Talk:Out of India theory/Archive 7

message: I'd better explain my reversion. WIN added an ungrammatical "linguists" to "Indo-Europeanists", which completely changes the meaning as well. Someone else added a bit re an ancestral homeland in Kashmir. I reverted both edits to a known-good one. Zora 09:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kashmir note was the product of a lengthy discussion between WIN and I, as you have now changed it back to the vague and misleading wording I originally objected to.  Please see Talk:Out_of_India_theory#Hapta_Hend_and_Airyanem_Vaejah for this discussion, and actually reason your objection to the result.  I will restore my edit soon, since you did not provide any reason for throwing away the conclusion of our discussion on that part.  Please state whatever objections you have to this sourced material.  The Behnam 17:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zora's reversion 

message: You might want to mention that this entire section relies upon the unsupported assumption that the Ghaggar-Hakra river is the Sarasvati. You might want to mention that most mainstream scholars maintain that the Helmand river is the river that is actually being mentioned in the rg veda. Quodfui 19:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, the Ghaggar is widely accepted as the Sarasvati of the Brahmanas. The argument is void anyway, the Sarasvati became a sort of mystical unseen river, and I think its confluence with the Ganges(!) at present is supposed to be at Allahabad. The early Rigvedic Sarasvati was probably the Helmand, yes, but it became a rather fuzzy mystical thing even in Rigvedic times. dab (𒁳) 16:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: that's not even English, WIN. Why do you keep bothering? dab (𒁳) 14:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarasvati 

message: there have been repeated claims that this article should be merged into the discussion of "indigenous Aryans" type pseudoscience. I argue that it should be kept separate, for what little academic value it has. We will only be able to do this, if we
*discuss academic publications exclusively (no Frawley, no Aurobindo, no Hancock, no archaeoastronomical or ethno-mystical nonsense).
*state up front that the academic notability of this hypothesis is less that that of both the Kurgan and the Anatolian model
*admit up front that the topic is spammed for ideological reasons.
Once we admit that, we can proceed to discuss Schlegel Elst and Kazanas and their critics. It's difficult to keep the ideological spam out of this article, but I believe it can be done. dab (𒁳) 14:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree to scholarly content - But not to Anatolian model - I would prefer to keep this article as bona fide scholarly discussion (see my earlier note [].  The question is what to do with indigenous Aryans and Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies).   Also Dab, keep in mind that you are not going to be able to slip in "compatibility with Anatolian Hypothesis" with indigenous Aryans.  I have explained reason to you why we need peer reviewed material to say that (see here [].  So sooner you give up that dream and sooner we can have a resoultion to this conflict.Sbhushan 14:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but it is compatible, with the "mild" scenarios. As I have sourced with insane precision now. You have explained nothing short of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, sorry. Get a mediator to understand what we want, and we're talking. dab (𒁳) 15:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Dab, I have yet to see the source that says it is compatible, the "mild" scenarios argue for 4000 BC Rigveda.  We also have issues of loan word in Finno-Ugric and Mittani.  Please do check WP:ATT Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments.  Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources.  Also WP:OR says The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.  This is not to say that I don't value your argument, but they don't belong in the article, till you can cite a reliable source.Sbhushan 16:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: keeping this out of the "pseudoscience" category

message: I've watched this article for awhile and particular inclusion by WIN has been bothering me.  What is this "Indo-Europeanist linguist community" wording?  Based upon reading Indo-European studies, it is a linguistic field, so it is a redundancy that implies that there are non-linguistic Indo-European studies.  True?  It keeps coming back so I figure I'd put it up for discussion since WIN never did despite requests.  The Behnam 06:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, WP:DFTT.  rudra 07:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if WIN will forever be dismissed as a troll, at least get rid of him.  It is best he not waste his time.  I just saw a content dispute & figured I'd post it here for discussion.  It could be trolling, but it could also be that WIN simply does not realize this fully, though the lack of response to discussion requests may rule out the latter scenario.  The Behnam 07:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo-Europeanist "linguist" community 

message: I just noted that Kazanas article is deleted and redirected to OIT. It's utterly full of prejudice or malign practice to portay every IAM theory opposition as not worth a salt. Refer website http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/en_index.html  which contains papers published in journals or presented in University. So, it's just not proper to redirect him to OIT. WIN 11:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the "super admin" award, Mr. troll, I am doing my best to uphold Wikipedia:policy in the face of concerted trolling campaigns. WP is "tilting" towards "AMT" because academia is, and no amount of trolling is going to change that, per WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE. Change academic mainstream, and you'll change Wikipedia. Wide support in academia means wide coverage on WP, general rejection in academia means "fringe/pseudo-scholarship" caveats on Wikipedia. It's how we operate, if you don't like it, consider forking off. dab (𒁳) 11:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should be nicer.--D-Boy 09:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Kazanas article and redirect to OIT 

