whole thing is not corrected yet?

Again the proofs with well researched articles:-

1- http://www.stephen-knapp.com/aryan_invasion_theory_the_final_nail_in_its_coffin.htm

2- http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/amythofaryaninvasionsofindia.pdf

SHAME--Wikipedia, These things are not corrected despite of all the proofs, researches and "TALKS" @Thewolfchild: @Rebbing:

This is Purely Mis-guiding People Correct that info ASAP.

EDIT: As it is said, are you in favor of Same political Methodology of Britishers? Create confusion "divide Rule" ETC or in support of Sharing What is TRUE.@Thewolfchild: @Rebbing:

So no answer regarding this above? What a Biased act, accepting This Hypothesis is like mis-guiding those people for no reason despite all the

Proof that is available to prove this Aryan Hypothesis wrong,or i should say for mis-guiding "some" reason?

"Well, you go do that then. Show us all" <- This statement is more of like:

1- Show us all the proof you want, We won't allow to change, it is what it is.

It is not at all expected from a Website that claims itself as "DATABASE" of knowledge, this is a Shame.

Well, I need a answer or a view on above shown researches regarding why this hypothesis is wrong.Demise007 (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC) @Thewolfchild:

I would like to add one more well researched article to:

1- http://www.stephen-knapp.com/solid_evidence_debunking_aryan_invasion.htm@Thewolfchild:

Stop propagating false researches, the thing which has more proofs is meant to be taken as 'knowledge' then which has less.Demise007 (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

शुभरात्री

In case you missed it, I said I was no longer interested in discussing this issue with you here, (or anywhere else, really). Stop pinging me. And you can stop your rants and demands here while you're at it. No one is going to make any changes to any articles simply at your command. If you want changes at the Sanskrit page, (or any page), you need to make them yourself. You need to be able to write in clear and competent English prose, with an encyclopaedic and neutral tone, and your edits must be supported by reliable sources. If you can't do any of that, then I suggest you go to the article's talk page, and post your suggested edits, or any other requests, in a polite and mature fashion. If your suggestions are collegial and an improvement to the article, then they may very well be added. Failing any of this, you are simply wasting your time. Consider this your last warning; if you notify me or anyone else here again to this nonsense here on your talk page, you will be reported for disruptive behavior and very likely blocked from editing. - ^theWOLFchild 16:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Yea i know it, i know it all... well nevermind lol thank you for the good time, now let me proceed according to the rules & face what "authors" has to say, i have evidences, many of them which will certainly improve these things. Thewolfchild — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demise007 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 23 February 2016

Sign your posts

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. And read WP:INDENT as well.

Thank you. - ^theWOLFchild 13:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. - ^theWOLFchild 13:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Aryan invasion theory. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It says

"This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please :do so on the current talk page."

So i followed it and did that on "current talk page." then your message showed up, well if i want to start a discussion, where should i do it if not :on "Current Talk Page" ? @Joshua Jonathan:Demise007 (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

"Aryan invasion"

Please stop spamming, and read Talk:Indigenous Aryans/Archive 3#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: My question is simple, i want to discuss regarding aryan invasion hypothesis, i have evidence, where do i start

discussion from?Demise007 (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ehm... Right here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, here you go

The following articles are well researched that are enough to show/prove that Aryan theory is mis-leading and wrong.

The links of articles are:

1- http://www.stephen-knapp.com/aryan_invasion_theory_the_final_nail_in_its_coffin.htm

2- :::http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/amythofaryaninvasionsofindia.pdf

3- http://www.stephen-knapp.com/solid_evidence_debunking_aryan_invasion.htm

There are many more 'Proofs' available in the form of well researched articles that shows that Aryan invasion Hypothesis is purely wrong@Joshua Jonathan: Demise007 (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I took a look at Stephen Knapp: it's pure fringe. Just like Madan Lal Goel. Not to mention David Frawley. They prove only one thing: those authors are out of touch with the scholarly mainstream - with anything that deserves the name "scholarship."

Two general comments: the present theory is not an "Aryan Invasion Theory," but an "Indo-Aryan migration theory." And it is based on linguistics, and linked to archeology. The linguistic part is not disregarded.

