Talk:Aryan/Archive 1

message: "Aryan (/ɑːrjən/)is an English language". Really??? Source, please. 
--Goldwin 18:03, 12 december 2006 (UTC)
:Don't be daft. It's in English dictionaries so it's part of the English language. There is no need to "source" something so obvious. Like many other English words it was originally borrowed from another language. The point is that the form "Aryan" is English, just as the form "Arier" is German. It has specific meanings in English which it does not have in Sanskrit. The purpose of this sentence is to avoid claims that there is some true "original" meaning of the word and that other usages should be excluded or declared in the article to be "distortions", "erroneous" etc. Paul B 17:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what defines being part of the English language, just like "restaurant", "eskimo" and "curry".  Paul B 11:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aryan is an english language?

message: I cant believe in 2006 their are still people who believe in an Aryan invasion theory....as anyone actually ever read an Aryan scripture?....THey came from India & Iran!...It was all just one land known as the Land of the Aryans....I mean ADOLF HITLER believed in the Aryan invasion theory....What does that tell you? ARYAN818 05:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of this is about the real so-called "Aryan Invasion Theory", nor does it help improve the article. This page is not for discussion of the content. Paul B 10:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EVIDENCE

message: I have often heard of the Aryans moving around in the 4th & 2nd Milleniums BC but have never heard of any of the evidence upon which this has been based. I do think it would be a good idea to put a question over references like this until the sources for their emmergence can be found. I have read a lot of work by soviets and those under a recieved soviet hegemony where they are trying to assert that central Asia was Satem culture in order to justify Russian (Slavs are also Satem) occupations in those areas and in preparation of the annexing of Afghanistan -which never happened. The satem theory has fallen out of favour but the legacy of Satemizing the area remains i.e. in that those satem peoples were in fact Indo-Aryan. Anyway all archeological & Historical evidence points to a gradual conquest to the East & south of Indo-Aryan peoples starting from Kurdistan in the 1st Millenium BC. There is nothing Indo-Aryan before that just a lot of speculation. Plenty of caucasoid skulls but as we all know not all caucasoids are Indoeuropeans. I am not someone who says this because I always offer strange bits of theories from here and there in case someone with more knowledge can add to it or extract the truth from it and expose the origin of the falshood. But when one of these theories finds its way into the mainstream without having had this process applied to it, I am critical. So can anyone help by offering the original sources for these theories? Or is it all based upon religious scriptures without any kind of historical coroboration? (in which case the suspect nature of the theory should be explained in the article)user:zestauferov
"It has been suggested since the mid 19th century that certain Aryan tribes migrated into India, around 1800 BC–1500 BC, possibly waging war against the declining Indus Valley Civilization"
Im doing a report on this stuff could u help out here
The Persians may have invaded or waged a war upon them they were very warlike
Yeah right. And on what evidence is this based? DONT MIX LINGUISTICS WITH HISTORY!
- Linguistics is part of the evidence.  Genetic evidence is another part of it.  Archeology is a part of it, and so is comparative religion, not to mention Iran and India's internal histories.  The Aryan Invasion Theory stands on high ground.  Speaking of which, didn't there used to be a category in this section on the Aryan Invasion Theory?
"Aryan Invasion Theory stands on high ground"??? 
DEAR EDITORS, PLEASE TAKE A NOTE:
With the Discovery of Dwarka, the ancient city of Lord Krishna, THE ARYAN INVASION THEORY HAS BEEN FALSIFIED. Please take note of it, and check this article: http://www.indiacause.com/columns/OL_051212.htm
I suppose the Invasion theory has no solid ground or proof. If Max Muller is believed, there is enough grounds for Mahabharata to be treated as a fact and an actual accord of an ancient Nuclear War.
:Hardly a new discovery. See Arkaim. The article you refer to also says that Japan was an Indo-Aryan culture. That's an improvement on Hitler. He only gave the Japs the title of "honorary Aryans". Paul B 23:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for Hitler saying that was because he allied with them. He would obviously want to keep on good terms, but the fact that Japs have the same bloodline has Indians or even european is stupidity beyond the needed. It is known now that the Aryan Invasion theory is false and was only created due to eurocentrism, but the fact that people still argue for it proves that there is still ignorance which needs to be thrown out. STOP trying to say that ANYONE BUT INDIANS AND PERSIANS ARE ARYAN.
