Talk:Indigenous Aryanism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Old discussions

this should be the main article for "why the IVC must be Aryan" arguments. The Out of India and Indo-Aryan migration articles should just refer here for a discussion of such arguments, and focus on their proper topic. dab (𒁳) 12:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I discussion is in place at Talk:Out of India theory as to the notability of the "Indigenous Aryan Theory" and the basis for creating this article as a split of OIT. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

your comment doesn't quite parse, but you seem to be implying this is a pov fork? Do you realize that, as I've made explicit about five times now, the "OIT" is a much stronger claim than the "IAT"? They are not equivalent at all: One is about Proto-Indo-European, the other about Indo-Aryan (or Indo-Iranian). "indigenous" means "generated inside". "indigenous Aryan" means, "Indo-Aryan evolved inside [India] [out of a pre-Indo-Aryan language]". At least if you try to give any rational meaning to the term, as it is mostly used, it is of course more of an emotion than an actual theory. dab (𒁳) 10:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No...not a POV fork, but simply an unnecessary split. While IAT may be talked about by Bryant, it's notability seems quite minute. I don't see the point as OIT would have to at least include a two or three paragraph discussion of IAT. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

the notability is entirely restricted to India, where it is a political issue mostly, but often presented as scholarship. The OIT otoh is a bona fide hypothesis (that is, it may be discussed in coherent terms), but its notability is minute (Hindutva scholars are not interested in it, and only embrace it once they learn that it implies "Indigenous Aryans"). "Indigenous Aryans" are irrelevant to OIT. If you could build a case for OIT, "Indigenous Aryans" would follow as a corollary, but you cannot look to "Indigenous Aryan" arguments to make a case for OIT. "Indigenous Aryans" is the weaker claim, but it is also fuzzier, since most people that talk about it by "Aryan" mean some mystical notion (ancient magical Vedic space Aryans) and consequently cannot follow the scholarly debate dab (𒁳) 08:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

IAT and OIT will be separable only in one case. If we believe in Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis. Otherwise, IAT is part of OIT. So, to make two different theories based one Anatolian hypothesis is absurd. Also, from 4,500 BC to 800 BC , no archeologically attested movement of such migration into South Asia is attested. Anatolian hypothesis is not acceptable archeologically or linguistically as per B.B.Lal's paper whose link is given in OIT article & talk pages. WIN 06:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

OIT is a linguistic theory, aware of Indo-European reconstruction. IAT is unaware of or rejects historical linguistics. That's a big difference. dab (𒁳) 09:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

When IAT can be placed under OIT then your OIT is linguistic theory and IAT against linguistic makes no point. Do not misguide people. OIT says tht Aryans were indigenious to ancient India so making separate IAT article in which there is not a single supporting ref. is purely absurd ( and that makes Dab a biased person who created this article so can he put his mis-guide or say hatred for Indians.( I still remember that Dab instead of replying some thought provoking points resorted in telling something like that - it's due to cheaper Internet prices in India every poor Indian is writing in Wikipedia ). His hatred to Hindus or Indians is well known. Still he is not able to answer why one can find so many Vedic or Puranic Sanskrit names among names / surnames of mainly Russian or Polish people ( written in detail in talk pages of IAM )

I again tell you that IAT and OIT is separate only in one condition that Anatolian hypothesis is correct. But, it is not true due to two main faltering points of B.B.Lal. So to create IAT based on Anatolian theory is not proper & mis-guiding. WIN 12:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, its not just Antolian hypothesis, but every hypothesis (other than Kurgan, ofcourse) which pushes back the date for split of PIE. 2000 BCE split is just consistent with Kurgan hypothesis.nids(♂) 17:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

2000 BC is the split of Indo-Iranian, *not* PIE, that's a huge difference. A 2000 BC split of Indo-Iranian is compatible with *every* scenario, including "Out of India". dab (𒁳) 11:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OR Tag

I am quoting Bryant 2001 page 74

“ if it is to be argued that this group is indigenous, at least to the Northwest, the unavoidable corollary is that northwest India is the geo-graphic origin of all the other Indo-European languages, which must have emigrated to the West from there. ”

Bryant clearly states that AIT and OIT are same. AIT can not accomodate Antolian hypothesis. There is no reason to duplicate pages. I suggest this place should be deleted.Sbhushan 18:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

you mean IAT. the question is how you define "indigenous". "Indigenous" means, "developed in situ". If IAT means "Aryans developed in situ", the next quetstion is, what are "Aryans". if "Aryans"=Indo-Europeans, you are correct. If "Aryans"=Indo-Iranians, you are not. The difference between "indigenous Aryans" and "PIE origins in India" is that the former consists of two imprecise but emotional terms, and as such does not constitute a well-defined claim at all, but a sentiment or propaganda jingle, while the latter is a clear hypothesis that can be meaningfully argued about. Most of the edit-wars we get on the topic originate with editors affected by the "sentiment" side, they don't care what "indigenous" or "aryans" means, they just know in their bellies that aryans must be indigenous, and will not cease from mental fight until Wikipedia says so too. dab (𒁳) 07:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Bryant clearly states that AIT [sic] and OIT are same." Where does he state this? Do you have page references other than the one given, which is rather oblique? My memory is that he distinguishes between the two, though without using the specific OIT and IAT terminology. Paul B 11:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

he means the "unavoidable corollary" he quotes from p. 74. The question is, what does "this group" in the quote refer to? If PIEans, fair enough. If, however, assuming "indigenous" Indo-Aryans you "conclude" anything about Indo-Europeans, you are again muddling together things that are far from equal. Indo-Aryans are removed from PIEans by at least 1,500 (more likely 2,000 to 2,500) years. If they are "indigenous" to somewhere, there are full 15 centuries to move the PIEans to be "indigenous" to somewhere else. I am sorry, but I fail to see how "PIE doesn't equal Indo-Aryan" is "original research" in any way. dab (𒁳) 12:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The full passage is about the relationship between I-A and reconstructed PIE. "If Indo-Aryan is to be considered indigenous to the sub-continent then how is its relationship to the other Indo-European languages to be explained? Either the Indo-European languages entered the subcontinent from an external geographic origin or, if it is to be argued that this group is indigenous, at least to the Northwest, the unavoidable corollary is that northwest India is the geographic origin of all the other Indo-European languages, which must have emigrated to the West from there. Indigenous Aryanists have to confront and address this language connection, with its inescapable requirement of a commmon language origin." In other words he is saying that I-A speakers have to have entered India at some point if conventional linguistics is accepted, or I-A has to have evolved in India from PIE. Part of the problem here is the instability of the term "Indigenous". Some writers who reject linguistics and conventional history altogether construe "Aryans" as primal sages rather than speakers of a particular language. Then there's the WINesque view that Sanskrit is PIE. Others may accept that IAs were indigenous as long as they can be envisaged as present in the Indus during the IVC or earlier, a point Byant makes later in the book. Paul B 13:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

thus, "this group" refers to PIE, not I-A, and we are dealing with yet another misrepresentation of a source (not unlike this one. AGF is, sadly, wasted empathy here.). case closed, not even Bryant "concludes" that "indigenous I-A" entails "indigenous PIE". dab (𒁳) 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting OR, can you quote any published material where IAT is defined in the terms that you have used? Please check WP:V. AIT does not pass WP:V requirement. Paul from your note, Bryant relates "indigenous" to "I-A has to have evolved in India from PIE", that would also be dictionary meaning of "indigenous". Dab please check your own note on AMT talk page dated 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC), where you have said this would be OR. Are WP policies differnet for some editors?Sbhushan 15:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

IA may be construed as indigenous to India if IA, as a distinctive branch of IE, it emerged in India. Bryant is using the term Indigenous Aryanists to refer to writers who insist that "Aryans" are indigenous, but who do not necessarily take account of academic linguistics. They may even reject linguistics altogether as a "pseudoscience". He's saying that if they do take account of conventional linguistics than they have to accept that either IE speakers entered at some point or PIE was Indian. It's not clear what he means by "this group". It seems to be the group of IE speakers who became IAs, but he is unspecific about whether they are envisaged as speakers of IA at the time. His point is simply that if these IE speakers have always been there and never entered India (as speakers of IE), then India must be the PIE homeland.