message: The argument regarding conservative nature of Sanskrit was presented by Kazanas in the article "Indigenous Indoaryans and the Rigveda" published by the Journal of Indo-European Studies in 2002.  The other references are from Bryant 2001.  All this material is from peer reviewed material.  Kazanas arguments were criticized by all mainstream scholars as per Dab.  Why don't you provide some of that criticism?Sbhushan 17:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanskrit section 

message: The man claims to be a Sanskritist.  So he isn't any of: a (comparative) linguist, a philologist, an archaeologist, an historian.  Whatever.  In reality, he's a classic blog-style "researcher", with choice elements of a crank modus operandi:  
Naturally, start with the fringe theory you want to "prove": it's your one and only filter of "truth".  Read a lot, to gather a whole bunch of cherry-picked sound bites and plausible ideas.  Focus on relatively dated works, because that's where you're most likely to find suitable material (recent works by contrast being the most likely ones to make the fringiness abundantly clear to all but the invincibly stupid.)  Throw in a few references to respected current names ("see also" is a good trick here), to disguise the datedness of your real sources.  And don't forget offhand claims here and there about the academic establishment ignoring your carefully culled "facts" (i.e. in up-to-date standard works.)  Mix thoroughly, and serve it up hot... to the punters ready, willing and eager to osmote instant expertise from your labor of love.
And that's how Wikipedia will get an unending stream of science students (it really helps to have no background in the relevant subjects) gung-ho on informing the world that Burrow and Lockwood are the Last Word on Sanskrit (and IE linguistics, for good measure.)
(Bonus question: which blogger made such a big deal of Beekes?) rudra 03:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A specific article presented in peer reviewed litrature by Kazanas is being discussed.  The article was presented in JIES.  If Mallory can accept it, I fail to see what credentials you have to challenge it.  Beekes (who favours AMT) was quoted by Elst in 2005.Sbhushan 14:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JIES offered a fringe author the possibility to state his case. After three issues, they had to close the debate, since he was obviously impervious to rational criticism. We can well state that Kazanas brouht up the OIT thing in JIES and was torn apart, if only to document that the 1990s "recent evidence" presented by VoI has left no impression whatsoever on academic mainstream. This doesn't qualify Kazanas as an academic or scholar in his own right. He is a painfully obivous sockpuppet proxy of S. Kak et al., and it is no coincidence that he keeps a homepage on voi.org. He's just a member of the gang. He stated their case in JIES and was shot down, end of story. dab (𒁳) 14:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is about minority view.  It says clearly in the lead section that The theory is not favored in Indo-European studies community also makes similar statements in the rest of the article.  The content presented in article is based on acceptable source and is verifiable.  Since Kazanas arguments were rejected by so many mainstream scholars, a good source of criticism is also available. So what is the issue here?Sbhushan 14:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Kazanas? 

message: Please read Bryant 2001 page numbers provided in the references.  For Latham quote, these are the words from Page 31-32.
For Latham (1862), “when philologues make the Veda 3000 years old, and deduce 
the Latin and its congeners from Asia, they are wrong to, at least, a thousand miles in 
space, and as many years in time” (620). Latham's rationale, which survives to the present 
day, was that “if historical evidence be wanting, the a priori presumptions must be con- 
sidered…. the presumptions are in favour of the smaller class having been deduced 
from the larger rather than vice versa” (611). As a natural scientist, he illustrated this 
thesis by comparing language groups to distinct species of reptiles: 
Where we have two branches of the same division of speech separated from each other, one of 
which is the larger in area and the more diversified by varieties, and the other smaller and 
comparatively homogeneous, the presumption is in favour of the latter being derived from the 
former, rather than the former from the latter. To deduce the Indo-Europeans of Europe 
from the Indo-Europeans of Asia, in ethnology, is like deriving the reptiles of Great Brit- 
ain from those of Ireland in herpetology. (Latham 1851, cxlii; italics in original) 
.
Again please check the reference before deleting text.  If you have a doubt please leave a fact tag and try to have a discussion instead of edit waring.Sbhushan 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bryant often misstates the case for simplicity (or for other reasons known best to himself). You keep bringing up Bryant's stuff as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Bryant usually gets the gist right, but you cannot treat whatever Bryant came up with as unassailable fact. dab (𒁳) 14:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Innocently" asking for  tags is just more gaming the system, because providing random references -- Moe(1963), Larry(1975), Shemp(1992), whatever -- would meet such requests.  Which, considering that he hasn't read much, and knows even less, is about the best he could do anyway.  rudra 02:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to cite Bryant, quote him only.  Don't try to pass off his references as yours.  Manifest ignorance isn't as tiresome here as pretense of knowledge.  Given your performance on a set of related pages over the past few months, it's matter of serious doubt that anyone would still be obliged to extend good faith to you.  We weren't born yesterday.  What that means, in plain English, is that you are in no position to ask for anything. rudra 01:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh?  I suggest that you take a wiki-break.  It's Spring.  Step outside, breathe some fresh air.  You're in danger of really losing it here.  rudra 20:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  history section