Talk:Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)/Archive 3

message: PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS FOUND IN  /Archive 1 & /Archive 2
I dont think the Avesta mentioned Sapta Sindhu as their homeland. I'll have to read more about it for a better answer but I think it might have it was mentioned as a neighboring area. I might be wrong -Afghan Historian 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Avesta says nothing about Sapta Sindhu. WIN is repeating speculation by Koenraad Elst. AFIK, it doesn't mention Afghanistan either, but that became a traditional Zoroastrian interpretation of the locale. Paul B 01:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: WIN, I have archived the discussion. This is not part of a plot to suppress your views. It is normal procedure when a page gets too long. However the length of the page was largely due to your epic posts that are not directed towards the improvement of the page itself. For this reason - and the fact that discussion with you is evidently useless - I will not reply to further posts of this sort. If you wish to saise points in future that will help to improve the article please do so. Paul B 10:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on Aryan Theory between supporter and opposer 

message: -    
-    
- Though i am not a scholar not know much compared to the postings i have read ,i have reasons to believe with Mr.Shivraj about the theory. recent investigations do suggest no archeological or genetic evidence to support the theory . Additionally it can also be argued that civilization started in what is now the continent of africa ,but then aeons earlier this was one integrated land mass which split over time to what we now call as europe, asia, australia etc (there is evidence to support this ; there was a PBS program on this and researchers from madurai kamaraj university have also been involved ). hence due to geological climatic and other conditions differences emanated within the human race ,both visually and genetically. on a religious perspective the bhagavath gita quotes veda as "apour-shayam" meaning inconquearable or aptly no known origin/start ,hence i doubt the vedas having to do anything with regards to human civilizations/classes or way of life ,but merely talks about the rules of living and pursuing eternity.    
-    
- Thanks,   
-    
- Ranga--129.7.207.145 20:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aryan Invasion theory 

message: -    
- AIT is NOT a rascist theory. Unfortunately for all parties concerned, the Nazis twisted and misused the Aryan theory for their own horrible purposes, and as a result anything concerning possible Aryan invasions has been met with distrust and rejection from many scholars and non-scholars. However, a theory stating that Indians and Europeans share common ancestry is not inherently anti-Indian or pro-European. Modern academics believe that the Proto-indo-european culture originated somewhere in the middle east, NOT in europe or in india. And it is impossible to deny the lingustic and mythological connections between the vedic culture and ancient western civilizations. It's not just a "few similar words". There are a HUGE number of cognates, similar grammar structures, etc. Not to mention that Hindu Mythology, especially the early vedic mythology fits the tripartite system of Indo-european mythology incredibly well. Not only are many of the gods similar, many of their names are also cognates. To say that all that widly accepted research and data is invalid is reactionary and closed-minded. However, this is NOT to say that Indians are in any way inferior to europeans or that indian culture is somehow "derived" from western culture. Simply that both stem from a common source. This should make perfect sense to everyone, since if you go back far enough all human cultures originate from the first homo-sapiens who lived in africa hundreds of thousands of years ago. We ALL stem from a common source. Celsiana 01:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT rascist 

message: I just had a small comment on the way Huxley is referenced. 
:Huxley took the view that the "primitive Aryans" were of Nordic race, writing that "typical specimens have tall and massive frames, fair complexions, blue eyes, and yellow or reddish hair–that is to say, they are pronounced blonds." Huxley's view was shared by other writers such as Charles Morris in his 1888 book The Aryan Race, and Friedrich Nietszche in On the Genealogy of Morals (1887).
First of all, the link on Huxley leads to a disambiguation page and it is not clear which Huxley is being referred to?? (Aldous?) Secondly, the book is not cited. Can the original editor please look into these matters? 
--Rev.bayes 23:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Huxley text is called The Aryan Question (1890), and can be read in full online here. Huxley is Thomas Huxley and certainly wikified as such originally. I hadn't spotted that someone had changed it. Paul B 21:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  good job.. --Rev.bayes 16:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Huxley