The problem seems to be one of terminology. Bryant claims to invented the phrase "Indigenous Aryan" ("A significant body of scholarship has developed, in India, which I have I have labeled the Indigenous Aryan school, which claims that the Indo-Aryans were autochthonous to the subcontinent"). See also this email from Bryant as part of a debate labelled "The Indigenous Aryan Discussion". This term seems to be inclusive in his work, including the far-out stuff of writers like Knapp who claim that the whole world was once Vedic, and those writers who place the Vedas in some ultra-ancient period. He also discusses - in a rather tacked-on way - the Anatolian hypothesis and the claim that the IVC was IE speaking, which would be possible in an early PIE scenario. I think its fair to say that in his usage all these positions count as part of the "Indigenous Aryan school". Paul B 17:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, the group of people who reject linguistic are are not being discussed here. WP:OR states Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which is included in an article and appears to advance a position. If you can quote me exact page in Bryant, I will look it up where he argues for IAT. Keep in mind Bryant believes in AMT. So unless we can identify who is proposing IAT and find published material for their position it is OR. You know very well that this is OR and so does Dab (he has made this statement himself[[1]]), I don't see what is being gained by this. WP policies do apply equally to everyone.Sbhushan 17:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It is explicitly stated by Bryant on the very page you quote that the "group of people who reject linguistics" are being discussed under the term by Bryant himself. He states,

“ some scholars have rejected the whole Indo-European enterprise as hopelessly speculative and inconclusive. To put it another way, they are not interested - this is primarily a European preoccupation [he goes on to describe the paucity of of IE linguistics in India, and the lack of funding for its study] For the most part, with some exceptions, Indigenists wishing to tackle the Indo-Aryan issue are left with the option of either ignoring the linguistic dimension of the problem or to tackle it with sometimes hopelessly inadequate qualifications...In any event, as we shall see, a few scholars have argued that the linguistic evidence could just as well be reconfigured to postulate that even India might have been the Indo-European homeland. This challenge, when made by the more sober members of the Indigenous Aryan school, does not so much aim to prove that India was factually the original homeland as to assert that the linguistic evidence is not sufficiently conclusive to fully determine where the homeland was. ”

It is clear from this that "Indigenous Aryan school" is an inclusive concept in Bryant's own usage, including both writers who reject linguistics altogether and those who simply try to prove that the linguistic evidence is inconclusive. Paul B 21:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, the group that does not believe in linguistic doesn't believe in any migration. That group doesn't accept any migration in 1500 BC, nor pre IVC, nor before last ice age. So IAT can not be that group. The group that accepts linguitic is OIT. So who is left??? I just can't believe you are trying to rationalize this original research.Sbhushan 00:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The Indigenous school, in Bryant's usage, includes writers who accept that PIE was born outside India but that the languages entered India prior to the emergence of IA or at a very early date. It also includes those for whom the term "Aryans" is not primarily understood as a label for speakers of a branch of IE, but as "Vedic sages". It is clearly distinct from OIT since Bryant states that some proponents completly ignore "the linguistic dimension of the problem", which is not possible with OIT which is specifically a theory about IE linguistics. Paul B 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, can you identify which writers accept that PIE was born outside India but languages entered India prior to the emergence of IA? The ref has to be unambiguous and clearly state that names of writer and publication where they stated their position. This group has to be distinct from both OIT and Proto-Vedic Continuity (PVC).Sbhushan 14:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be moving the goalpoasts. I thought we were discussing how Bryant uses the term. You were claiming that the usage in this article is OR by quoting what you implied was Bryant's equation of "Indigenous Aryan theory" with OIT. Clearly he makes no such equation, he only says that those Indigenous Aryanists who accept standard academic models of linguistics either have to equate it with OIT or accept a migration at some point in history. If Bryant uses the term in an inclusive way - which he does - then there is no OR. Paul B 16:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, I am not moving goalpost, I am trying to pinpoint this elusive "IAT". From your note, it seems that IAT concept is a hypothesis (it is not Bryant’s). IAT can not be presented as a viable alternative to any theory, since it is a hypothesis/speculation without any proponent. We do need someone to propose this theory before it can be published. Bryant uses Indigenous Aryan as “all inclusive”; to infer an IAT out of “all inclusive” is synthesis of published work and hence OR. Any one who is arguing for Indigenous is either in PVC camp or OIT camp, there is no third indigenous camp. Group that believes in linguistic and accepts migration at some point in history is not arguing for indigenous and is already in AMT fold. If you interpret otherwise then we have to pinpoint this group.Sbhushan 17:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is unintelligable. There are any number of "camps" because many IA theories are wholly concerned with specific questions - such as the claim that the IVC was Vedic for example. Archaeologists who claim to find Vedic elements in the IVC often do not concern themselves with issues of IE origins. Even Lal seems to have no model of the relationship between PIE and Sanskrit, simply claiming that the IVC was Sanskrit speaking. There is no "synthesis" of published work since we were taking about the usage in one particular book. You in fact are the one attempting to create a synthesis by insisting that we must accept your range of possibilities based on your reasoning. I can't quite decipher your claim that "to infer an IAT out of 'all inclusive' is synthesis of published work". It would only be true if you were claiming that the expression "Indigenous Aryans" could only refer to the claim that IA emerged in India from II. That's one form of IA model. In general IAism, as the term is used by Bryant, covers a diffuse range of sometimes incompatable ideas. Paul B 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, why don't you provide me with the page number in Bryant where this Indigenous Aryan theory is referenced?Sbhushan 18:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What theory? Paul B 23:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous Aryan theory.Sbhushan 03:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, this quote is from page 4 where Bryant defines the term "Indigenous Aryanism"

With regard to the primary aim, I have used the term Indigenous Aryanism to denote

a theme that is common to many of the scholars I examine in this book. [..some extra stuff...]The scholars referred to by this term all share a conviction that the theory of an external origin of the Indo-Aryan speaking people on the Indian subcontinent has been constructed on flimsy or false assumptions and conjectures. As far as such scholars are concerned, no compelling evidence has yet been produced to posit an external origin of the Indo-Aryans.

[...few examples of scholars...]The primary feature they share is that they have taken it upon themselves to oppose the theory of Aryan invasions and migrations—hence the label Indigenous Aryanism.

This clearly states that Indigenous Aryanism oppose invasions and migrations. This combined with quote from page 74 makes the IAT page a original research. Please do look at WP:OR and WP:V.Sbhushan 19:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The quotation clearly states that Indigenous Aryanism refers to the rejection of "an external origin of the Indo-Aryan speaking people", which includes the possibility of pre-IA advent. You are creating a "synthesis" by plucking out two passages, insisting that they create some Unified Truth, and ignoring all the other passages in which Bryant tries to address the full range of IA positions. Paul B 23:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, please read again "The primary feature they share is that they have taken it upon themselves to oppose the theory of Aryan invasions and migrations—hence the label Indigenous Aryanism." Does it not clearly state that indigenous oppose migrations. Can you quote any section of the book where Indigenous scholar is shown to accept migration?Sbhushan 00:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

what, pray, is an "indigenous scholar"? dab (𒁳) 10:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It means scholars who support what Bryant (and Trautmann) call the "Indigenist" position. Paul B 13:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you are back. We still need reference for Indigenous Aryan theory. Could you please provide this? As noted above on Bryant 2001 Page 4, label "Indigenous Aryanism" is for scholars who oppose all migrations.Sbhushan 17:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to reapeat the same point over again? You aren't dumb, so why are you acting as though you are? To oppose "Aryan" migrations may mean many things, depending on how the word "Aryan" is used. If it is used to mean "speakers of I-A languages" that need mean no more than that I-A evolved in India. If you deny there even is a difference between IE languages and Dravidian languages, as some Indigenists do, then it would mean something quite different, and "OIT" would be a meaningless concept. Bryant discusses this on p.283, where he also states that "detractors of the Indigenous school also typically state that the latter promote all the Indo-Europeans as coming from India [gives example of the novel Return of the Aryans] But this idea is by no means representative; many scholars simply claim that the available evidence is insufficient to conclude this issue." (p.s. I don't recommend trying to read the interminable Return of the Aryans). Paul B 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, the simplest solution would be to provide verifiable reference for Indigenous Aryan theory. So far in discussion I have not seen any reference.Sbhushan 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

AFAICT, the reference would have to be Bryant, as it seems he has coined the term. Part of the problem here is that the term is an umbrella, covering a number of positions that while related are not necessarily mutually consistent. As for the IAT == OIT equation, it is clearly false in the case of those who dismiss linguistics as pseudoscience, to whom the OIT would be irrelevant. rudra 02:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Rudra, thanks for your input. I am aware that Bryant has coined the term "Indigenous Aryan" in this book and he has also provided a definition for what he includes in this term on page 4 of his book. Indigenous Aryan is different from Indigenous Aryan Theory. My disagreement is with creation of "Indigenous Aryan Theory". In a nutshell, this theory states that some scholars are arguing that PIE migrated to the region prior to IVC and developed into Indo-Aryan language. I am looking for reference to this theory and the scholars who are arguing for this position. I have read Bryant 2001 very thoroughly and he has not mentioned anything regarding IAT anywhere in his book. If there is no reference available then the IAT is an original research and can't be included in Wikipedia. BTW, what is the full form of "AFAICT"?Sbhushan 14:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Rudra, forgot one point. People who dismiss linguitic, reject all notion of PIE and any migration into this region and mostly belive in Proto Vedic Continuity. So this IAT has to be different from OIT and also PVC. I am not aware of any scholar who is arguing along this line. All I am asking is to identify this group.Sbhushan 14:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

as argued above, it is different from OIT. "PVC" is a similarly ill-defined concept that may well be identical (is identical, emotionally and ideologically). This has been pointed out in detail many times, please try to think for yourself a tiny little bit. I know it's easier to just pester talkpages instead, but you should still make a little effort. "Theory" is indeed questionable here, I would prefer "indigenous Aryans sentiment". dab (𒁳) 16:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, it still needs to be referenced to published material as per WP:V. So far you have not provided any reference to published material. Without that reference this is original research WP:OR. Sbhushan 17:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I really can't fathom what you're on about. If you want to be a stickler, then Bryant has coined "Indigenous Aryanism". "Theory" for "ism" is by no means a stretch when it comes to characterising a doctrinal position. The essentially optional link to OIT is via linguistics, and Bryant has covered that. The Anatolian hypothesis is relevant only to the paragraph lifted from BB Lal's essay. Finally, is there an "Indigenous Aryanist" in the Bryant-ian sense who does not contend that the IVC was Indo-Aryan? From a historiographical perspective, that is clearly the core agenda; everything else is a matter of how far and wide the IAT camp is willing to range in its arguments. rudra 02:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that my request of reference is not clear to you. First thing, I am NOT requesting reference for “Indigenous Aryanism”. Bryant has defined it on page 4 as group of scholars who oppose Aryan invasions and migrations.