One fellow editor already wrote that you should read David Anthony's The Wheel, the Horse, and Language. A very good book indeed. You can also read the Wiki-articles on the Indo-Aryan migration theory, Indigenous Aryans, and Indo-Aryan migration debate, for an overview of the scholarly concencus, and the fringe rejection of this concensus. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not fringe, the thing is you can't accept it b/c of all the "scholarship" you believe in OR someother god knows what reason. now,Give me one proof of Aryan Invasion/migration whatever theory? There no no solid proofs but against it are many, many of them.

Talking about its acceptance how about when Max Muller denied his own theory ? I.e AIT ? AMT is just dead version of AIT, it's like we won't let it go, we know it, it is wrong but we won't let it go.

Talking about archeology, all of the findings are near Saraswati river that was part of Greator India, it proves itself that Aryan Migration/Invasion does not makes sense at all.

There are stories all around Scriptural texts of india & even taught by Learned Gurus that, People who learned vedas and grasps it knowledge went to different parts of the world to "teach"(propagate) it, Even in Rig ved which is oldest text: there is reference of saraswati River which is part of "bharat" as it says.

Scholarship ? Good but if info is wrong and mis-leading with "lack" of proper evidence should be rejected, it is like mis-guiding those people if they ever read your wikipedia, thankfully, most people over there(india) knows and avoid this kind of information.

As "Clearly" told by texts of Indian scriptures, there main motto was welfare of all, so they propagated it to different parts of world it is that sanskrit and indian are givers to all of the world not that EU or Iran is source of of it, the time to which it goes back is 10 to 13K years which proves aryaan invasion theory wrong.

Some of my personal research as well as researches from learned person:- Aryaan is misunderstood version of word "arya", in Rigved it is said that Arya and Aryavarta which means in sanskrit -> Noble and Land of Nobles from which that knowledge rises, not the EU or whatever.

The heritage of india belongs it self, there are many proof regarding it, please update your self with the topics and proofs against Invasion & migration theories "Hypothesis". @Joshua Jonathan: Demise007 (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: If you still tend to believe above Invasion or Migration theories, God help you and the "scholarship" you believe in bud haha, it is just the matter of fact when one realize why all of that was done at first place, everything seems to arose from ignorance or for 'particular purpose'. Demise007 (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: The only reason of acceptance of this "Biased linguistics(acceptance of only one side)" is your own lack of knowledge with their heritage, upcoming peeps over there who are learned actually 'laugh' on what a website like wikipedia has to say regarding their own stuff lol, in rig-veda it clearly hints the things which destroys overall "aryaan-Drama", the one who is good in sanskrit will literally laugh about the this, rest sure Cont. it, if in future ya guys tend to correct things you will know by yourself, if not(certainly on purpose),no one can correct you b/c the truth is being ignored despite you know it, i can't believe the level of ignorance in my own people b/c ofcourse either they don't understand there stuff till now or they don't want to reveal truth.

Well, if the bottomline is "I'm right because I know The Truth," then a discussion is useless, of course. But it means that you're wasting our time here at Wikipedia, where people do believe they could be "wrong," and are willing to discuss this possibility. being open to sound scholarship is part of that procedure. Best regards, and farewell, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:The bottomline is ain't "I'm right because I know The Truth," but "The Truth is not being _accepted_", Learn Sanskrit, Read the stuff of their heritage, understand it & you may question the SO called Scholarship Right away lol, discussion is of course useless if what is truth ain't accepted, yes wasting time it is, still worth a try, maybe it may help, scholarship again meh, bud if the stuff is wrong & has evidence against it, i.e evidence available against > evidence in favour it should be discarded, this "aryan" subject is matter of laughter among those learned peeps trust me lol. Rest, proceed the way you want too :) B/c i am not worried till they know what is right regarding their own heritage and what ain't, it also proves that ignorance in the word scholarship regarding their heritage has no effect on them, happy for it.Demise007 (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"where people do believe they could be "wrong," and are willing to discuss this possibility." Yea i see what is the result of that discussion i.e nothing, i.e acceptance of what is wrong at first place, firstly, those peeps ain't wrong about their own stuff, i can question my british heritage in that case lol, the thing is, they understand their own stuff, we misunderstood their stuff and propagate same waste within us or try to teach them(BIG MISTAKE) may be out of ignorance OR "with some purpose", Accept the truth as Max Muller did before Dying.