message: Feel free to have a look at Airyanem Vaejah and add relevant info to this article or I might do that later, -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 19:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian and Zoroastrian perspective 

message: Aryan Migration theory in Iran from The Most Comprehensive & Scholarly Website about Ancient Iran and Iranian Peoples and some questions from it
Refer this webpage http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/prehistory/aryan_movement.htm which says about aryan migration. Read it carefully. Noted some points about Aryans from this article. 
:Could not access the web page mentioned. Is it still available?--UB 10:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could access it. thanks --UB 07:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aryan Migration theory in Iran 

message: Currently the article seems to be focused on Indians with the word India and Indian being mentioned 60 times while the word Iran is mentioned 4 times. Serious POV fixing is needed! --K a s h  Talk | email 10:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Aryan Invasion Theory" is a polemical term used exclusively to refer to the theory that Indo-European speakers migrated to India from Iran/Afghanistan. No-one in Iran, as far as I'm aware, objects to the idea that the Iranian people actually came to Iran from outside in ancient times. In India many people are obsessed this, which they see as somehow an attack on India. The article Indo-Aryan migration discusses Iran as do other articles. Paul B 12:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, I must have made a mistake then. This is differnet to the theory which describes Aryan invasion in the groups of Indo (Indo-Aryan Indo-Iranian) branch, and the European (obvious) branch? --K a s h  Talk | email 14:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you ever actually bother to read any works by Max Mueller, or say, Charles Morris's book, you will see that the distinction between migration and invasion is pretty-much non existent. Mueller does not talk about invasion at all. Any acquainance with actual ancient history should tell you that the cultures in question expanded in a way that way that probably combined both peaceful and warlike aspects. Contributors interested in the early history of Iran don't, for example, try to create absurd arguments that there was never any difference between Aryans and Hurrians. But you aren't interested in any real discussion, just smearing this page with half-digested self-contradictory cut-n-paste webtrawls. Paul B 08:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I am certainly prepared to refer to David Frawley in the article. He is the prototypical "anti-AIT" polemicist. He is of course a well-versed scholar of Hinduism, but he is, of course, completely discredited in  matters of historical linguistics, ancient history or archaeology. If stating something to that effect will buy us peace, so be it. For the record (for those of us who only read talkpages, not articles): No "Sanskrit scripture" is theorized to have been composed in Central Asia, by anybody. The Vedas are, of course, Indian texts, no dispute about that. The Indo-Aryans still had to get to India somehow, most likely a couple of centuries prior to the early Rigveda. dab (ᛏ) 13:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion of the views of Frawley, Rajaram et al is of course legitimate, but posting entire articles by any of them - or by anyone else - is not.Paul B 13:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: obviously :) dab (ᛏ) 13:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why was I reverted simply because I cited Frawley as a source? Nobleeagle  (Talk) 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was because you footnoted Frawley as an authority on ancient history, which is almost like footnoting Erich von Däniken. Frawley's theories could certainly be discussed here, since they are popular with anti-AIT polemicists, but that would include the criticisms. Paul B 11:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Frawley

message: I am fed up with the false dichotomy of "AIT vs. autochthonous Vedic culture". 
:Before: Aryans, Dravidians, no Vedic culture (yet)
:After: Aryans+Dravidians results in autochthonous, Indian Vedic culture
The Aryans didn't "bring" Vedic culture. They brought 'Proto Indo-Aryan culture'. Vedic culture developed later, as the result of syncretism and innovation. Any questions? dab (ᛏ) 01:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hindutva theory remains completely left out although it too has some sources... Nobleeagle  (Talk) 01:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what "the Hindutva theory" is. The Hindutva movement generally prefers to emphasise indigenousness, but I don't think it has a definite theory as such. I don't quite know what it means to say that "ancient India included what is today India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and parts of Iran". This seems to be an oft-repeated mantra these days. When in "ancient" history was this? What cultures identified all these areas as part of "India"? The alleged archeological evidence of Vedic culture in the IVC is highly disputed, and has usually been identified by people who have a religious reason for wanting to find it. So there is certainly no widely accepted evidence of "Vedic influences in India centuries before the dates for the invasion". Paul B 02:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: addendum: the term "Vedic influences" is potentially misleading, since it implies that any features that seem Vedic in character must have been influenced by a pre-existing Vedic culture rather than influences on the development of that very culture. In this context "Vedic culture" means the culture of the authors of the Vedas. Paul B 02:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobleeagle

message: My first major edit to this article was reverted completely because one line was deemed inaccurate. My second was also reverted completely for the same reason. Can't you guys go to some effort and do partial reverts instead of reverting the entire edit? The way this article is set out seems to lay no doubt as to the fact that this migration occured, when it is a point of heavy debate and is disputable. So please allow WP:NPOV to seep in alright...So I'm suggesting a couple of things here, firstly, the way the Early History and Recent Developments are set out gives the reader the view that the AIT is true and undisputable but there are a few people that think otherwise. Assuming they read the article properly, if they skim-read, they'll have no doubt as to the validity of the theory. So please allow WP:NPOV. I see you've had disputes above as well but nothing has been done to improve this article. I'm listing this as a Disputed Page on WP:INWNB. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 01:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about creating a section, something like Opposing Views which details the Hindutva way of looking at it. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 01:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Opposing views are discussed. Most of the "discussion" on this page offers little or nothing by way of useful debate on the content of the article. Perhaps this is not unique on Wikipedia, but it is certainly unique in my experience.  First one has to ask what exactly is being "disputed". Is it the claim that IA speakers entered India at some point? Is it the date that is disputed? Are opponents of "AIT" asserting that IE originated in India? Are they saying that IE does not exist at all, but that all Indian languages are related to one another? Are they objecting to the long-gone claim that the invaders were blond Nordic supermen? There are so many different objections that it is difficult to clearly characterise the "opposition" to the theory. The article as it it is does state that the theory played a role in the British Raj, though the nature of that role is difficult clearly to define. If you read a book such as E.B. Havell's The History of Aryan Rule in India you get a very different idea of the the influence of the theory than you get from Elst, who is so regularly quoted in the current article. The fact is that the "British" did not create the theory, so it can't be explained as imperial ideology, even though it played a role in such ideology. The notion of "dravidian" identity is not created by it, but arose independently. Yes, the Aryan/Dravidian division became established as a simple and dramatic model of invasion/migration, and the article states this. It could be expanded to include Tamil polemicists and western authors who use thre model (John Masters wrote a wonderfully entertaining novel called The Venus of Konpara about Aryan Invasion). Paul B 01:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is being disputed by Hindutva-supporters is the idea that the Indus Valley Civilization was invaded by an external culture. They debate that the spread of Indo-European languages was due to cultural and possibly military expansion by the Aryans who originated in India. No-one debates the differences between South Indian and North Indian languages though. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they do "debate the differences between South Indian and North Indian languages" see our friend WIN's comments passim. Early models of Aryan expansion have, of course, nothing to do with invading the IVC and some, like Tilak's, ascribe extreme ancientness to the "Aryans" outside of India. Paul B 07:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify what I was trying to say - I was arguing that there is no single "theory" and no single set of objections. There have been many specific arguments put forward over the years and many different objections raised to these specific points. The "chariot riding" argument only emerges and becomes important in certain forms of the theory, and the “Nordic invader” model – which was always contested – has quite a brief shelf-life. Likewise the objections come in many distinct varieties. There is the OIT argument that IE languages actually originate in India; then there is the quite different argument that that they entered India earlier that is customarily stated. There is the ultra-nationalistic argument as represented by WIN here that Indians have been a unified “race” since ancient times and that Indian languages are also all related to each-other. There is Frawley with his ancient sunken cities proving India to be the Fount of Civilisation. Then there is Talageri who argues that the RV describes a westward movement from the Ganges to the Indus, and there’s Elst who thinks the IAs were ensconsed in the Indus. Paul B 15:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do any serious linguists accept either the OIT argument that the Indo-European languages originated in India, or WIN's argument that there's no such thing as Indo-European languages?  Both of these seem like incredibly fringe ideas. john k 18:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: extremely fringy. no serious linguist would support an OIT, and the debate that there may have never been a single PIE language center on subtleties of the definition of 'language' (it may have been a bundle of dialects instead). This stuff can be safely ignored, and I suppose we should begin rolling back the OR rants again. dab (ᛏ) 18:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: People interested in Hindutva can have different interpretations of it. For example, some consider it representative of the majority Hindus in India, while others consider it a fascist ideology promoting communal violence. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 02:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: WIN, are you, in fact, a bot? You certainly fail the Turing Test. dab (ᛏ) 20:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The way this article works