Indigenous Aryan Theory (IAT) is different from “Indigenous Aryanism”. IAT says that a group of scholars argue that PIE existed outside Indian subcontinent, migrated to this region pre-IVC and the language developed into Indo-Aryan in this region. My request for reference is for this argument. Which scholars have presented this argument in which publication.

This reference is required to show that IAT is not original research. If this reference is not available then the IAT page should be deleted. I will only respond to notes if they have a reference to published work.Sbhushan 14:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I still can't fathom what you're on about. That's because I'm still trying to follow WP:AGF. So help me, I can't find the sentence(s) in the article carrying the claim that you're demanding a reference for. Why don't you add a [citation needed] marker at the appropriate point so that we have at least some idea rather than none of what you're getting at?

Meanwhile, what is this PVC? Is there a reference other than a screed produced by a retired bank official and a junior professor of marketing? Amazing too, that a page on Wikipedia has materialized for this to replace a redirect to OIT, of your authorship, with no mention of this "monograph" in all the bibliorhea. And lo, you put that reference on my Talk page. I think you've just busted yourself. rudra 02:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

indeed. I find it difficult to accept Sbhushan as a bona fide editor at this point. History repeats itself, doesn't it Sbhushan? Have you edited Wikipedia under another account before? dab (𒁳) 09:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone is playing games with the links. "Proto-Vedic Continuity" now points to IAT, and "Proto-Vedic Continuity theory" to OIT. Capitalize the 't' of 'theory' and it's back to IAT again. Next, I suppose, is for Sbhushan to deny that the link ever worked in the manner I implied (as pointing to a page titled "Proto-Vedic Continuity Theory"). Sigh. rudra 13:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Sbhushan didn't change the link. My apologies to Sbhushan on that score. here is the material I (temporarily) linked to. rudra 13:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

yes, sorry for the confusion, I turned it back into a redirect. Sbhusan cannot "deny" anything (short of sock activity) since it's all in the edit history. But it is annoying to have editors going around and spread stuff via copy-paste to random redirect titles. I am not quite happy with the solution of Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) at present. A decent cleanout of offtopic observations on Nazis, imperialism and 19th century Romanticism just used to add spin ("Role in Imperialism and Nazism") would reduce it to about half its present size; the "Political and religious issues" could be merged here, while "Early history of the theory" could be summarized in the IAM article. I am trying to prevent further duplication of material and overlap of article scopes here. dab (𒁳) 14:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Few points, First if you equate Indigenous Aryan Theory with Proto Vedic Continuity, that addresses my request for reference. Now it should be easy to identify people who have argued for this . As suggested earlier I will put tags in the document to request citation. WP:V and WP:OR are official policies and cleary state that it is responsibility of editor adding material to provide verifiable citation.

Second point, Dab would you like to make this accusation officially. The talk pages on Out of India [[2]], Aryan Migration Theory [[3]], and other pages clearly show trail of who is adding original research and who is adding verifiable content. You complain about OR, but you are the worst offender. Few reference you do provide, turn out to be fictitious (see here [[[4]] and[[5]]). Do you really want to talk history???

The removal of redirect from PVC to OIT has been discussed atleast 2 times in last 4 months. The last discussion is here [[6]]. And previous one is in archive folder on the talk page of Out of India. Please check that out before making any accusations. I show my good faith by deeds and not empty words like some.Sbhushan 15:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, your "proto-Vedic continuity theory" seems to be entirely a coinage of one S. Kalyanaraman, who promotes it on a blog and elsewhere on the internet (I love his brilliant interpretation of Flaxman's memorial to William Jones, which apparently took him "two years" to find. I wonder why he didn't look in the Encyclopedia Britannica.). Your page on the subject was just a cut and paste of material fronm other pages, which didn't even contain any information about Kalyanaraman's "theory" - which seems to assert that something called "proto-Vedic" language derived from an earlier "Eurasian language", and then evolved into both Dravidian languages and the IE group.[7] So your page wasn't even about Proto-Vedic continuity theory, such as it is. You claim that this theory is supported by such eminent scholars as Stephen Knapp (the whole world was Vedic) and David Frawley (vedic astrologer). So is that it? Indigenous Aryanism is at least used by both Bryant and Trautmann, whose works count as WP:RS. Paul B 15:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look at our Frawley page. According to our article on his book In Search of the Cradle of Civilization, co-written with Feuerstein and Kak,

The authors do not claim that India is the Urheimat (original homeland) of the Indo-Europeans, but rather that "the Aryans could just as well have been native to India for several millennia, deriving their Sanskritic language from earlier Indo-European dialects."

So it seems he isn't a supporter of the vaunted PVC theory after all, but of...IAT! Paul B 16:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, believe it or not we are arguing for same thing. The name IAT or PVC doesn't matter to me. I used PVC as that has been discussed for quite some time now on other pages. As I have made it clear on OIT page, I don't consider the PVC argument notable or defensible. Use any name you like as long as you attribute the theory to someone, in published material acceptable to WP:RS. Citing verifiable sources is WP policy WP:V. I do not consider Knapp or Frawley or any one arguing for IAT/PVC as "eminent". Please see my note regarding PVC stub at [[8]] and edit summary at [[9]].Sbhushan 16:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, the quote from wikipedia article is not referenced to the book, that is why wikipedia is not usually used for citation. WP:CITE says Note: Wikipedia articles and categories cannot be used as sources. It is too easy for people to publish original research on wikipedia. If you want to read Frawley's books this is the link to his online books [[10]]. Personally, I have not read his book, feel free if you want to use him as a source for this article.Sbhushan 17:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The quote is clearly stated to be from the book. Unfortunately the author of the article does not give a page number. I freely admit I have not read the darn thing, but will do so when I get a chance. You don't need to inform how to get hold of books. Paul B 17:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So, he goes and splatters a bunch of tags on the page. As expected, not one of them has any bearing on his statement in this Talk page: "In a nutshell, this theory states that some scholars are arguing that PIE migrated to the region prior to IVC and developed into Indo-Aryan language. I am looking for reference to this theory and the scholars who are arguing for this position." I've left two of his tags intact. Maybe he might work out why. rudra 03:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm all but convinced now that we've talked to Sbhushan under other handles before. What he keeps tagging isn't "OR", it's a simple layout of the basic context summarized from the articles linked, stating the context available for rational debate on the concept. Nothing controversial at all. I realize that the debate is not supposed to be rational, it being all propaganda and patriotic gut feeling, but we are an encyclopedia, and we'll have to put even the most misty jingoist nonsense into some sort of encyclopedic context. dab (𒁳) 09:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

By removing tags without providing citation, you have already demonstrated bad faith. What makes you think that Wikipedia policies don't apply to you. WP:OR states Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis.

Did R. Schmitt mention "Indigenous Aryan" in his document. I have limited time today, so in couple of days we will go through each controversial item/claim one at a time.

Rudra, from you questions it appears you have limited knowledge about linguistic side of the argument. Please check what it means by Proto-Indo-Iranian language evolved out of an earlier stage in situ, while PIE homeland is out of this region. Did the article show which author has made this claim in which publication.Sbhushan 16:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Proto-Indo-Iranian language evolved out of an earlier stage in situ" is simply a translation of the fuzzy "Indigenous Aryans" into precise terms, based on straightforward meanings of "indigenous" and "Aryan". Now, you cannot simply sprinkle an article with {{fact}} in random places and then cry "bad faith" when they are removed. Such behaviour is disruptive. I am sure we are more than happy to accept citation requests for specific claims, but we're not going to spell out and reference the meaning of English words like indigenous for your convenience. I invite you once again to contribute in a constructive way, but if you are unwilling or unable to do that, we have nothing to discuss here. dab (𒁳) 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than wonder about Schmitt and Aryans, indigenous or not, Sbhushan's best use of his precious time would be: paying very close attention while his little niece or nephew teaches him how to click on a link in a browser. Who knows, he might even learn something about linguistics in the process too. We can always hope for the best. rudra 05:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you still want to talk about Schmitt???? Ask the people who taught you how to click on links, to also show you how to read a book and cite from it. Religious fanatics don't care for Proto Indo-Iranian. They only think in terms of Vedic. If you want to write an article about religious/ideological, edit away, but don't try to fit that discussion with linguistic or PIE or any mainstream IE discussions. Religious fanatics do not care about these issues.Sbhushan 14:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

yes, of course not? what is your point? We agree that this is all bullshit, then, and that attempts to present this in any way as a scholarly "theory" are in bad faith? dab (𒁳) 16:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation of sources