Maybe I should put this in the AIT page, but since it's raised here, here goes.  Early assumptions of when Indoaryans (a term I prefer to differentiate them from the Iranoaryans) arrived in India, or that they "arrived" at all, were based on very inadequate knowledge of the material cultures of ancient Iran and India.  There were no Bronze Age excavations in the entire region in Muller's day--not even Mohenjo-Daro or Harappa had been discovered.  When excavations finally took place late in the 19th century, the hypotheses of early Indo-Iranicists were uncritically adopted by many of these archaeologists, resulting in much circular reasoning.  That is, archaeological dating (pre-Carbon 14) was based upon linguistic conclusions about dates that themselves were originally based upon outdated or non-existent archaeological evidence.  Most "dating" of I-Ir cultures by linguists simply lacks credibility in archaeological circles today.  It has, in fact, proven practically impossible to date the RV based upon material remains, however.  The RV rarely describes any distinctive objects and those that are described, tend to be ritual paraphernalia, almost entirely composed of impermanent organic materials.  The geography of the RV covers a wide area including the Kabul River region, the Punjab, the Indus, and the westernmost reaches of the Ganges.  It necessarily follows that the RV was composed at a time when it's users were familiar with these regions (or at least had a cultural memory of them).  Beyond that, using the RV itself to try to date the culture is an exercise in futility--it's not a history book, it's a collection of ritual hymns that, while containing some quasi-historical material, was never intended for such purpose.
It is a simple fact that nowhere in the RV is migration or invasion mentioned, though it is, however, full of violence.  But AIT was never based upon anything in the texts.  It was and is a theory based upon the undisputable fact that I-Ir languages are related (sometimes very closely) to other IE languages.  When the Indus Valley sites were excavated by Sir Mortimer Wheeler, it was he who first came up with what is now the "classical" Aryan Invasion Theory--he based this upon the mistaken belief that the cities were destroyed by some sort of carnage (there is some evidence of fires, but this evidence eventually proved to be limited in scope and ambiguous at best), and his own notoriously poor comphrension of the texts themselves.  AIT was, nevertheless, a reasonable theory when it was in high vogue, regardless of whether it is or can be proven wrong (it's doubtful that any explanation of the IE dispersion can be "proven" for the reasons stated above).  At present, there is far too much emotionally charged nationalist or anti-nationalist sentiment that has "invaded" Vedic studies such that little useful research into the question has been done in over 20 years; meanwhile up to the rise of the Taliban, valuable archaeological work was taking place in the Helmand valley in particular, and throughout Afghanistan in general, and also in Margiana--all of which sheds light on the problem.  I have my own theories and research, of course, but WP's well-considered prohibition against allowing original research prevents their disclosure at this time.--Almijisti 05:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Aryan isaword which means different things in different contexts. "The Aryans" existed in the sense that there isgenerally assumed to have been an Indo-Iranian culture. I know of no specifically "Vedic" artefacts found in Harappa. What are you referring to? Paul B 10:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: moving around

message: The initial definition of Aryan in this article as "the people who spoke the parent language of the Indo-European languages" is only one of the modern western understandings, let alone modern Indian and Iranian understandings. It should be stated to be such. The original meanings in India or Persia had nothing to do with language. Imc 22:20, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Naqs-i Rustam inscription, at A,8-15, does not necessarily imply that Arya was a self-referant for a nationality or tribe, as you claim.  An equally good translation of this is "I am Darius the King...and Arya of Arya seed," but the most one can say is that to Darius, arya was a bloodline.  I guess I don't know what you mean by "nationality" here, given that the very concept of a nation is a late 17th century CE invention--doesn't this just beg the question?  In the RgVeda, the arya are contrasted with dasyu on the basis of adherence to the sacrifices:  "With distinct judgement know the Arya and those who are Dasyu; to the one who has the Barhis, make those who lack vows of worship subject by punishing them." (RV i,51,8).  Besides, even if arya denoted a certain tribe or "peoples" by the time of Darius, this is indisputedly centuries after the RgVeda and the Gathas were composed, so it doesn't prove anything about what the word might have meant originally.  Arya is never used in any lineage-sense at all in either the Gathas or the RV; it refers to one's status within the society that the text is directed to.  In the case of the Gathas, the society was those who were mazda.yasnins (worshippers of mazda); in the case of the RV it's a bit more complicated because the text was, by its own terms, directed only to those who performed the sacrifices, thus it was written for the arya alone; nevertheless, the sociolocial environment of the RV was not homogenous and not strictly I-Ir, either.  The RV itself contains numerous Dravidian and Munda borrowings, and even suggests that many non-Arya had prominent status in the society, despite their failure to perform the sacrifices.--Almijisti 05:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: initial definition