message: Just a reminder: this article discusses the religio-socio-political debate in modern India. I.e., we can document the emotionality invested in the matter, no matter how ludicrously backed up in an academic sense. This is not the page to discuss the actual scenarios of an Indo-Aryan migration. I propose we move this page to Aryan invasion controversy  to make it clearer. Discuss the (non-academic) controversy here. This is a topic of sociology, not of ancient history. dab (ᛏ) 18:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really? I thought it was intended to discuss both the history and the "religio-socio-polical debate in modern India". Admittedly that's a problematic conjuction of briefs. In practice even in its current form it has to include some discussion of modern scholarly theories, just as the IAM article includes some history and some politics. If we move the page to the proposed new title the history section will become problematic. Of course we could also have an article on the history of the theory/theories. And even if we got rid of the title "Aryan invasion theory" the redirect would still presumably point somewhere! Paul B 00:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, we need to think this all over, the situation at present is not really satisfactory. Maybe make this a dab page, one link pointing to "AIT in Indian sociology" or something, and the other to the AIM article. I don't know. dab (ᛏ) 10:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article's scope

message: Those who believe that the sabha.info site is 'worthless' will kindly check the links to legit documentation dated back to the era when the AIT was founded by Mueller, pointing out his deliberate Proto-Nazi racist motivations behind the fabrication (Netaji 00:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any website that writes this clearly is worthless. Anyone who considers Müller to be "proto-Nazi" clearly knows nothing whatever about him. Read the Max Müller page here, or better still, read some of his books. There is no "fabrication". Paul B 09:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The use of the photocopies is on the quoted site is absurd. They refer to an essay in which Müller is discussing the possible use of Indo-European words in Genesis, as though this is evidence of the usual Hindutva fantasy that he was trying to fit AIT into the Biblical narrative of the Flood. The opposite is the case. He is addressing the question of contacts between IE peoples and the ancient Israelites at the time the bible was written. He is discussing the biblical ethnonyms that might suggest contact with IE peoples. Müller's letter's are entirely consistent with what he said in public in interviews and in his writings. He looked forward to a Christianization of Hinduism on the lines pioneeered by Ram Mohun Roy, which in his view would see the extension of Christian ethics allied to Vedantic philosophy. His letter to his mother merely states the he has got a good job producing his edition of the RV. It says nothing about fabricating anything, nor would it if you knew anything about the circumstances of Müller's commission. His other letters are written to his wife and other conventional Christians and are designed to assure  them that his work is not contrary to Christianity. He was a Lutheran and he remained so, but the fact is that he failed to get the Boden Professorship at Oxford because he was too pro-Hindu. There is no dispute about that. His views contain the typical paradoxes of the era, comparable to those of Ruskin and other theological liberals of the time. But of course I don't expect you to have ever read any of Müller's books. I have repeatedly asked you if you have ever read anything by him in full and you have never anwered. All you do is trawl Indian Nationalist websites for anything to support your preconceived ideas. Paul B 10:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to sabha.info