Which published material would you like to attribute this theory to, please see WP:ATT. The published material should be acceptable to WP:RS. Please also check article deletion policy at WP:GD. If you intend to present this as a political/ideological based theory, it is possible to provide citation from Bryant (2001). This is a controversial topic and providing citation is responsibility of editors who add text.Sbhushan 01:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In the light of your recent edits, it doesn't seem that you read Bryant with much attention. For example, turn to Chapter 8. Please reproduce the first sentence of the third paragraph here. It's on page 141 of the trade paperback edition. Can you do that? rudra 04:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read the Chapter you quote. Read the third paragraph in full and also read the first paragraph. Now do you understand the tags I had put in the article. In light of my edits it is also clear that neither of you had much understanding of what Bryant wrote in the book.Sbhushan 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Should I conclude that no citation to any verifiable published work is available? If I don't get a citation, I will proceed with request for deletion of this article.Sbhushan 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I support deletion of this article as the creators of this article are continuously failing to cite verifiable published material. WIN 04:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

then make our day and WP:AfD it already. Maybe it will finally get you banned for WP:POINT, one may hope. dab (𒁳) 08:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually keeping the article with proper quotes from Bryant may be better solution. Otherwise Dab will try his propogand OR under another name. Dab every comment you are adding to the article is controversial and it is your responsibility to provide citation for your comments. If you want to show that IAT is any way compatible with a scenario other than OIT, make sure you have valid citation. It would also help if you actual read Bryant, instead of doing OR based on 2 words.Sbhushan 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

you quoted Braynt at us on February 14 (see above). It turned out that Bryant's statement made perfect sense, it was just you who were unable to understand it (or chose to misunderstand it). If you cannot grasp the elementary logic of "John is American. American citizenship is hereditary. 'John's father was born an American' is the stronger claim than 'John was born an American'" we cannot help you, and I would recommend you spend a few years at highschool before you join us again. dab (𒁳) 15:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab which part of "without further analysis" in the WP:OR statement, did you have hard time understanding. As an admin you should know that citing sources is the most important policy. If you don't cite sources, it is called original research. I got involved in OIT to satisfy my curosity, after fixing that page, I was content to stay away from WP. But your POV pushing original research brought me back. So you can thank yourself.

Are you still trying to argue that somehow Bryant's Indigenous Aryan can somehow fit with Renfrew's model? Please read the words quoted on page 6, Bryant is very clear that Indigenous Aryan means PIE was also indigenous to India. Here are the words if you don't have access to the book (as it appears).

It must be stated immediately that there is an unavoidable corollary of an Indigenist position. If the Indo-Aryan languages did not come from outside South Asia, this necessarily entails that India was the original homeland of all the other Indo-European languages. Indo-Aryan was preceded by Indo-Iranian, which was preceded, in turn, by Indo-European; so if Indo-Aryan was indigenous to India, its predecessors must have been also. Hence, if proto-Indo-European was indigenous to India, all the other cognate languages must have emigrated from there

Sbhushan 15:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems you haven't realized that Bryant's "unavoidable corollary", as stated, is fallacious. Given that homo sapiens didn't originate in the Indian subcontinent, some ancestor-language was necessarily an immigrant. It could have been pre-Proto-IE, or it could have been post-Proto-IE but still pre-Indo-Aryan. It doesn't matter, as long Indo-Aryan evolved in situ. As far as Bryant's fallacy is concerned, he is in any case not characterizing the "Indigenist" position in terms of what has actually been said by any of them. He is merely drawing an unjustified inference, and as far as the article is concerned, it's a straw man misrepresentation. rudra 04:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right if you take "Aryan" to mean "PIE". We already quote Bryant p. 74 along these lines. If you take "indigenous" to mean "no ancestor ever immigrated", you will need to postulate the first Hominoidea lived in "India" as it broke off Gondwanaland in the Eocene. Possible scenarios "Indigenous Aryans":

• PIE evolves in India, PIIr evolves in India, Indo-Aryan evolves in India ("Aryan" = PIE)
• pre-PIIr speakers migrate to India, PIIr evolves in India, Indo-Aryan evolves in India ("Aryan" = PIIr)
• PIIr speakers migrate to India, Indo-Aryan evolves in India ("Aryan" = Indo-Aryan)

For an excellent, sourced discussion of the various meanings of "Aryan", click on Aryan. I will now also advise you, as an admin, that you are pushing your luck. I tend to be able to tell good faith confusion from trolling. You are quite clearly in the trolling department now. I would not be surprised if you are in fact a sock of a banned editor. And I will take it upon myself to block you if you do not back down and edit in good faith. dab (𒁳) 16:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You sourced "Indigenous Aryan" article from Bryant. He has defined "Indigenous Aryan" in Introduction of his book and I have provided you with exact quote from his book with page numbers. Your possible scenarios are Original Research; they don't have any place on WP. Find a published material to cite this. Are you threatening me? Did you say then make our day earlier?Sbhushan 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

He was referring to a VfD. Look, I'm rather busy this week, but maybe soon we can add more detail of exactly what Bryant and Trautmann mean when they use the term. But let's go over this darn passage just one more time, because the problem is that you are misusing it to promote a POV. Here it is once more "If Indo-Aryan is to be considered indigenous to the sub-continent then how is its relationship to the other Indo-European languages to be explained? Either the Indo-European languages entered the subcontinent from an external geographic origin or if it is to be argued that this group is indigenous, at least to the Northwest, the unavoidable corollary is that northwest India is the geographic origin of all the other Indo-European languages." This group refers to IE languages, not to IA. It means, as I said above "the group of IE speakers who became the IAs". B is probably being deliberately ambiguous here because, as he says at least twice in the book, the Indigenous Aryanists are also often very unclear about what early history of language development they are actually proposing. This is the "we don't really know" position he mentions, and which Feurstein, Fralwey and Kak seem also to adopt. But the sentence containing "this group" only uses the phrase "Indo-European", so the implication is that "if" Indo-European is indigenous to the Northwest of India then it must be PIE. But that only refers to this particular model. You have already quoted another passage in which he refers to other models, such as the idea that there was a very widespread PIE dialect (in other words there was no "out of india" because there was no "urheimat" from which anyone had to leave in order to spread the word (or rather words, and grammar...). Bryant tends to mention these scenarios in passing because he doesn't take them very seriously, but he does mention them. The reality is that Bryant's own usage is fuzzy. It's contextual. It depends on the position he is trying to articulate at the time. Paul B 16:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, I am providing verifiable citation, Dab on other hand is trying to do "further analysis" without any citation to verifiable source and you conclude that I am POV pushing. Try to figure why I am pulling my hair (what little is left). Get back when you are less busy, I am sure we will be still discussing this.Sbhushan 17:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan, with my latest revert, I officially give up trying to make you follow a basic argument. You don't even notice when you edit against your own position. My reverting of such flawed edits are a matter of course, and I will not comment on them again, since even simplified arguments are apparently completely lost on you. I don't know what you can do. Maybe you could try to find someone with a basic grasp of the topic to edit for you by proxy. dab (𒁳) 17:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hanlon's razor makes it easy to choose between POV-pushing and source-misreading. rudra 05:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

indeed, and Jimbo holds great store in that. But in the trenches of Wikipedia, the two options amount to pretty much the same. Jimbo has it easy, he can ban people per fiat once their utter thickness has become evident, it's easy to remain aloof with that sort of power. After trudging through pages and pages of nonsense with the umpteenth incarnation of a sock's alias, you begin to hope this was only "the encyclopedia which anyone with certain minimal cognitive abilities can edit" :) dab (𒁳) 09:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"The reality is that Bryant's own usage is fuzzy" - note Paul's above sentence. So, what's point in writing it as a theory based on Bryant which he himself has not proposed.This is an original research. Dab says that IAT is being used for Political purpose in India. Do this `big point' falls under scholarly point to make a "theory " ? In India, OIT is traditional view ( unlike Western view of AIT ). And, Indigenious Aryans is corollary of OIT. This is being told by others also on IAT talk pages, when Dab created the article.Dab is using Indi. Aryans term of Bryant to make a theory and he is using this term in articles of AIT,IAM, OIT etc. to denigrate. He is against terming IAM as theory in article heading but happy terming IA term as theory. This clearly shows perfect pseudoism of Dab which he blames on his opposers ! WIN 06:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bryant doesn't suggest that "IAT" makes sense. He notes the existence of the "fuzzy" concept in the Indian ideological landscape. It isn't a "theory", it is a sentiment. OIT otoh is a theory alright, not a "traditional view" (you hadn't even heard of it before you read about it on Wikipedia). But yes, "indigenous Aryans" in most senses that can be made of the fuzziness is a corollary of OIT, that's what we've been saying all along, please try to pay attentions a little bit. I am not trying to suggest "indigenous Aryans" is a "theory", if you're going to accuse me, at least accuse me over my actual position. dab (𒁳) 09:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop being hypocrate. It was you who created this article and termed it as a `theory'. It was you who then introduced this term in articles of AIT,IAM,OIT etc. So, stop being total hypocrate.

I invite you to visit India and meet Hindu Brahmins who have deeper knowledge of all Vedas, Upnishads, Puranas etc. I know that you don't know Sanskrit and reading Western translations of Rig-Veda.You might not even have read Upnishads,Puranas translations.Hindus have long tradition of reciting Bhagavat Purana when Europe was in savage condition ! Indian tradition says that Vedas were compiled to codify the knowledge ( Veda = knowledge ) of Rishis of ancient India. Some Puranas tell about time period of last deluge and Bhagawat Purana's my dating based on Hindu month & Season matches with tradition. Rishi Agastya , Rishi Vasishtha, Gargi who were composers of many Rig-Veda verses and were contempory during Ramayana. Even, that Witzel's famous wrongly translated BSS verse speaks of OIT ( instead of IAM as alleged by him , in his zeal to find some scriptural proof from vast Sanskrit sources ).