message: This article, on such a contentious topic, needs to identify the major authors of the ideas, and follow the scholarship forward in time, tracing it as it developed.  A start might be to distinguish theories of "Aryan" linguistics from theories of "Aryan" race. Some of the philologists and historians probably already even have entries at Wikipedia, and could be linked. "It has at times been believed that... " just isn't informative or credible to the reader. "A school of German and Soviet scholarship at one time..." sounds anonymous out of ignorance or laziness. Once the groundwork is complete, then the modern "Aryan invasion" pro and con has something to work from. Wetman 05:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming scholars, using book titles and dates

message: I removed the following:
*in particular, a school of German and Soviet scholarship at one time believed that this ethnic group originated in the Russian steppes. German philologists believed that the Germanic group originated from the steppes north of Historic Khwarizm, and this Germanic group followed the Aryan group into Iran before splitting from Arya. It then migrated north to the Black Sea, where they again moved north to the Baltic lake.  Thus, German philologists concluded, the German people have a direct ancestry with the people of the Arya region in Iran.
Because it's inaccurate or misleading. This is not a "national" theory (German or Soviet), nor is it outdated: It corresponds to the quite alive Kurgan hypothesis. The theory cherished in Nazi Germany, on the other hand, was that the "Aryans" originated on "German" soil. The sentence "the German people have a direct ancestry with the people of the Arya region in Iran" pretty much expresses what is accepted by virtually everybody, but instead of "people of the Arya region" we might as well say Albanians, or Slavs, or any other IE group. As to the belief in a particularly close relation of Iranians and Germans, this is afaik not something the Nazis (or anybody) assumed. If we want to quote it as a minority view, it should be attributed to specific scholars, and not to "German and Soviet" scholars collectively.  dab 08:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Much clearer. Thank you. Wetman 08:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: removed paragraph

message: *A major contemporary historian, the holder of the presitigious Kluge Chair of history in Washington, D.C., has also asserted that
This historian would be Romila Thapar who is herself too disputed to do this article any good. But the statement in question is pretty  much communis opinio, and it is more than enough to say "probably". dab 08:45, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Kluge Chair

message: section moved here for discussion:
:Genetics:About 50% of Slavs and Balts,and about 30% of Central Europeans share the same Y chromosome (R1a1) with 50% of the people of the Indus Valley.R1a1 and/or J (M172) are considered to be Indo-european,Aryan or Scythian markers.
I do not oppose a section on Genetics. But so far, this doesn't do at all. First of all, we need sources (whose results are these? Cavalli-Sforza? secondly, we need an explanation: is 50% much? or little? thirdly, what are the "people of the Indus valley"?? How were they chosen? Who qulifies? And lastly, it needs to be incorporated into the existing arcicle: How does that pertain to the different meanings of "Aryan" as explained above?  Why do we single out Balts, Slavs, Central Europeans and the mysterious "Indus valley dwellers" for this comparison? dab 15:01, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Genetics" section moved here:

message: Do we really need the discussion of the Nazi's here? I don't think a particular use of the term should be relevant to the actual meaning of the term. If the Nazi use is mistaken, then including and discussing its use promotes the mistaken definition.
:yes we do. the term's semantics has been severely influenced by the Nazis. And, Nazis or not, theirs was just one meaning historically attributed to the term. There is no 'actual meaning', only a list of meanings that have been in use. dab (ᛏ) 11:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Aryan 