"India is the mother of all, she is the giver to all", all the best Demise007 (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: The below topics consists of firstly The many proofs against this Pure hypothesis, secondly, names which you could look up for works that may leave no room for these "aryan-hypothesis"

1- http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/genetics-aryan-debate

2- http://gosai.com/writings/the-myth-of-the-aryan-invasion

3- http://world.time.com/2011/12/15/the-aryan-race-time-to-forget-about-it/

4- https://web.archive.org/web/20060705184146/http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml

5- https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/5845673/file/5845677.pdf

Go through Above topics & kindly revise everything, i do strongly believe we people are teaching our kids a sole lie, talking about indians, they are not much worried, they pass it on 'literally' with laughs. Demise007 (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Rest, if wikipedia did not took further step to revise things, it would Pure "SHAME" for me, you & our people for supporting this despite all the truth. Demise007 (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC) @Joshua Jonathan:

Thanks for the links, I'll read them. Just one more question: once and a while I meet people from other faiths, who are also fully convinced that theirs is the truth. Christians, Scientologists, Buddhists, Muslims. How can this be? All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

So, I've read 'diagonally' through the links. Ehm... have you even realized that the theory tries to explain the existence in India of a group of languages which are related to European languages? That relationship was established long ago, a couple of centuries. Max Muller posited the idea of races who migrated, bringing their languages with them. He also discarded the idea of races, but not the idea of the dispersla of languages.

Wheeler & co. popularized the idea of a brutal invasion - an idea that has long since lost any appeal in the academics. Only some Indians still refer to it...

The present state of affairs is that we speak of the Indo-Aryan migration theory. It does not speak of "races", it does not speak of large-scale invasions. What it does propose is that groups of Indo-European speaking peoples migrated. Toward the west, it was a "folk-migration," that is, large groups of people. Toward the south-east, it may have been smaller groups. Those groups had a culture of hospitability, which made it possible to acceot new members within their social relations. New members, who took over the language, but who also introduced new elements. Like religious elements, which we now think of as typical of the Vedic people, but which were acquired at the BMAC, present-day Afghanistan...

This culture also reached north-west India. Again, not a large-scale invasion, but elite-groups. Man, like the Syrian refugees in Europe. And again, their way of life was attractive for people in north-west India, who joined them. Hence, no or very little genetic "evidence," no or very little archeological evidence. But one very persuasive proof: language. Languages spoken in northern Inida, which are related to languages spoken in Europe. Languages whose origin which cannot have evolved in India, nor in Europe, but somewhere in between. and not 10,000 or 13,000 years ago, but much morre recent. That's what the IAmt is about.

The sites you've provided are entertaining; I'll add links to some of them. But their authors are not at all convincing. They agitate against outdated models and reseacr, yet neglect the contemporary model and the methodology on which it is based. It's fine, of course, if you want to believe in the ancientness of the Indian culture (and in a way, of course, it is ancient, though not the Vedic part; it's the folk & village-religion which is truly ancient), but it's not the picture that scholars are painting. If Indian pundits ;augh about that, well, let them laugh; it's not the kind of "argument" that's going to convinvre scholars of linguistics and archeologists. As I said before, you should read those Wiki-articles, especially the ideas of David Anthony, and the recent research on genetics. There was no "Aryan invasion" o=indeed; nor was there a Vedic culture at 10,000 BCE. There were steppe-herders with a common language, who started to migrate beginning ca. 3,600 BCE, and who's language dominates the world today. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Lol, all i see is 'mess', now the languages only are related? Oh you said indian refers to what? No they don't to any of this, now, languages? first of all, it is clearly mentioned in there scriptures that peeps from there(india) went to different parts to teach plus moreover archaeological findings support it, from the sarasvati river, everything started, it is not that some god knows what people from god knows what land at god knows what period migrated to all the parts. hahah dude, now i see why those people laugh, well nevermind, go through those reasources again plus if you are seeking for truth, learn bit of sanskrit, which is not indo-eu ahem lol, and learn what there texts says and relate. if not leave it.. annnd again, all the best @Joshua Jonathan: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demise007 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 26 February 2016

Comment

The following abstract from his website of an article by Nicholas Kazanas was born in the greek island Chios in 1939. He studied English Literature at University College, Economics and Philosophy at the School of Economic Science and Sanskrit at the School of Oriental and African studies (SOAS)- all in London; also post-graduate at SOAS and at Deccan College in Pune. (India). He taught in London and Athens and since 1980 has been Director of Omilos Meleton Cultural Institute. In Greece he has published treatises of social, economic and philosophical interest. He has many publications in Western and Indian Journals and some books. He is on the Editorial Board of Adyar Library Bulettin (Chennai). He has also produced a three-year course of learning Sanskrit for Greeks. From 1997 he has turned towards the Vedic Tradition of India and its place in the wider Indo-European culture. This research comprises thorough examination of Indo-European cultures, comparing their philosophical ideas and values, their languages, mythological issues and religions. He has translated in Greek many Gnostic texts (Gospel of Thomas, etc) and has composed an extensive study on Christ's original teaching (one in Greek and one in English). He has also translated the ten principal Upanishads (ISA, KENA, KATHA, MANDUKYA, BrHADARANYAKA, etc) from the original Sanskrit text into Greek.