So, it's your utterly rubbish allegation that I came to know about OIT after reading Wiki !!! It's because of this traditional Hindu view ( still being recited during Shrimad Bhagawat ) that Hindus were & are opposing Western imposing of AIT. They had always opposed the AIT imposition during British Raj and wrong interpretations of Rig-Vedic verses to find AIT in Rig-Veda. But their views were never obviously considered. And, instead they are labelled as Hindu fundamentalists !!! Max Muller's Chritian & colonial conversion motives are clear from his own letters. So, it's you who is being hypocrate in this matter by preventing this in article. WIN 11:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Third party mediation

I have requested Third party mediation at [[11]], interested party please provide comments.Sbhushan 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION. I asked you to reproduce here the first sentence of the third paragraph of Chapter 8 ("The Viability of a South Asian Homeland") in Bryant's book. You have ignored this request. The sentence reads: This does not mean all Indigenous Aryanists believe that India was factually the homeland of all the Indo-Europeans. Do you affirm or deny this? rudra 18:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Sbhushan for 48h over his last revert (after warning) to impress on him that he is out of line. See also WP:AN/I#Sbhushan. dab (𒁳) 18:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but it might have been better to give him a chance to hang himself even more thoroughly. I agree, though, that the dependency of a statement Y on a statement X in the relation "If X then Y" is completely lost on him. No wonder he hasn't grasped Chapter 8. rudra 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

unblocked again since he promised to stop the edit warring and pursue mediation. There is simply no debating with an editor unable to grasp a basic syllogism, that's just not possible however nice we're trying to be, but let the mediation folks deal with that. dab (𒁳) 08:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Because of recent edit-warring and WP:3RR and other problems in this article, I have reported the WP:3RR offences at WP:3RR, in the hope that the edit-warring stops and Dab and Sbhushan discuss the things together.

I'm not sure if I have to report Sbhushan again, because he was already once blocked for the same offence some hours ago. If he should be blocked again, please provide evidence (diff's) for his WP:3RR, and he will be reported again. And if Sbhushan thinks he has not made WP:3RR or was not warned, he should explain it. --RF 13:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

article progress, category

alright, so a picture begins to emerge. I've never been interested in treating these subjects, but it turns out it is impossible to discuss the Vedic period on Wikipedia without solving this. I think we are making slow but steady progress exposing what's actually going on. The aim must be to turn the eternally broken Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) into a clean WP:SS summary, and somehow categorize this whole cottage industry. Something like Category:Hindutva revisionism seems in order, and we may need an article to address this phenomenon of the rise of "Hindutva [pseudo]science" since the 1980s directly. We have:

• Category:Hindutva, Category:Historiography of India
• Hindutva
• Hindu nationalism (scope and relation to "Hindutva" unclear)
• Indigenous Aryans
• Out of India
• Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)
• Hindu reform movements

authors/books

• Subhash Kak
• N. S. Rajaram
• David Frawley
• Nicholas Kazanas
• Georg Feuerstein
• Shrikant G. Talageri
• In Search of the Cradle of Civilization
• The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis

the underlying structure of this propaganda effort isn't at all obvious from the beginning due to the conscious effort to make it appear larger and less coordinated than it is (a central role seems to be taken by the Voice of Dharma publishing house, which would seem to need its own article). You initially think these are just a motley crew of your average crackpot authors until the pattern emerges. It is a rather serious topic, since this is ultimately about lying to the Indian (and expatriate Indian) public, misleading it into mindless radicalism, and Nanda isn't just Godwining when she draws the obvious parallel to the "Aryan supremacy" cruft of 1930s fascism. dab (𒁳) 10:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Merging the article

Here we have an article that is about the "ideological position" that may manifest itself as OIT, and that seems to have been created to paint views such as OIT as some sort of radicalism or extremism. Why does this need a separate article? This could all be safely merged into OIT, AIT and Hindutva. It does not need a separate article. Most of it can find place in OIT, and the rest in AIT and Hindutva. --RF 14:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The other possibility would be too move it to Ideological positions in the Indo-Aryan migration debate. This title would be more neutral. I don't understand why this article is named Indigenous Aryan Theory. --RF 14:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

you are right, it should just be indigenous Aryans. It's a topic of propaganda, not a "theory". dab (𒁳) 15:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I am considering moving it to Hindutva revisionism above, as it turns out "indigenous Aryans" are only the tip of a regular iceberg of pseudoscience flying around here. This widening of scope could be a way forward (we can always split again if that article should become too long). If we do that, we should also merge the "AIT (history and controversies)" article, which at the moment exists just a dump anyway. We cannot merge this with OIT though: we cannot merge OIT here, since OIT has (granted, minor) aspects that are not ideologically motivated but bona fide scholarship, and we cannot merge this to OIT, since the scope of "indigenous Aryans" is obviously not restricted to OIT. The PIE Urheimat debate is just another vehicle the propagandists sometimes find it convenient to take a ride on, they do not acutally care about PIE reconstruction at all. dab (𒁳) 15:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hindutva revisionism is not a neutral either, and is based on a neologism (Hindutva). The neutral alternative would be "Claims of Hindu nationalist revisionism". But for this article, Ideological positions in the Indo-Aryan migration debate is much more neutral, because the scope of the article would also include allegations of bias among the other side, at least in theory. Many readers will perceive it as pov, if already the title of the article limits the scope to only one pov, it would seem like poisoning the well. Can we move this article this article to Ideological positions in the Indo-Aryan migration debate then, a title that at least in theory has the scope for all pov's? --RF 15:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

we have any number of "neologisms" in Wikipedia article titles, but we can also call it "Hindu nationalist revisionism". That the topic under discusison is revisionism can hardly be disputed. This isn't about an "Indo-Aryan migration debate" at all, which is a topic of bona fide scholarship that just happens to be spammed by the revisionists. RF, "NPOV" does not mean "agnosticism to the point of debility in the face of evidence", you are looking for Wikipedia:Relativism (which wasn't policy last time I checked). dab (𒁳) 15:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Revisionism is not neutral and would violate WP:NPOV issues like Bias, Fairness of tone, POV forks. Articles should contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. If one side cries revisionism, the other side very likely makes counter-claims. And there should be scope for both sides. Maybe call it Revisionism debates in Indian politics. But for this article here, the title should be something like Ideological positions in the Indo-Aryan migration debate , or it should be merged as a section in OIT or Hindutva or AIT. --RF 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

'each viewpoint'? This is where you are mistaken. We weigh viewpoints by academic credibility. Compare Creation science. True, we keep "Creation science" at the title chosen by the propagandists, which is precisely why this article is at "indigenous Aryans". But there is no way around Wikipedia categorizing it as pseudoscientific bullshit. In this spirit, we can call this article "Vedic science" if you like :) dab (𒁳) 15:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Then move it to Out of India Theory (Ideological positions) and make it a subsection of that article. The title "Indigenous Aryan Theory" is very confusing, and your other suggestions are not really neutral. --RF 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As I have expalined before [[12]], my concern is when a religious/ideological position is claimed to be a "milder" version and tried to fit with mainstream in any way (e.g. compatible with Anatolian hypothesis). This I will challenge.

If you want to present this only as religious/ideological/Hindutva propoganda, then IMHO it is better to keep this as a seperate article, call it "Indigenous Aryanism". That way there is a published material that can be used as source (Bryant 2001). Don't make any controversial claims and I won't ask for citation. WP:ATT is a core policy due to a good reason. We all have to follow it.Sbhushan 17:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan, try to read this carefully. I am also concerned when an ideological position is presented as "academic" or "scientific", yet this is what these people are doing. This is the nature of propaganda. And if an ideological position is presented as an academic position, we will have to evaluate it with reference to academic mainstream, and establish whether it is at all compatible (in which case it is ideological abuse of a tenable scholarly position. Such as "we were here before the gypsies, therefore the gypsies must leave": here the premise may be perfecly factual, but the conclusion is still ideological), or it is not (in which case it is simple pseudoscience). I hope this wasn't too difficult to follow. It is a fact that Hinduism was in India before Islam (it is pseudoscience to state it was there as early as 6000 BC). It is ideology, not a scholarly conclusion, that Islam is therefore to be expunged, either way. We agree it is stupid to present your ideology as scholarship, yet this is still what is being done here, and we have to document this. This article is about the pseudoscientific claims being handed around, not the policies that are derived from them. dab (𒁳) 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the disputes with this article have been ongoing since its creation with several users involved, and with no end in sight, I have put it on AFD where this can be discussed by another set of people. In my opinion, it should be merged into OIT as long as it's not big enough for a separate article, and the article title IAT is very confusing. The article title IAT does say nothing at all about the fact that the article is supposed to be about political ideology. At least a better title must be found, which will maybe also be found in the AFD discussion. --RF 02:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I have opened a RfC as suggested by Dab at [[13]]. Could interested parties please provide your comments there.Sbhushan 16:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

The neutrality problem is that many of the claims, and the use of pejorative terms like "National mysticism" are not attributed to a source and stated as fact, and that there is too much cherry picking of one single pov in the article. Indina authors have also criticzed claims that Criticism of AMT = Nazism. There are also Western authors who have criticized ideological bias in IE/IA scholarship about the AMT such as Bryant, Fussmann and Leach. They also need a place

• The concept is notable in Indian politics as part of Hindu nationalist propaganda.

This is written as if it were a fact, but where is the source. It should be attributed to some source.

• In its extreme forms, postulating "Aryans" in the Neolithic period (7th to 5th millennia BC), it qualifies as pseudohistory[2] or national mysticism,

Which source claims it to be "pseudohistory" or "national mysticism" and uses such pejorative terms? If it is not attributed to a source, it is OR.