message: I have read Muller and while he spent a lot of time making distinctions between the issues of race and linguistics, Muller eventually stated clearly that the Aryan race originated in Central Asia, probably Iran. I will try to find the exact citation and post it here eventually.
:please do. 11:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Was Müller referring to Iran or the extent of the Persian empire? Meaning, as later writers have said, that what we're talking about here isn't technically present day Iran - but Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan? No need to lecture me on Persia, I'm just talking about clarifying the modern usage. Khirad 04:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Max Muller 

message: this article deteriorates very quickly due to frequent addition of false claims by anonymous editors (Thanks to Paul Barlow for fixing the recent "Sanskrit is the original Aryan language"). I am growing tired with the perpetual cleanup and I hereby announce that I will revert anonymous editors with prejudice, unless they
*justify their edit here on the Talk page, or
*give a satisfactory edit summary instead, or
*cleanly cite their sources in the article.
Meaning, in cases of edits with 'some good, some bad' parts, I will throw out the good with the bad because I can't be bothered to clean up after people to keep this article in half decent shape. dab (ᛏ) 14:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: deterioration

message: Herodotus didn't describe the Medes, Scythians etc. "as Aryan peoples". He probably said they were somehow related. I don't know what term he used, but he most certainly didn't say "Aryan".  So maybe we should rephrase that bit, and give the precise reference. dab (ᛏ) 17:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course he didn't! He isn't exactly the shining bastion of accuracy when it comes to Persia either, though his observations are invaluable nonetheless. Khirad 06:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Herodotus

message: Some months ago Zosodada added this article to the list of those displaying systemic bias because it was "riddled with apparent confusion" and a "dearth of organization". It currently appears in the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks/Linguistics, on which are language related articles deemed to display systemic bias because "suffer from an Indo-European point of view." Of course this is a reasonable objection in many cases, if general linguistic concepts are disussed using only IE examples. But it's difficult to see why there should be an objection that the "Aryan" article concentrates on Indo-European! In a discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks/Linguistics I pointed out that the stated reasons for the listing - confusion and bad organisation - even if true of the article, are not systemic bias. I was advided to ask Zosodada on his talk page, which I did. After two months he has replied, but provided no explanation at all, only mentioning an unspecified "POV". For this reason I suggest the tag should be removed, since no reasonable explanation of the supposed systemic bias is to be found. Paul B 16:44, 28 June 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: of course, the tag is nonsense. dab (ᛏ) 16:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: systemic bias

message: On the Avestan transliteration - this may be splitting hairs, but in Din Dabireh Aryan it is written airyana. It is still essentially the same as अार्य though, and there's no telling if there was a vowel shift or not from the Gathic Avestan until the development of the alphabet in the Sassanid era. Khirad 04:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avestan 

message: To answer your question, yes, I do know for sure that the name Arian (not sure Im spelling it right) was mentioned by Eratosthenes in 3rd century BC.
Also, I checked Dehkhoda, and he mentions that both Herodotus and Ptolemy mention it. But Im not sure which name is he talking about, because there are many variations of the name Iran, Iriana, Ariana, eire, etc. and he doesnt specify.
Nevertheless Im sure about Erathostenes.--Zereshk 23:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Heja helweda]]'s Querry

message: There exist in central Europe (Silesia) a folk song about hAry (ha-hary). Song text:
Translation:
:Old women saying that Hary(-s plural) died.
:But Hary-s are living and drinking mead and wine.
:They look from above and have everything in *.
The leter H as described in renaissance : "H, acording to grammarian it is no leter"
:where * = dupa in dative case.
::What the hell is this section supposed to be talking about? I cannot be alone in wondering.
::Nuttyskin 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arian, Ary, Hary 