Indo-European Linguistics and Indo-Aryan Indigenism' by N. Kazanas

The essay Indo-European Linguistics and Indo-Aryan Indigenism is included in the book Indo-Aryan Origins and other Vedic Issues written by N. Kazanas, ed. Aditya Prakashan, Dec 2009, N. Delhi. It examines the general IE issue and argues in favour of Indoaryan indigenism against the AIT (Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory) which has been mainstream doctrine for more than a century. The extreme positions that there was no PIE(=Proto-Indo-European) language or that this language is as currently reconstructed are refuted: the evidence suggests there was a PIE language but this cannot be reconstructed and all efforts in this reconstruction are misplaced. Since they are in no way verifiable, they should not be used as evidence for historical events. It is admitted even by rabid Indian nationalists that humans came to India from Africa sometime in the Pleistocene, and now there is evidence of change in the skeletal record of the region indicating that a new people may have entered c 6000-4500; even so, if these people were the IAs(=Indoaryans), they must, surely, be regarded as indigenous by 1700. Recent genetic studies do not suggest any entry of IAs within the last 10 000 years but state that the European peoples came out of South Asia after 50 000 B(efore)P(resent). Apart from such studies, other kinds of evidence and arguments will be used in full to demonstrate indigenism. link here:http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/en/indology_en.asp. Also read this article which sums up the problem you have to deal with: http://www.vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=3104. Another article here: http://www.dailypioneer.com/sunday-edition/agenda/analysis/decline-and-fall-of-historians.html JJ is clearly a supporter of AIT just look at his revert history and who he tends to cite on articles relating to Indian history and other editors all from the same AIT viewpoint not surprising for someone from a former colonial power.--Navops47 (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Navops47: - "JJ is clearly a supporter of AIT just look at his revert history and who he tends to cite on articles relating to Indian history and other editors all from the same AIT viewpoint not surprising for someone from a former colonial power" - And yet you claim to live in the UK... the very center of all "colonial power", so what does that make you? If you think you're helping your friend Demise here with comments like this... you're not. Comment on content, not contributors. - ^theWOLFchild 17:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No I won't retract that comment its fact and for the record I'm British Gay White and married to a Black Sri Lankan man so I have no hidden agenda (around race, racial superiority etc ) being used under any guise so what point are YOU trying to make Wolf? and I don't claim to live in the UK you know full well that editors cannot list personal details and if it was allowed I would happily supply my 0044 house number so you can call me to verify who I am.--Navops47 (talk) 18:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Navops47:;

• "No I won't retract that comment..." - I didn't ask you to.
• "for the record I'm British Gay White and married to a Black Sri Lankan man..." - Again, didn't ask... and couldn't care less.
• "so what point are YOU trying to make Wolf?" - Like I said; "Comment on content, not contributors". (I did say that, right?}
• "I don't claim to live in the UK" - Actually, you do... right on your user page.
• "you know full well that editors cannot list personal details" - I do? I don't remember saying that. (and really, people here list all kinds of personal stuff, on their user pages, in their comments, etc. Take you for example...)
• "I would happily supply my 0044 house number so you can call me" - Yikes! Please don't. I have absolutely no interest in calling you.
• So, like I said, comment on content. I think we've had enough commentary about JJ, me and yourself here. The topic of discussion is Indo-European languages and their supposed Aryan influences. (or something like that...) Cheerio! - ^theWOLFchild 18:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Nice pretty colors