• . The unifying ideology is apparent in that there is no academic controversy among proponents of "out of India" scenario aimed at resolving such contradictions.

Again, where is the source?

• It is designed as the ideological counterpart of the Anti-Brahmanism of Dravidistan or "self respect" movements on one hand, effectively reflecting the conflict of Indo-Aryan vs. Dravidian ethnic nationalism (the main ethnic division of the population of the Republic of India), and the conflict between Hinduism and Islam in India on the other hand (the main religious division of the Republic of India). The implicit argument is that "Indigenous Aryans" take away any claim of priority from the Dravidian population, making both groups equally "autochthonous" while at the same time facilitating the portrayal of Islam as a recent and "foreign" violent intrusion into a monolithic and immutable native Indo-Aryan (Hindu) culture of incalculable antiquity.

Source?

• Repercussions of these divisions have reached Californian courts with the Californian Hindu textbook case, where according to the Times of India[9] historian and president of the Indian History Congress, D. N. Jha in a "crucial affidavit" to the superior court of the state of California, argued as an appeal to consequences,"Giving a hint of the Aryan origin debate in India, [...] asked the court not to fall for the 'indigenous Aryan' claim since it has led to 'demonisation of Muslims and Christians as foreigners and to the near denial of the contributions of non-Hindus to Indian culture'."

This is the comment by a politicized Marxist scholar [14] whose textbooks contain remarks against Hindus, whose comment was made in a newspaper during the Textbook controversy in California, which is only marginally related to the Indo-Aryan controversy. It could at lest be written neutrally, not as a fact. I have never read any one (who has written on the OIT issue) who makes a connection between AMT and Muslims or Christians, and I've read quite a few authors on this. Indeed, it would make no sense at all, since most Indian Muslims and Christians are Indians who converted, not migrated. But if such authors do exist that make this connection, then why not mention the authors and books by name?

The article also says also that Witzel claims that Savarkar was critical of the AMT, when in fact he believed in it, as for example Talageri and Bilimoria have written about. The article also cites (Mukhyananda 1997:94), without giving any reference what this book is, and why this person should be notable. I have never heard of Mukhyananda, and I've read quite a bit about these authors. Golwalkar and Savarkar are also both not historians, not even "pseudohistorians", because they have not written books about history, and the claim in the article that they are proto-Nazis is very controversial and should at least be neutralized with another source. The article should discuss the ideas of historians or those that have written books about history, not of politicians. --RF 01:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary, leading up to edit war

I've tried to keep the commentary to a minimum.

1. [15] Quotes Byant(2001), p.74. Asserts: "Bryant clearly states that AIT and OIT are same." Subsequent discussion establishes that he has misread Bryant.
2. [16] Asserts: "the group of people who reject linguistic are are not being discussed here." Contradicted by the very page he quoted [17].
3. [18] Asserts: "the group that does not believe in linguistic doesn't believe in any migration. That group doesn't accept any migration in 1500 BC, nor pre IVC, nor before last ice age. So IAT can not be that group. The group that accepts linguitic is OIT. So who is left???". False dilemma immediately refuted [19]
4. [20] Asks for a reference, and introduces "PVC". Accused of changing the subject [21], which was supposed to be Bryant's alleged equation of IAT and OIT.
5. [22] Asserts: "it seems that IAT concept is a hypothesis (it is not Bryant’s) [...]Bryant uses Indigenous Aryan as “all inclusive”; to infer an IAT out of “all inclusive” is synthesis of published work and hence OR. Any one who is arguing for Indigenous is either in PVC camp or OIT camp, there is no third indigenous camp." Contradicted again [23].
6. [24] Quotes Bryant(2001) p4. Asserts: "This clearly states that Indigenous Aryanism oppose invasions and migrations. This combined with quote from page 74 makes the IAT page a original research." Note elision of the word "Aryan" from what Indigenous Aryanism is opposing in this restatement of Bryant. Immediately contradicted again [25].
7. [26] Reasserts his misreading: "As noted above on Bryant 2001 Page 4, label "Indigenous Aryanism" is for scholars who oppose all migrations". Rebuttal reproduced [27].
8. [28] Requests reference: the simplest solution would be to provide verifiable reference for Indigenous Aryan theory." Yours truly comments, in an effort to summarize [29].
9. [30]. Asserts: "In a nutshell, this theory states that some scholars are arguing that PIE migrated to the region prior to IVC and developed into Indo-Aryan language. I am looking for reference to this theory and the scholars who are arguing for this position." Note the claim about the theory. The article (as of the then current revision) has no such claim, as I try to get him to realize [31].
10. [32]. Repeats counterfactual assertion: "Indigenous Aryan Theory (IAT) is different from “Indigenous Aryanism”. AIT says that a group of scholars argue that PIE existed outside Indian subcontinent, migrated to this region pre-IVC and the language developed into Indo-Aryan in this region. My request for reference is for this argument." Supplements with a post to my Talk page [33]. This time, I explicitly ask him to demonstrate this claim from the article [34].
11. [35] Plays the PVC card again: "First if you equate Indigenous Aryan Theory with Proto Vedic Continuity, that addresses my request for reference. Now it should be easy to identify people who have argued for this . As suggested earlier I will put tags in the document to request citation." PVC, supposedly a scholarly alternative, is revealed to originate in a blog [36] (as referenced on my Talk page, to boot.)
12. [37] Interprets my request as an invitation to scatter tags all over the article. (I humor him by offering references for two subsidiary clauses so tagged, "that is, speakers of Indo-Iranian languages", and "which is often identified as a Proto-Iranian culture".)
13. [38] Restates his position on PVC: "believe it or not we are arguing for same thing. The name IAT or PVC doesn't matter to me. I used PVC as that has been discussed for quite some time now on other pages."
14. [39] Questions the treatment of his tagging by Dab and me. Dab questions his tagging [40], and I make an oblique reference to Hanlon's razor [41] (see summary on history page).
15. [42] Inserts his quote from Bryant(2001) p4, already shown to have been misunderstood by him, into the article. I remove it [43], among other edits, e.g. [44] and [45], which puts the misquote back into its proper context.
16. My removal of the misleading quote is re-inserted [46], and my contextual introduction is removed [47].

The edit war starts at about this point. rudra 07:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My only comment is that you might want to read WP:ATT policy. If you think you have a great argument to solve this complex linguistic issue, the correct thing would be to publish that argument in a peer reviewed journal. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. I am responding to some of your points, because you atleast seem to have read Bryant (unlike Dab).

Point 1 and 6: Bryant on page 6 "unavoidable corollary" starts with if Indo-Aryan language were Indigenous and concludes PIE is Indigenous. I don't understand how you can use Bryant's words to second guess Bryant.

Point 2: check Bryant (2001) Chapter 8, first paragraph Since the principle that cognate languages stem from some kind of a protoform has yet to be refuted, as has the postulate that protolanguages must have been spoken in some kind of a reasonably delimited geographic area

Point 4: PVC is the term used on Wikipedia for quite some time to refer to same concept, please check talk pages on Indo-Aryan migration and OIT and archieves.

Point 9 and 10: Article said this theory is compatible with Anatolian hypothesis at that time. This was the most controversial statment in the article and the only reason that Dab initiated this article.

Point 12: I objected to Indigenous Aryan were speakers of Indo-Iranian. What does the current version of article say (it is Indo-Aryan and not Indo-Iranian)? I have already demonstrated that R. Schimtt was not correct citation. [[48]]. Are you still arguing for it???

Point 15 and 16: Those are exact words from Bryant. The statement that you have in your point 16 (footnoted 7 in the article) is implying opposite of what Bryant says in the quote. You are misquoting Bryant.

You might have read Bryant, but you are quoting all of it out of context. The proof of pudding is see article before I got involved [[49]], check how many citation you can find and what kind of controversial claims are in the article and check the later version.Sbhushan 18:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested to know that Proto-Vedic Continuity (PVC) was Dab's creation also [[50]]. As you might have noticed in discussion, both Dab and Paul were well aware of PVC concept.Sbhushan 15:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