message: Please engage in constructive discussion instead of discouraging other editors 
Anyone who reads the archives of this article’s talk page can figure out that a coterie of self styled custodians of wikipedia have ganged up against a single editor – WIN, and wasting away any contribution he/she is making in this article. All this revert warring is taking place  because these editors with ostrich-like mindset are not being able to answer a few well thought out doubts raised by WIN. Instead of running up to administrators to get any dissenter who questions their soothing theories banned, why can’t they, for a change, keep an open mind and realize that whatever this person is saying has definite merit, surely worthy of a few bytes in wikipedia. Burying your head in the sand will not make the conspicuous discrepancies in your theories go away. 
And I find throwing smart-ass jibes at somebody’s language skills  totally loser-like and cheap. Persons who have learned English as a foreign language will naturally make occasional grammatical slips and any mature editor will rectify such errors of a fellow editor without much fuss. And lastly, do refrain from ‘encouraging’ ppl to 'move on', because wikipdia welcomes everybody and every POV, And everybody has an equal right to be here. So if you can’t take the heat, then get out of…well this debate at the very least. Sisodia 08:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just anyone here. WIN's behaviour was found unacceptable by an outsider, the admin who blocked him for 20 hours. What part of WP:NOR do you not understand? Furthermore, why do you say WIN's contibuting to the article? He doesn't. He only rants on Talk pages about how we're all racists. CRCulver 08:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: also, what part of English language Wikipedia don't you understand? A tone of 'smart-assed jibes' may be marginally acceptable on talkpages, but we want encyclopedic tone in article namespace; if you cannot provide this, don't expect people to clean up after you. There are 150 language editions of Wikipedia, and I am sure WIN can find one where he is able to contribute fluently (not that he seems much into contributing at all, of course). Far from 'ganging up' against any 'single editor', Wikipedia depends on us 'ganging up' against anybody adding crap. Tons of crap are added and removed each day, and WIN is just a very minor example of the process. People stooping to this sort of cleanup-work are indeed the 'self-styled custodians' of Wikipedia, may it and they long prosper. dab (ᛏ) 10:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please engage in constructive discussion 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_people
A sub-article in that thread says that the DNA studies reveal non-difference of aryans and dravidians
So the title of the topic should be changed to 'Aryan Migration ' than Aryan Invasion theory..
01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is for the historic theory, no longer espoused by mainstream scholars. There is an article Indo-Aryan Migration for modern views. CRCulver 02:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic Studies... 

message: The whole debate about AIT/AMT is about the contradiction arising out of:
* Linguistic similarity of Indo-European Languages, and
* Evidence showing origin of Rig Vedic in India prior to 2000 BC.
Paleolithic Continuity Theory seem to seem to resolve this conflict! --UB 10:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the outdated theory of invasion. If certain scholarship has happened in, say, the last half-century, it should go in Indo-Aryan migration instead. Certainly there's a place for mention of PCT over there, though Wikipedia policy does say that minority theories should get lesser mention that the mainstream. PCT is certainly a fringe theory right now among IE linguists. The reason is that, while it does seem to resolve the conflict you mentioned, it introduces the huge problem of explaining why the IE languages remained so similar to each other for tens of thousands of years, when linguists know that the comparative method only works back a few thousand years because at greater time depths genetic relationship is no more probable than mere coincidence. CRCulver 08:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The PCT is rather fringy, and, for once, really Eurocentric: it alleges PIE for the European Paleolithic. This is just as silly as alleging Sanskrit for the Indian Paleolithic. There is no evidence of "Rig Vedic in India prior to 2000 BC", the circumstances described in the RV fit perfectly into the 2nd millennium. dab (ᛏ) 08:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paleolithic Continuity Theory 