Nice pretty colors And yet you claim to live in the UK the very center of all "colonial power", so what does that make you? - implying or suggesting I am hiding something?- reply I'm British Gay White and married to a Black Sri Lankan man so I have no hidden agenda (around race, racial superiority etc ) unlike patronising replys by JJ in response to comments. So what point are YOU trying to make Wolf? And yet you claim to live in the UK... the very center of all "colonial power" (you did not elaborate what you actually mean by that statement in relation to my comments in any case I answered that reply (I have no hidden agenda around race, racial superiority etc). If you think you're helping your friend Demise here with comments like this... you're not - Reply - No I won't retract that comment its fact and I have no connection whats so ever with demise And yet you claim to live in the UK the very center of all "colonial power", so what does that make you? - Reply - I would happily supply my 0044 house number so you can call me to verify who I am and where I am coming from. And by the way I suggest you read the articles by N S Rajaram that in relation to content discussion when other editors are clearly AIT proponents going around revising information based on superior assumptions interestingly mythologies a favorite word for some editors here. I will close by including a review of Witzels book by Tok Thompson University of California The Origins of the World's Mythologies By E.J. Michael Witzel. 2013. Oxford: Oxford University Press. "A racist book by Witzel, a Harvard Professor. Socially irresponsible publication of a grandiose, brash, ill-informed, problematic scholarship" (but a vanguard of authority for editors defending position here) This is an astonishing book, but not for the reasons the author intended. The Origin of the World's Mythology utilizes completely out of date and highly questionable scholarship to claim a grand scientific discovery which relies on the author's "theory" of ultimate mythological reconstruction, dating back all the way to reconstructed stories (i.e., made up by the author) told some 100,0000 years ago. The "theory" (I would say hypothesis) is implausible (in terms of data, scholarship, logic, internal plausibility, etc.), even more so than quasi-academic concepts, like Nostratic, which it relies on as proven fact. The book's main claim is explicitly racist. I define "racist" here simply as any argument that seeks to categorize large groups of people utilizing a bio-cultural argument ("race"), and that further describes one such group as essentially better, more developed, less "deficient," than the other(s). The book claims that there are two races in the world, revealed by both myth and biology: the dark-skinned "Gondwana" are characterized by "lacks" and "deficiencies" (e.g., xi, 5, 15, 20, 88, 100, 105, 131, 279, 280, 289, 290, 313, 321 315, 410, 430, 455) and are labeled "primitive" (28) at a "lower stage of development” (28, 29, 410), while the noble "Laurasian" myths are "our first novel," the only "true" creation stories, and the first "complex story" (e.g., 6, 54, 80, 105, 321, 372, 418, 421, 430), which the Gondwana never achieved. Such a grand evolutionary pronouncement, published by Oxford University Press and penned by a Harvard Professor (of Sanskrit), demands attention and careful investigation of its claims. If the author is correct, then indeed the field of mythology, and folklore, will be entirely rewritten. Not only this, but the ideas of a separate, deficient "dark-skinned race" will be, for the first time, scientifically validated. The theoretical justification of this work is derived from a sort of straw man contest between ethnologist Leo Frobenius (1873-1938), representing monogenesis and diffusion, and Freud's errant disciple Carl Jung (1875-1961), with his universal archetypes of the collective unconscious. This straw man argument is not an appropriate one: Jung's theories have long been derided in scholarship on mythology, and the data have been shown not to support his claims of universals (Dundes, 2005). Indeed, the resounding refutation of universals not only invalidates Jung's theories, but also stands in direct contradiction to many of the claims of this book. His sole factual claim to his grand separation of the races seems to be his assertion that only the light-skinned Laurasians developed a "complete" myth. He makes several claims about what this myth "is," but these are contradictory, vague, and with many exceptions or permutations (variously: 53, 64, 76, 120, 183, 323). At some points he claims that the only actual differences between the two is that the Laurasian has the world end, and the Gondwana do not (e.g., 283). At other times, however, he claims that the Gondwana actually have no cosmogonic myths whatsoever. For example: • "Gondwana mythologies generally are confined to the description of the emergence of humans and their culture in a preexisting world" (5). • "The Laurasian stress on cosmogony, however, is entirely absent in Gondwana mythologies" (105). • "In Gondwana mythologies the world is regarded as eternal" (20). • Describing Gondwana mythology: "In the beginning: heaven and earth (and sea) already exist" (323, restated 361). This particular claim is made even more remarkable in light of his own comment on page 474, where he himself discusses the common African myth of the world being created from a god's spittle and/or vomit. In previous publications the author argued that the Gondwana had no flood myths as well. However, in this book the author relates recently encountering Alan Dundes' The Flood Myth, which disproved the assertion (see the author's discussion, page 284). Taking pains