message: :Hitler said thet "Germans and Indians are the same blood but living in different lands". He also said that the Aryan Wall Extended from Berlin to Calcutta. He said that Indians and Germans together as Aryans were the Purest race of them all. In th 1930's an Indian in Germany was given More respect than an Australian, Austrian or any european.
I'm deleting this as it seems problematic in several ways. What is the source for this quote? Does it apply to all indians? "an Indian in Germany was given More respect than an Australian, Austrian or any european"??? How do you know? Paul B 07:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that Adolf was Austrian himself, it seems unlikely to say the least. Paul B 01:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Just troll's BS. It's both untrue and seeming to reminiscence about the good old days when Hitler was in charge. Delete away. dab (ᛏ) 07:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously some misguided Indian nationalist's BS.
I agree with Paul B here too, and by the way, I personally thank you for your neutral, reasonable comments about this article or other ones.Zmmz 23:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know or care what psycho pathic hitler said, but, he did believe in an Aryan pureness and Indians are Aryan as well ARYAN818 05:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler

message: The section titled "Etymology" says The Aryan, or Indo-Iranian group of languages is divided into three branches: Indo-Aryan, Nuristani, and Iranian. Is "Nuristani" one of the three branches under "Indo-Iranian" ? This is contradictory to what Ethonologue says. Is this a POV ? Perhaps we should remove the whole scentence. It does not seem to be adding extra information or support to the paragraph -- Sudarshanhs 03:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Language classification

message: Based on the Indo-European roots section in the American Heritage College Dictionary, I have deleted the reference to "E/ire," the Irish name for Ireland, being related to Aryan. The dictionary instead gives the root *pei@, suffixed form *pei-wer- "fat; fetile" as the source "Iueriu" -- Celtic languages lose initial PIE /p/ -- and this has the benefit of being an actual attested ancient form of the island's name.
PIE /a/ vowels remained unchanged in the transformation to Celtic, and so the long /e:/ in "Eire" makes no sense if descended from *ar-yo-.
"Aristos" however IS descended from this root, but "heir" is not.
:I've reverted your changes, since the earlier version clearly stated that these theories are now no longer widely accepted. It is worth mentioning them because they have a bearing on the later development of the term in the West. As for "aristos", do you have recent sources?Paul B 14:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: aristos should be widely accepted; and yes, I agree it is well to note that the Eire connection was proposed in the 19th c. even if it is untenable today. I don't know about 'heir' though - a connection with this word would have been untenable even in the 19th c.; I say we strike that until a reference is brought forward who exactly supposed a connection of 'heir' with 'arya'. dab (ᛏ) 15:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know where the claim regarding "heir" comes from. Schlegel suggested "ehre". Paul B 15:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymologies 

message: So it would be interesting to see a discussion of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the purely descriptive/archeological aspect of the Nazi claims. That is, are Germanic peoples (say, Franks, Teutons, Aller Manni) actually descended from the Indo-Aryans or proto-Indo-Iranians or whoever? More so than, say, the Ashkenazim are? I genuinely don't know, and am kind of curious. Hopefully this question can be discussed independently of the racist Nazi mythology. --Trovatore 20:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, they just descend from the Proto-Indo-Europeans linguistically, and partly genetically (there is always a local substrate that stays in place when new groups arrive). See Proto-Germanic, Germanic peoples, Nordic Bronze Age. The Slavs and Balts are likely closer to the Indo-Iranians, not to mention the gypsies, who are Indo-Iranians, all of which were considered inferior by the Nazis. Your point is valid, of course, in that the North European "Aryan homeland" was once an innocent academic possiblity, say around 1880, as good as any other. It was only  national mysticism that turned a hypothesis (which is now, moreover, untenable) into an atrocity. Quoth Albert Einstein, nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. dab (ᛏ) 21:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't have a "point" so much as a question, and thank you for your answer, which has been very helpful. Perhaps this information about the Slavs, Balts, and Roma, properly sourced, could be added to this article and Aryan race. --Trovatore 22:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: origins of Germanic peoples

message: sorry for expanding the "racist connotations" section maybe beyond what is its due (if this is to remain a brief help for disambiguation). Much of what I added should maybe be moved over to Aryan race. My motivation was to trace the temporal depth of the development of the term in English and German 1890-1930. dab (ᛏ) 17:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "race" section