message: WIN has added the following:
:But, some Indian critics mention that if the Aryan war-god Indra were behind the destruction of IVC, then Dravidian or any Hindus would not recite the Sanskrit verse " Swasti na Indroh ..." praising Indra during Hindu wedding.http://www.vaisnavi.com/v2/articles/vivaha_samskara1.php
Firstly, who are these "Indian critics"? The citation mentions none. Secondly, this is a rather odd argument. South American native peoples were massacred by the Spanish in the name of Christianity, but they are now overwhelmingly Catholic, and so regularly recite many Christian verses. The same is true of many countries that were forcibly converted to Islam. Even outside of religion the same can be true. Britain was invaded by the Romans in 43 amid much carnage. When the Roman army left in 410, the British sent them a desperate letter begging them to come back! All this happened over a few centuries, not millenia. So even the obsolete extreme "Aryans versus Dravidians" invasion model can easily accommodate this non-problem. Paul B 12:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another classic of hair-raisingly naive 'argumentation' we are so familiar with by now :) But remember that this is the article about the topic's propagandistic impact, so this might conceivably be listed as an exhibit illustrating the level of the 'debate' dab (ᛏ) 18:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, that's why I'm asking if WIN has a citation for the argument, or whether this is WIN's OR. Paul B 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Right, so I take it that you have no citation for this argument. You just made it up yourself? I am not "forgetting" the point you mention. It was central to your argument. You don't seem to grasp the point that it you cannot reply that we can "totally rule out" the concept of an invasion if your very point depends on supposing for the sake of argument that there was  one ("if the Aryan war god Indra were behind the destruction" then why....? etc) Paul B 08:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: p.s. Read The Indus Civilisation by Wheeler and you will see his detailed discussion of the evidence as it presented itself to him at that time. Archaeologists make deductions based on the evidence they have. Wheeler constantly emphasises that his conclusions are provisional. Paul B 08:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: His conclusions are described because this article is about the history of the theory. Hence the fact that Huxley and others with now-obsolete theories about Nordic PIEs are also mentioned. I take it then that this argument that Dravidians wouldn't praise Indra if he was responsible for killing their ancestors is your own invention? Paul B 10:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I take the absence of a reply as a tacit admission that this passage is OR, so I am removing it Paul B 08:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dravidian Indra lovers

message: suggestion, for clarity: make this a disambiguation page, along these lines:
:The term "Aryan Invasion Theory" may refer to 
:*invasionist scenarios of the historical Indo-Aryan migration
:*a topic of socio-political controversy in colonial and contemporary India, see Aryan Invasion theory (history and controversies) [this article]
dab (ᛏ) 13:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me. Paul B 13:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed to such a move. --RF 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: suggestion

message: I created Out of India Theory as a separate article TO link to a reference in the I-A M article a few days ago. Now Out of India theory has also been created as a redirect and dab has added a section on OIT here. We can merge, or expand the former as a separate article linked to a sub-section of this one. Paul B 14:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, I hadn't seen that. I started out with Proto-Vedic Continuity Theory, which is apparently a blog product imitating the (itself cranky) Paleolithic Continuity Theory. dab (ᛏ) 14:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OIT

message: I don't have time to add it today...but I still think I should ask you guys whether you consider this source reliable. No point me adding stuff just to get it reverted, so better discuss first. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 09:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we can certainly link to it; it is essentially a (biased) reiteration of the points in this article. Of course it is not "reliable" in an academic sense, and rife with misstatements, but it coherently illustrates, as far it goes, the "anti-AIT" position (Vedic archaeoastronomy, Mature Harappan horse, Sarasvati, submerged city 'prove' I-A IVC). In general, any article that claims IAM is "demised" or "obsolete" or "refuted" is propaganda: it is possible to reasonably propose theories of Mature Harappan Indo-Aryans as "alternative views" or "new approaches", but to claim that these have replaced dominant IAM views in academia is simply a conscious misstatement (aka lie). If someone on top of that claims the Indus script has been deciphered, they can be safely filed under "kookery". dab (ᛏ) 11:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I wasn't going to say that these views are now dominant. I just thought I'd include something like opposers of the AIT sometimes claim that an Aryan Invasion was impossible because blahblahblah. I hope that's alright... Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something I found 

message: may be hosted on FOSA, but it is excerpts of  The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity (Farrar Straus and Giroux, 2005) by Amartya Sen, and as such it doesn't matter where it is hosted, and is immensely more notable than another one of our stark raving radical Hindu blogs and 'tribute' websites. If anything, we should do away with links such as this (a rambling anonymous writeup on some religious site): we can keep these around, of course, since they serve as excellently as real-life illustrations of Sen's points. dab (ᛏ) 16:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: notability of external links

