"

OIT does not say that ""PIE=Vedic"", this is what the bulk of naive Hindu patriots (and I do not include Nobleeagle in their number) do not get. Elst's ""semi-reasonable"" OIT ""emerging model"" (""emerging"" being a way of saying that nobody believes in it ""yet"") would mean that the Mature IVC was the home of Proto-Indo-Iranian, which isn't ""Vedic"". The Vedic period begins with the RV, which would date to later than 1900 BC in both OIT and AIM models. 
Nobleeagle: yes, I said I would be willing to present OIT as a reasonable alternative on similar footing as the Anatolian hypothesis, which is itself  rather fringy and mainly advocated by a single scholar. The solid mainstream consensus is that PIE has ""Kurgan"" origins in the widest sense (which themselves may be open to a lot of varying interpretations). Anatolian and a la limite Indian hypotheses may be mentioned in passing as minority views, not as ""main contenders"". Xiaopo is perfectly right in his point about undue weight. Since I know you are editing in good faith, why don't we try to strike an agreement here instead of us having to follow you around scrutinizing your every edit: an agreement along the lines that you are perfectly welcome to link to the full OIT article from all sorts of PIE topics, but not to present it as anything like a 'main contender' or widely held possibility.  (ᛏ) "