message: LOL, this recent edit, based on this hilarious article really epitomizes what we have to put up with on Wikipedia in this field. People who have simply no notion at all of the concept of order of magnitude, let alone any basis of knowledge to judge anything by. 
:Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) tests of blood samples from people in the Indian subcontinent have confirmed that the human race had its origins in Africa and not Europe or Central Asia as claimed by a few historians.
I thought this quip was so great that it would be a pity to have it disappear in the edit history. At this point, the phenomenon is impossible to parody (assuming that this was not in fact intended as parody), I was momentarily overawed by the mere surrealism of the moment o_O  I plan to keep this diff for future use for pointing out why we cannot be bothered to engage in discussion with anyone who throws around some terminology on talk dab (ᛏ) 15:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unlikely to be a parody. The late lamented Shivraj Singh was very fond of this type of evidence, repeatedly inserting it into the AIT and Max Müller articles. Paul B 15:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not so much "late lamented" as enjoying an eventful afterlife :) dab (ᛏ) 15:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is just a mischief of missionaries/Leftists and other westernised people.
this stuff is all over the internet! :oD  I am really beginning to enjoy this madness "missionaries/Leftists and other westernised people" is brilliant! I am really afraid what the hindi Wikipedia on these topics looks like :p dab (ᛏ) 21:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikidemia

message: I noticed somebody keeps typing in Persian. That is not the name of the language. The name of the language is Farsi. For example its as if someone were to say a person from India speaks Indian. That doesnt make any sense. Indians dont speak Indian & Persians dont speak Persian. They speak Farsi ARYAN818 01:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Persian language. And please note that new comments should be added at the bottom of the page. Paul B 01:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not going to read the article...All you have to do is go to Iran or ask any Iranian what they call their language....I have rarley, if ever, heard any Iranian call their language Persian....They all call it Farsi...But if you want to go by the article as your proof then be my guest. Sounds like this article is owned by you. ARYAN818 01:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an english Article and the english word for the Iranians language is Persian. 136.159.187.178 07:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being illogical doesn't help. The language may be natively called Farsi, but in *English language* it is called Persian. I guess you don't call the far-eastern island nation "Nippon", rather call it by *Japan*. Similarly, there is no Bangla word "Bengali", but the language's English name is so. --Ragib 01:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: the language was called Parsi (the equivalent is Persian in english) and during the arab occupation, it was changed to Farsi because arabs do not have the letter p.  therefore, iranians today use both farsi and parsi, and the both mean persian in english.  aryan, there is a lot of history behind things that may seem modern, i suggest you look into the history before you make accusations.Iranian Patriot 02:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok fine....The Aryans spoke Sanskrit and later on Persian lol...Ya that makes alot of sense...Just go to Iran and call it Persian, and see how they react....And by the way....after u go to Iran...Go to Bangladesh and call it Bengali lol ARYAN818 19:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you are really that dense, aren't you? You've just been told that "Persian" is the English term for Farsi (like "French" is the English term for Francais). It's also the same name etymologically, the p (Parsi) was affricated to f. I really do not think Wikipedia talkpages are for such childish "debates". dab (ᛏ) 19:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Cause trouble? Because I dont agree with you your majesty?...Forgive me im sorry...All hail you ARYAN818 08:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you are free to disagree with everybody, all day long. Just not on Wikipedia, unless you can put together a coherent cited argument. Otherwise, you have no business here. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox or a discussion forum, try Usenet instead. dab (ᛏ) 11:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Its called Farsi not Persian

message: I have no doubt that "Aryan" exists as a first name, and as a surname. That it is a "common" name in "various" languages needs some sort of reference. Also, is it "Aryan" or "Aryān"? (I suspect the latter for I-A languages). That the surname is "categorized into" (whatever that is supposed to mean) the Arora community in particular also will need some sort of refenrence. These are precisely the sort of likely statements nobody bothers to check on Wikipedia, only to discover after a year or two that they are horribly inaccurate. dab (ᛏ) 08:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can remove the Arora community thing, it's related to the Indian caste system. The Arora community are a Kshatriya community whose traditional homeplace is the Indus Valley. Those with the surname Arya are considered part of this community (see List of Arora last names). I don't think there is dispute on that but you may remove it as it isn't incredibly relevant to the article. Just a mention of Arya as a North Indian surname will do. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 09:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not trying to enter a pointless dispute here. I would just like to see some sort of reference, even online or whatever, because I would like to know how the name is spelled, where it is used, how common it really is, etc. You need to understand that this is the article about the English adjective on -n (i.e. the suffix is English, of Latin origin, -anus). The Indian name appears to be from Sanskrit -ana-, which is ultimately related, but we should be aware of the difference. Hindi is not English. dab (ᛏ) 12:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: if it helps, i have an iranian friend whose first name is Aryan, and it is spelled Aryan.Iranian Patriot 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: As a name