you will be surprised to learn that I'm perfectly aware of all of this nonsense. Proto-Vedic Continuity was an early attempt to title this page. We then moved it to its present title, because "PVC" seemed just attributable to some blog. I don't care what the title of this page is, ok? It will be easier to have it at Hindutva pseudoscience and be done, but up to now I was trying to keep it at some title the "supporters" actually endorse, along the lines of creation science. You cannot keep Wikipedia from discussing pseudoscience as pseudoscience. But we can argue about titling and article scopes. dab (𒁳) 17:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem if you want to discuss pseudoscience as pseudoscience. I will help you find citation also. Problem starts when you try to portray this pseudoscience as compatible with Anatolian hypothesis. Or calling pseudoscience as "mild" version compared to scholary view. Make sure you supply full citations when adding controversial content.Sbhushan 18:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan, you still fail to make clear what you believe is controversial. All we are doing is present the "historiographical context", precisely for the benefit of people like you who lack such background knowledge. The "mild" version is "mild" because it is weaker than (encompassed by) the others. The "mild" version postulates pre-Indo-Aryans in the Punjab by 2,000 BC. hey , that's wikt:compatible with the Anatolian hypothesis, which, if you deign to click on the link, postulates Proto-Indo-Europeans in Anatolia in 6,500 BC, that is, you have full 4,500(!) years for your Proto-Indo-Europeans to walk (or crawl, or swim) to the Punjab and Indo-Aryans still evolve indigenously in the Punjab. If you do not understand any of this, I suggest you show this paragraph to the mediators and see if they think it makes sense, and can they explain to you what I am saying. Also, at present we do not mention the Anatolian hypothesis in the article. It's not absolutely necessary, just a nice to know for people who don't, and unlike you, would like to. Regarding "pseudoscience", I suppose the evidence (and references) accumulated in Sokal and Nanda should suffice, but thanks for your offer. dab (𒁳) 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Most controversial issue re: compatibility to Anatolian - it is not simply matter of 2000 BC Indo-Aryan in the Punjab region that will make them compatible. To name few issues 1) how did IA loan words get in Finno-Ugric languages, 2) how did Mitanni (IA language) end up outside Punjab (quite close to where PIE started as per Anatolian), if Indo-Aryan was indigenous, 3) What did Renfrew say about which geographic area IA were formed, 4) Scholars that argue for Indigenous Aryan, what do they say where this group came from. That is why we prefer peer reviewed publications (to think the problem/solutions throughly). That is why I am asking for citation. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it can be argued.Sbhushan 19:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the above also shed some light on Bryant's conclusions -- "unavoidable corollary" starts with if Indo-Aryan language were Indigenous and concludes PIE is Indigenous. This should also clarify who has more background knowledge and understanding of issues involved. If the above paragraph was not clear, you might want to get some one knowledgeable to explain the issues.Sbhushan 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Are these the Lal quotes being discussed?

In reading over the article by Lal at [http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/articles/bbl001.html} I am getting the impression that some past edits have involved paraphrasing or interpretation of what he said. I request that if the Lal paper is to be cited, exact quotes be used. Regardless of whether or not these opinions are true, controversial, or whatever, simply being sure we have them correctly quoted is an issue. I am not sure which quotes are best, but some that are relevant to Harappan dating and Sanskrit are:

"Further, there is a continuous story from the succeeding chalcolithic level onwards, taking us through various evolutionary stages to the Early Harappan from which there emerged the Harappan Civilization itself, around the middle of the third millennium BCE. Again, after a thorough study of the human skeletal remains, Hemphill and his colleagues (1991) have shown that there was a biological continuity right from 4500 BCE to 800 BCE. A question may now be posed: “What language did these chalcolithic people speak?” Though the Harappan script has not yet been deciphered, in spite of so many tall claims, we have yet another way of tackling the issue."

"In the Rigveda, the Sarasvati has been stated to be a mighty river flowing from the mountains to the sea (RV 7.95.2). By the time of the Panchvimsa Brahmana (XXV.10.16) it dried up. When did this drying up of the Sarasvati take place? The answer is provided by the evidence from the excavations at Kalibangan which stood on the bank of the Sarasvati, now going by the name of the Ghaggar. Radiocarbon dates indicate that the Mature Harappan settlement at Kalibangan had to be abandoned around 2000-1900 BCE. And, as the hydrological evidence indicates, this abandonment took place on account of the drying up of the Sarasvati. This latter part is duly established by the work of Raikes, an Italian hydrologist, and of his Indian collaborators. Raikes (1968) has very significantly titled his paper, “Kalibangan: Death from Natural Causes”. Thus, an in-depth study of the literary-cum-archaeological-cum-hydrological-cum-radiocarbon evidence duly establishes that the Rigveda (which, to recall, speaks of the Sarasvati as a mighty river) must antedate ca 2000 BCE. By how many centuries, it can be anybody’s guess."

"Putting together the various parts of this jigsaw puzzle, it would mean that if the Vedas reflect the literary counterpart of the Harappan archaeological complex, the Harappans spokes a language called Sanskrit. And since the Harappan Culture had its roots going deep at least into the fifth millennium BCE, it would imply that the Sanskrit-speakers were there in this area as early as that. Further, had the Sanskrit-speaking people not been the original inhabitants of this region, we would have got evidence thereof in terms of a substratum language, which we really do not have. The presence of a few Dravidian words in the Vedas can be explained by an adstratum and not necessarily by a substratum. As explained elsewhere by the present author (in press), the Harappans came in lateral contact with the Southern Neolithic people who, in all probability, were speakers the Dravidian language." Buddhipriya 23:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In copying these quotes from the web site I noted the grammatical error "were speakers the Dravidian language" which may mean that this web page has other transcription errors. Buddhipriya 23:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A second question is, do all editors consider Lal a reliable source? If not, should that disagreement be noted? Buddhipriya 23:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For correct reports and sound appraisals of archaeological details, yes. For ethno-cultural reconstructions of the IVC, or what the Vedas might have to do with it, no. Lal is (or was, given that he retired a while back) a professional archaeologist, but his life work was not on the IVC (or the Vedas). rudra 06:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Mediation Cabal case

Good evening all (GMT time); a Mediation Cabal case regarding this article is currently being mediated by Anthony cfc at User talk:Anthony cfc. Interested parties are invited to participate in the Mediation at User talk:Anthony cfc. Of particular note is the first intended compromise. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality. Kind regards, anthonycfc [talk] 23:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that discussion of this page is taking place at User talk:Anthony_cfc as requested by the Mediator. On that page I have suggested a methodology for dispute resolution in which specific sources would be examined one at a time and either judged mutually acceptable, or moved to the talk page. Currently the question on the table is about inclusion or exclusion of the Lal source, which is now in the article as the reference supporting this statement: " ''or [[national mysticism]], while more moderate proposals (postulating the 3rd millennium BC [[Harappan civilization]] as the locus of Proto-Indo-Iranian) can qualify as bona fide scholarship, albeit far removed from mainstream opinion''.<ref>e.g. [[B.B. Lal]] who in [http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/articles/bbl001.html The Homeland of Indo-European Languages and Culture: Some Thoughts] claims that the Rigveda "must antedate ca. 2000 BCE" based on what he calls "literary-cum-archaeological-cum-hydrological-cum-radiocarbon evidence".</ref>"

Since the mediator has asked that discussion take place at his talk page please comment there on whether or not Lal should be used at this time. Buddhipriya 18:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible compromise

We have three article to deal with broader topic; Indo-Aryan migration for mainstream view, Out of India for minority scholarly opinion, and Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) about historical, ideological and socio-political aspects of this controversy. There is no need for a fourth article like indigenous Aryans. Would this be acceptable compromise.Sbhushan 14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Question- Why are three articles acceptable and a fourth not acceptable ? Is three also not too much ? Why not only one article ? Also instead of reverting because one feels it is not referenced, there is a "preferred" option of putting citation required tags in the section that one feels that are not been referenced, and the section which one feels do not have proper citation should be flagged on the talk page and discussed before reverting edits to it too. Haphar 15:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

indeed. This is why the Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) has a {{split}} template. It's an awkward non-topic created as a tempoaray trashcan for ideological chaff that gathered on the main article. We agree it's redundant. What we do not agree upon is your intention to obscure the propagandistic nature of the "non-scholarly" topics. dab (𒁳) 15:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the fourth article talks about same things as in AIT article. AIT article has been around for longest time for same topic. Please notice Dab had reverted twice the changes proposed by another editor without discussing. I have tried putting OR tag and fact tags before, and Dab removes them without providing any citation (please check RfC for details). Dab is also refusing to participate in mediation (One before tried by Geo at [[51]] another one being tried at [[52]]. Dab refuses all reasonable requests. Please check the history, before assuming who is at fault.Sbhushan 15:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you could flag the sections here -now-it would help. I find a large difference in AIT and IAT. AIT presents an article on what seems like a bonafide proven theory, ( shades of Intelligent Design)IAT talks of the "political" and "sociological" urges that are at work and have shaped IAT. There is a huge difference in the two articles, there is an overlap but both have large parts that are different, as the difference between "Intelligent Design" and the Christian right wing ideology in the U.S.A that causes scientific creation to be debunked and ID to be touted as "scientific". So there is a seperate page on ID as well as right wing ideology behind ID( check out Young Earth Creationism for the ideology-And in Creationism you would again get examples of more than 4 articles on a similiar topic but having many different articles.Haphar 15:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

First thing AIT is no theory (Dab has earlier agreed to this see here [[53]] and here [[54]]). The theory part starts when we add linguistic to it and then this is same as Out of India (also expalined to Dab number of times last time here [[55]] and [[56]]) AIT should be actually "Indigenous Aryan" or "Indigenous Aryanism", it is only a political/ideological statement. In those terms it should be a subsection of AIT page. Regarding false statements in the article - item footnoted (2) this is being discussed at mediation page [[57]]. The citation was provided by Dab and the referenced document say something different than what Dab is quoting. Which has been explained to Dab number of times [[58]] and he still refuses to correct it. There are at least three more similar examples in the article. But let us solve one and then we will tackle others.Sbhushan 15:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, we agree this article should be moved. No, it shouldn't be "a subsection of AIT page", it should be a subsection of a larger "Hindutva ideology" page, as you say yourself, it isn't a "theory" in any narrow sense. Your Lal issue makes no sense, Lal is not cited as an authority as to what is acceptable as "mainstream" to be sure. dab (𒁳) 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The larger page should be a consensus decision – not your or mine view alone. Please open appropriate template for discussion.Sbhushan 17:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

no sources?