message: I am a late entrant to this family of articles(Indus/Aryan/AIT/OIT/AMT etc etc).  What I see in these articles is an ad hoc, hotch potch sewing together of theories, facts, hypotheses, criticisms etc., all in the same line/same paragraph/same article ...  As a result, the articles(not just this one) seem to have ended up making sense to only those who have been taking part in the long winded debates/fights/arguments/flames on the talk pages of these articles.
What I suggest is a complete rewrite of the article on the following principles.
*Introduction
*Theories involved/existing
*Theory x
:*Most notable proponents of the theory
:*History of the theory(who proposed it the first time and when etc.,)
:*Description of the theory
:*Criticism of the theory
::*Most vociferous/notable opponents of the theory and their arguments
*Theory y
:*Most notable proponents of the theory
:*History of the theory(who proposed it the first time and when etc.,)
:*Description of the theory
:*Criticism of the theory
::*Most vociferous/notable opponents of the theory and their arguments
*Theory z
:*Most notable proponents of the theory
:*History of the theory(who proposed it the first time and when etc.,)
:*Description of the theory
:*Criticism of the theory
::*Most vociferous/notable opponents of the theory and their arguments
And then just leave it at that.  I dont see why such heated debates should be taking place on the talk pages.  Is there a wikipedia policy for editing controversial articles or articles where more than one notable opinions/theories exist?
And then ofcourse, we can have seperate articles for each of those theories where we can go into all the arguments and counter arguments of scholars pertaining to that theory in detail.
Seriously, the article(and all other related articles) the way it stands seriously tests comprehension skills of lesser mortals like me, especially those who havent a clue to all the debates and arguments that have taken place on the talk pages.
Please share your comments.  Tell me I am wrong.  Thanks.  Sarvagnya 23:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly have no objection to a rewrite, but monitoring articles such as this is extradorinarily dispiriting because of the chaos they slip into. This article is supposed to be about the history of the theory of "Aryan invasion". One of its problems is that the term seems to mean "any claim that IE originated outside India" to some, "indo-Aryan migration" to others, "attack of the blond Nordics" to others and "overthrow of the IVC" to yet others. These different arguments emerged at different times evolved from eachother and were related and differentiated in complex ways. It's not always easy to separate "theory X" from "theory Y" in a clear-cut way. Paul B 16:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: you do realize that this article deals with issues of Indian politics and religious supremacism as well as with obsolete theories? It's not like there are theories x, y, z, all of them published in academic journals, and that's that. This is the easiest part and could be covered  in a breeze if it were not for the constant disruption on the part of the propagandists. What we want to document here are notable opinions on the socio-religious propaganda that is being handed around in India. The topic of this article is wound up with Hindu nationalism, and it is impossible to write an encyclopedic article about nationalism if the nationalists are trying to write a nationalist article at the same time. But I wish you all the best cleaning up this mess, of course. dab (ᛏ) 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There is always, in every country, a disconnect between what the layman thinks of history and what the scholar researches. In the academy, which Wikipedia relies upon, AMT is now favoured and AIT considered quaint. It's not the scholar's fault if the average man, or layman working for the CIA, can't follow contemporary publications. What exactly is your point here? The point of Wikipedia is to reflect scholarship, that's why AMT is called an ascendent theory and AIT is passe. It is not to mirror the thoughts of the man in the street, so your complaint that the public still believes in a bloody quasi-racist invasion is irrelevant. And please, sign your comments here. CRCulver 20:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a debate forum. We are under no obligation to answer your "rebuttals", and you shouldn't even be making such arguments unless you have specific formal publications you wish to integrate into the article. No, you cannot delete the remarks of others, and if you begin to do so I will bring it to the administrators' attention. CRCulver 18:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have the right to delete content added to articles if it does not conform to Wikipedia policy, as do all editors. Rep-lying to your comments seemed to be pointless becuse responding to so many basic misconceptions would have been very very tedious. However, since you are keen I will repond below your comments above. Paul B 19:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: User:Crculver has twice removed the link to hinduwisdom, saying it was linkspam. I remarked that "it was a legitimate link, please look at the site hinduwisdom.info/index.htm (formerly atributetohindusim".
What the anonymous user did was replacing the atributetohinduism site with the hinduwisdom site, presumbably because the website has moved to that new address. It can easily be verified by visiting the hinduwisdom.info site. He was only updating a link.--RF 18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone cares about HinduWisdom links that much, he's probably affiliated with the site. According to external links guidelines, it is forbidden to link to one's own sites. Therefore, the link must go. CRCulver 18:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The atributetohinduism site was on this page for ages. I'm sure there are many users that find the link useful. It's  basically a big page with quotations. Some of these quotes are interesting to read, hence the page is interesting IMO. I don't understand on what basis you removed it. He may have spammed it on other pages, but here it is useful. --RF 18:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  SOP is to remove all mass-added links even if they seem useful. The only way to communicate with linkspammers is to roll back everything. CRCulver 19:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well cr, attribute is HinduWisdom, under a new avatar. The spammer got it right. Please look at WP:AGF and perhaps WP:POINT. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of link 