message: You know im scrolling down this page...and everyone has an opinion about Aryans...Some say they came from Causasious mountains...Some say Europe...Some say Russia....and I ask myself have any of these people ever read an Aryan text or an Aryan scritpure?....The Aryans were Hindu....or if u dont like the word Hindu, they were originally of the Vedic religion....The first aryan text were the Vedas....Nothing is older then the Vedas....THere is no mention of an invasion or anything about white over black....THey came from the entire region of India, Iran, and Afghanistan...In those days it was one land....Were the heck are u people getting the rest of ur info? 71.107.54.199 06:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like you support the Out of India theory. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 06:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't. It sounds like he hasn't a clue what he's talking about, especially since he doesn't even acknowledge that much of the ancient use of the word is Iranian, not Indian, and that many historians consider the Gathas to be older than the Vedas. Paul B 11:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It sounds like some editors dislike other points of view and uncomfortable questions.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I've been thinking that myself, recently. Hornplease 03:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what the article deals with - things that are obviously very uncomfortable for nationalists. Paul B 09:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a joke? 

message: You know every time I see a Wikipedia article about something that has to do with India, someone seems to not want to give INdia credit for its history....And this article is a perfect example....It starts by saying Aryan was derived from Sanskrit & Iranian lol....NOw what kind of combo is that? If you use the word Iranian then u have to say Indian as well....However if you prefer to say Sanskrit instead of Indian, then u should type Farsi instead of IRanian lol....I mean it should say INdian & Iranian, or, Sanskrit & Farsi... 71.107.54.199 06:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from the usual absurd Indian-victimhood-paranoia, I can see no logic to what you are saying. "Iranian" is the name of a language group. See Iranian languages. "Indian" is not the name of a language group. "Indian languages" covers three completely distinct main language groups, Indo-Aryan, Dravidian and Munda, plus many lesser ones. It is generally accepted that the Indo-Aryan languages are all derived from Sanskrit. So it is linguistically nonsensical and uninformative to use the word "Indian" when referring to a language, especially as the central point here is the fact that Sanskrit is related to the Iranian languages, while Dravidian and Munda are not. Paul B 09:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please dont erase Indian

message: You start of by saying Iranian and Sanskrit? THat makes no sense. IF you type in Iranian then give due credit to India by saying Indian as well....but if you have to type in Sanskrit then say Sanskirt and Farsi or Sanskrit and Old Persian....I dont understand the strange combo of IRanian and Sanskrit lol....and by the way....the original aryans spoke Sanskrit anyway so there was no Indian or Iranian terms lol ARYAN818 10:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New comments should go at the bottom of the page. If you had gone there you would see that this question has already been answered. Paul B 10:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its you again, mr paul b....Why do u get to decide what goes and what stays when your not even an Indian person that is familiar with Indian scriptures.....all im saying is this.....If you type in Iranian, then be fair and type in Indian as well.....But.....if you prefer to type sanskrit, then be fair, and type in old persian or farsi......I dont understand why your typing in Iranian and Sanskrit....Iranian is a nationality.....and Sanskrit is a language ARYAN818 23:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Iranian is also a language group.Khosrow II 23:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And so is Indian....Indo-European....Indo-Iranian....and a bunch of other INdo's.....Look all im saying is be consistent....If you have to type in Iranian then type in Indian as well....But....If u have to type in Sanskrit then type in Old Persian or Farsi....I dont get why this guy types in a combo of "Iranian and Sanskrit.....its like me saying something about Mexican and Hindi....The combo of Iranian and Sanskrit doesnt make sense, and it takes away due credit to Indian history cuz alot of people dont know what Sanskrit is but they know what Iranian is ARYAN818 05:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Indian' is not a language group, Iranian languages is. Read what it says above, and read Indian languages. There are not "a bunch of other Indos", the prefix Indo- refers to the existence of an Indian branch of a language group, which also has branches elsewhere. Language group have no respect for national boundaries. Purely Indian languages do not have the Indo- prefix. Indo-Aryan is a partial anomaly, since the "Aryan" component originally functioned to refer the broader Iranian and Indian family.  Paul B 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: YOur going by a technicality....IRANIAN LANGUAGES ARE A BRANCH of the Indian-European languages.......anyway mr. paul....u havnt answered my question....who the hell gave u the right to say what goes and what doesnt?....u havnt read one ancient aryan text....i cant say that with 100% knowledge, because if u have read any aryan text, u would see what a joke this page is....i mean u still believe in an aryan invasion theory, and that alone erases anything else u type cuz the aryan invasion theory is a joke.....ive offered to talk tou about this on the phone, because typing online gets people nowhere, but of course u refused...which doesnt surprise me.....see this is why alot of people get sick of wikipeia because of users like u.....u bully people into accepting articles the way U WANT IT ARYAN818 09:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read lots of "Aryan" texts. Most scholars believe in a migration of IE speakers into india (which I presume is what yo mean by "Aryan Invasion Theory") As for my "rights", It just happens that I bother to respond to you, while other editors don't. Paul B 10:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why dont you type INDIAN?