In Search of the Cradle of Civilization is a "pro-Hindutva", pro-"indigenous Aryan" pamphlet that explicitly grants that "indigenous Aryans" needs not include "OIT". Thus, we have established the possibility not only in terms of a scholarly approach, but even find the distinction within "indigenist" literature, precisely what Sbhushan has been asking for all along. Sbhushan's reaction? Another revert. Your credibility, such as it is, is eroding quickly with behaviour like that, Sbhushan. I'm afraid I'll have to consider this blatant trolling at this point. dab (𒁳) 15:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

First thing, you did not provide page number and exact wording of author where they exclude OIT. For longest time you have been very negative of Frawley (see note dated 4 Nov in these archieve [[59]]. Citation that you provided for footnote 2 in the article is not correct and has been pointed out to you number of times. You still have not changed the text. You also refuse to participate in mediation efforts. Your history of providing incorrect citation is captured in RfC. So till I see exact words and page number I have hard time believing you.Sbhushan 15:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

you are making no sense again Sbh. Try to get a mediator argue your point for you. I'm not sure why I'm still trying to have a meaningful discussion with you, evidence suggests it's impossible. dab (𒁳) 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Text says "several millennia" and "earlier Indo-European dialects". Does this tell you how many "millennia" or where did the earlier IE dialects came from. You are also quoting Frawley in the scenario 3 (last ice age), can you try to keep your story straight.

how did you conclude that this is compatible with Anatolian theory. I explained to you yesterday that there is lot more than 2000 BC Indo-Aryan to make them compatible [[60]]. We require a peer reviewed material to make this argument before you can present this. Your original research cn not be published on Wikipedia. You have already demonstrated that you don't have even basic idea about the issues involved here.Sbhushan 16:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan, I recommend you switch on your brain now. Get a mediator to review your ideas, and have them tell me whatever they can make out. End of this discussion. dab (𒁳) 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As per you David Frawley is "mild" voice and he also sees the origin of all world civilizations in Northern India, 10,000 - 6,000 BCE. Has the bulb clicked above your head yet.Sbhushan 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The main point is that instead of writing the exact words of the author, Dab is using it to deduce his version of interpretation. This is same as reading Sanskrit Rig-Veda and then deduce Dasa as Dravidians and formulate Aryan Invasion Theory. Dab is doing same. Using Bryant to make a new Indigenous Aryan Theory. It seems that Dab don't want to understand the point. As rightly said by Nobleeagle, Dab wants to prove OIT as some propoganda when millions of Indians never had/have faith in AIT. WIN 05:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

more detailed treatment of Lal

Dab, please also remove the claim till you can find citation for it. The claim is:

<While more moderate proposals (postulating the 3rd millennium BC Harappan civilization as the locus of Proto-Indo-Iranian) can qualify as bona fide scholarship, albeit far removed from mainstream opinion.

So far Lal and Sethna have been offered as bona fide scholars and they both argued for 4000 BC Rigveda. These two are moderate voices in this discussion. No one in Indigenous Aryan group cares about Indo-Iranian, they only care about Vedic.Sbhushan 16:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

what do you want a citation for, that a PIIr IVC can be considered bona fide scholarship, or that it is far from mainstream? Any voice arguing for a 4000 BC Rigveda is hardly "moderate" in a scholarly sense. Lal's more careful "before 2000 BC" statement is in recognition that he knows "4000 BC" will be laughed out of court. Of course "4000 BC Sanskrit" can still be part of the "mild" version ideologically, compared to PIE or Proto-World claims, but that's "moderate" in comparison to batshit-cuckoo-cloud-craziness, not to any standard of "scholarship". Now, let me know, are you arguing that even a 3rd millennium RV is untenable as "bona fide", or are you arguing that a 3rd millennium RV isn't "far removed from mainstream". As for the latter, click on Rigveda or Vedic period. As for the former, well, I was trying to be nice. A 3rd millennium RV could be argued to be "bona fide", if you try to be really, really gentle. In an "Anatolian" scenario. I'm not aware of any serious suggestion for a pre-2000 RV though (that is, one not based on Sarasvati, Archaeoastronomy, Ancient Astronauts, or Aryan pride). dab (𒁳) 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No one in Indigenous Aryan group cares about Indo-Iranian, they only care about Vedic -- oh yeah? You could side with me against the people arguing that this is a pov-fork of "OIT" then. How come you pick on me if you really mostly agree with me, instead of the people claiming "IAT" and "OIT" are one and the same? Or those arguing that this is a topic of scholarship, not national mysticism? dab (𒁳) 16:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on the methodology of finding mutually acceptable sources that was raised on his talk page I feel that the Lal source should be moved to the talk page pending building more agreement about use of Lal as a source. Would the parties please clarify if mediation is still taking place for this article, or if mediation has been abandoned? Buddhipriya 16:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

what is the problem with the Lal source? Lal is obviously one of the more notable "IAT" proponents. We are not using him in any way as an authoritative source, after all, we are just quoting his position as an example of an "IAT" position. What is disputed here? dab (𒁳) 16:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dispute is - Lal said 4500 BC Sanskrit speakers in this region as per the document you cited.Sbhushan 16:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer you mediate, I agree with the methodology you presented earlier. This request is to remove the controversial comments when Lal's ref was removed.Sbhushan 16:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also prefer you, Sbhushan, posted to Buddhipriya's talkpage, and Buddhipriya edited on your behalf. You are unable to pinpoint what you allege is "controversial". You fail to be even consistent at all. If you can get Buddhipriya to understand what you want, I'll happily discuss it with him. dab (𒁳) 16:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not move discussion of this controversy to my talk page. I find it confusing to have to look in many places. I am not currently serving as a mediator. I do not wish to serve as an advocate for anyone. We need to get clarity from the current mediator if he is involved. I have suggested a method for conflict resolution on the mediator's talk page that involved a two-step method of first ruling sources either in or out, and then a second step of determining what included sources may say. Is that methodology acceptable to people? If a method of working cannot be agreed upon, it will be difficult to have any progress. Buddhipriya 17:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

look, I am just saying, if anyone has a coherent concern to bring up, I'm ready to listen, but I will take the liberty of forgoing taking Sbhushan by the hand and spell things out to him. Maybe you can be bothered to give him the occasional hint (e.g. section above). Otherwise, I think we'll just have to consider him a source of white noise as it were. dab (𒁳) 17:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dab, is this method of conflict resolution acceptable to you? If so, it could then be applied to specific sentences that are in the article now. Sbhushan has accepted the methodology already. My post was: "I [Buddhipriya] have suggested a method for conflict resolution on the mediator's talk page that involved a two-step method of first ruling sources either in or out, and then a second step of determining what included sources may say. Is that methodology acceptable to people?" Buddhipriya 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

won't it depend on what we use a source for? Lal on archaeology is reliable, I suppose. Lal on "Aryans" is fantasy. Now let's apply your methodology to Lal: shall we rule the Lal article out as a source? I say, certainly not, it is an example of an "IAT" position. Sbhushan seems to want to get rid of it. Nobody knows why. So if you, or a mediator, can make sense of what it is Sbhushan wants with Lal and why, that's great, please let me know. dab (𒁳) 20:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dab, you sourced Lal for the statement moderate proposals (postulating the 3rd millennium BC Harappan civilization as the locus of Proto-Indo-Iranian) can qualify as bona fide scholarship. Since then you have changed your mind and removed Lal as source for that statement. At the same time you should also remove the statement till you can find a source. (as requested here [[61]] and [[62]]). How long do you want to beat about the bush? So do you want to use Lal for that statement or not? If you want to use Lal, then make sure you use Lal's words. Don't create new arguments.Sbhushan 20:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

you have not answered my question above: what statement (there are two) are you objecting to? Lal was never a reference for the qualification of the position, but an example showing that the position is in fact held. Now do me a favour and tell me exactly what you are objecting to, and how you suggest we rephrase it, no more horsing around. dab (𒁳) 21:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement referenced above ''moderate proposals (postulating the 3rd millennium BC Harappan civilization as the locus of Proto-Indo-Iranian) suggest an argument/position without specifying who has presented this argument/position. WP:ATT says OR is - introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article. Can you provide citation to attribute this argument/position to a published material?Sbhushan 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

yes: as soon as you get a moderator to understand which part you are objecting to on what grounds, and have that moderator come here to argue your point for you. My position is that you are trolling, and obstructing progress by going out of your way to misread things to keep me on my toes. You could apply this strategy to any article on Wikipdia, no exceptions. This is why I will not react to requests from you directly. If you can get a moderator to see your point, I will accept that there is a point. dab (𒁳) 08:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

tell you what, I'll also accept Nobleeagle (talk · contribs) as a good faith discussion partner, a user that is clearly sympathetic to your views rather than mine. How about you voice your concerns to Nobleeagle, and then relax and watch an actual discussion for a change. dab (𒁳) 08:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to move discussion at this page. I am OK with the proposed methodology for resolving conflict. I have posted first compromise proposal at that page.Sbhushan 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It may reduce conflict if direct quotations from reliable sources were used in the article rather than summaries or interpretations of the sources? For example, instead of saying "The existence of space aliens is proven by what happened at Area 51.<ref>Doe, John. Area 51: What Really Happened. (Oxford University Press: 1987), p. 51.</ref>" try saying: "John Doe, in his book on Area 51, says that "dozens of alien bodies were recovered.".<ref>Doe, John. Area 51: What Really Happened. (Oxford University Press: 1987), p. 51.</ref> Then the discussion may be about using Doe as a reliable source, if Doe has been quoted correctly, or if other reliable sources do not agree with Doe. Buddhipriya 16:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we implement Proposed compromise 1.Sbhushan 17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)