to explain this change, the author now claims the flood myth "is universal" (wrongly: see Dundes 2005) and not, as he previously decreed, "Laurasian." This late encounter with Dundes' scholarship is instructive: Dundes is generally regarded as one of the most important folklore theorists of the last century, yet aside from this one problematic citation of The Flood Myth, no notice is taken of him, not even his classic work on myth, Sacred Narrative. Nor are other seminal recent works in scientific myth scholarship cited, such as Schrempp and Hansen's Myth: A New Symposium, or even the earlier Sebeok's Myth: A Symposium. The sustained overlooking of the scholarship on mythology over the last fifty years or more is one of the larger foundational problems of this work. For example, aside from a brief early mention (45, 46), the concept of polygenesis is never considered as a potential explanation, yet a mere acknowledgment that different people do sometimes create similar-sounding plots and motifs removes any necessity to view every similar motif or narrative as united in some grand historical scheme (see Thompson 2002). An instructive case in point might be the flood myths of the seismically active coastal regions of the Pacific Northwest, held to be caused by mountain dwarves dancing (a compelling explication of which can be found in McMillan and Hutchinson 2002)—there is absolutely no reason to assume this is derived from the same source as the very different biblical flood myth, simply because they both involve floods in flood-prone areas. Stripped of any emic understanding of the explanatory and rhetorical majesty of sacred stories, myth is reduced to a mere grab-bag of words and motifs. I consider my own research specialties, and the many Dene and Inuit/Yupiq mythologies I have heard, and watched, and read. In the Dene, and the Inuit, one finds no apocalypse stories, no end of the world. This should, then, disqualify them completely from the Laurasian. Nor is there "Father Heaven/Mother Earth," or the time of "nobles," or a "slaying of the dragon," or a "drinking of soma," all of which are expected to be in his Laurasian story (at least as per page 53). But according to the author, all this is irrelevant, since they are simply Laurasians who haven't told it all, or haven’t been recorded telling it, or have forgotten parts, or there is some other reason. In other words, they are Laurasian because he says they are Laurasian. But when the same question is asked of the South African San, who also do not have all those elements, the answer is that they are Gondwana. The criteria are not applied equally, but rather only as the author sees fit in justifying his hypothesis. In chapter 4, the author seeks to buttress support for his hypothesis by using reconstructions in linguistics and genetics. Genetically, he states that specific DNA haplogroups "seem to represent the Gondwana type of mythology" (233). His appeal to linguistics is at least marginally more appropriate, as language is a cultural, not biological, phenomenon. But here, too, he utilizes less-than-scientifically-accepted hypotheses, such as a "Dene-Caucausian" language family linking Basque and Navajo, and "Nostratic." The all-too-breezy use of non-academic claims can be seen in the following two quotes, located on the same page (193): "Nostratic theory has not been accepted by most traditional linguists." "Once we accept the reconstruction of Nostratic, we can establish the natural habitat, the material culture, and theWeltanschauung and mythology of the Nostratic populations." To be clear: if linguists don’t think that languages could be reconstructed back more than 6,000 years, why does the author believe they can, and further, that entire stories can be reconstructed for over 100,000 years? Finally, the startling claim that the book proves the existence of two races, going against all other scholarly data, would have profound implications for global society as a whole, yet these implications are never discussed by the author. Instead, in his conclusion he claims that the reason Abrahamic religions have made inroads into the global south in recent times is simply because Laurasian myth is "better" and "more complete" than any ever formulated by the Gondwana themselves (430), a remarkably naïve view of global political history. To conclude: this book will no doubt prove exciting for the gullible and the racist, yet it is useless—and frustrating—for any serious scholar. This is a work which should never have reached book publication stage: a whole series of scholarly checks and balances—ranging from Harvard's venerable Folklore and Mythology Department, to the editors and reviewers at Oxford University Press—should have been in place to guide the scholarly inquiry, which would have prevented the socially irresponsible publication of such grandiose, brash, and explicitly racist claims based on ill-informed, highly problematic scholarship. Source: http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2014/01/a-racist-book-by-witzel-harvard.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navops47 (talk • contribs) 02:35 1 March 2016

@Navops47: - Do you really expect anyone to read all that? It's 1800 words/11,000b of pure TL;DR! Maybe someone will read it, but I'm not going to. Do you think you could sum it up in 100 words or less? If you can, let me know. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 03:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

DS-alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Demise007, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Demise007! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 19:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)