message: The term "aryan" means:
1. an indo-iranian (sanskrit arya, iranian airya)
2. perhaps an indo-european, if the term indo-european *aryos was the auto-ethnonym of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. In the XIXth century, "aryan" meant "indo-european" (Indians, Iranians, Germanics, Slavs, Greeks... and so later) because the specialists thought that the auto-ethnonym was indeed "aryan".
The existence of an indo-european god whose name was based over the root *aryo- seems to show that the XIXth century specialists were true, as Max Müller, Müller who fought the racial nordicist theories...
This god is the indo-european *Aryomen, which became the indian Aryaman, the iranian Airyaman/Erman, the irish Eremon and the germanic Irmin. So if this god *Aryomen exists not only in India and Persia but also in Celtic and Germanic world, we may think that *aryos was indeed the auto-ethnonym of the Indo-Europeans.
About the AIT Theory,
The indian nationalists said that the Indo-Europeans come from India and not from Europe. This is a nationalist behaviour. I have even readen an albanian historian saying that the Proto-Indo-Europeans 'd come from Albania. No proof about that. And even if the indusian civilisation (Harappa, Mohenjaro) was sanskritic or indo-european, that is not a proof of origin. Perhaps the Indo-Europeans have come to India not in XVIth century A.C but in XXVth century A.C for example.
The fact is Southern India and a little Pakistan (Brahui region) are composed by dravidians. They have not appeared by spontaneous generation. So, the Dravidians were in India before the "Aryans" and then the "Aryans" must have come into India at a non determinate date. Harappa indo-european ? Why not but that is not a proof of indo-european autochtony in India.
Indians, Iranians and Europeans (except Basques, Caucasians and Uralics) are all indo-europeans, simply that. Because indo-europeanity is at first a linguistic question. The origin ? Paleolithic European (for Mario Alinei and so...) ? Kurgans ? Iran ? India ? Central Europe (Lothar Kilian) ? Scandinavie (Kossinna) ? Is it so important ? I do not think so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.203.172.160 (talk • contribs).
:partly true, but offtopic, and all discussed in Wikipedia articles already. dab (𒁳) 10:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at this persons logic.....The first Aryan scriptures were the Vedas (Of India)....There original teachings are of old Hinduism (Of India)....There first language was Sanskrit (Of India).....In there own writings they dont talk about coming from a far away land or pushing down Dravidian people to southern India....And last but not least....Any and all evidence about Aryans are from the Indian & Iranian area.......BUT OOO NOO.....This person ignores all that.....And says...."The Indian nationalists who say Indo-Europeans come from India and not from Europe have a nationalist behaviour"........Amazing isnt it? ARYAN818 22:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: people "ignore" most of your points mostly on the basis of their being simply not true, or "not even false" (that is, nonsensical). As we've iterated many times on these pages of course. dab (𒁳) 23:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's be simple