message: Eg. You stated, "Nazis, who adopted the swastika design from Indian culture as an "Aryan" badge..."
Hitler selected swastika is anti-clockwise. The auscipious swastika of India is Clockwise. Please note this very clearly.
-DG
:Please note that you are talking baloney. See swastika and sauwastika. Paul B 23:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are "third party studies"? You are making very little sense. I might even say you are "spewing nonsense". I merely pointed to those pages because they document the subject in some detail, with extensive references. Have you bothered to read them? If you have you see that the standard Nazi swastika has the same orientation as the most common Indian form - demonstrating that "DG" was indeed talking baloney. Paul B 01:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your article has errors...... 

message: Dbachmann has suggested that the article should be either split, or be a concise WP:SS article, and that "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'm not against Summary styles articles (as long as the article doesn't become ridicously short), but I'm not for splitting the article and making a disambiguation page of it. AIT is the most common name for this topic, much more common than Indigenous Aryan Theory which is not common at all. And by policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions the most commonly used name in English should be used. 
And what is meant by a "decent cleanout of offtopic observations on Nazis, imperialism and 19th century Romanticism just used to add spin ("Role in Imperialism and Nazism")"? Should this simply be deleted, so that there is more room for "Hindu nazism" claims? I'm not against putting it in a separate article, but I don't think that the article is too long. --Rayfield 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Split?  Split this into what article/s?  Are we merely talking of content/POV forks here?  If so, that would be against wiki laws.  Please clarify.  Sarvagnya 21:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose splitting of article – AIT has been around for longest time, this is most common name for this topic.  This name is easily recognized by a casual reader and conveys the topic.  Indigenous Aryan Theory (IAT) on other hand is very confusing name.  The editors who created that name are not sure what it means.  AIT name doesn’t tell a casual reader what the article is about.   There is very little material of value on IAT page.  I recommend moving any relevant material from IAT to AIT page.Sbhushan 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I noticed on the talk page above that Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) is a former featured article. .  Obviously lot of editors hard work went to make it happen.  Why would we want to split a good article for no reason.Sbhushan 14:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting this article?

message: This article tries to paint those who believe the upper caste north Indians migrated to India long ago as nothing better than Nazis. This is not true. There is considerable evidence for the belief that the north Indians arrived from elsewhere and this is a respectable academic opinion. One piece of evidence which has always influenced this debate is the similarity between Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. This similarity is difficult to explain without positing an external origin for the north Indians. I think the similarity between Zoroastrianism and Hinduism and its influence on this debate should be mentioned. The Zoroastrian story of creation claims that the Persians once lived far too the north and had to move southward due to a winter which never ended. Many consider this a reference to the last Ice Age. Zoroastrianism also speaks of a time when all water was fresh, and then the demons created salt water. Some, admittedly not many, people believe this is a reference to the Black Sea turning from fresh to salty several thousand years ago. I think that the belief in the external origin of north Indians should not be so consistently demonized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.196.57 (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of similarities between Hinduism and Zoroastrianism