Talk:Out of India theory/Archive 6

message: I had made an edit that discarded mention of Hapta Hend being an Iranian Urheimat along with Airyanem Vaejah in the Vendidad because the Vendidad neither states nor implies that Hapta Hend is at all the homeland of Aryans or the Iranians.  According to the Vendidad English translation at www.avesta.org, it is 15th land created, cursed by Ahriman to have abnormal issues in women and excessive heat.  Airyanem Vaejah is made first, considered the best, and beset by terrible winters for 10 months per year.  While the Airyanem Vaejah, on account of its name (the Aryan connection), has been asserted to represent the homeland or land of the Aryans, this relationship is not seen in the Vendidad regarding Hapta Hend.
A user called WIN undid my edit, with the following explanation,
09:36, 12 December 2006 WIN (Talk | contribs) (Hapta Hendu is Ahura Mazda created land alongwith Airyanam Vaejo .That means Zorastrians were once living in Hapta Hendu like other Vendidad mentioned lands. Refer Talageri's book's Ch.6 I-Ir Urht.)
The first sentence is true, though all sixteen lands mentioned can be described so.  Also, "along with" should not be understood as meaning "at the same time", as the creation is ordered in the Vendidad.
While it may just need explanation, the second sentence seems odd.  The Vendidad does not say that the lands mentioned necessarily contain Zoroastrians, it just mentions that they are "good lands" along with their Ahrimanic counter-creation.  Some are even noted for their lack of belief or following of wrong beliefs.  Of course, living in the lands doesn't mean that it must be an Urheimat, so the statement doesn't really support reinstating Hapta Hend as an Iranian Urheimat.
I did refer to Chapter 6 in Talageri's book.  While I definitely have some disagreements with the chapter, mostly for running off of dubious references to other writers and for its disgracefully POV approach, I would not object to using its ideas, as they do represent the view of some OIT proponents.  However, I cannot stand by if an assertion is included as fact on this page, while disagreeing with the actual text of the Vendidad.
However, WIN has more experience than me, and his logic regarding the mention of Hapta Hend as an Urheimat may be sound, despite my failure to recognize it as sound.  So I propose a compromise, following the same logic; that mention as an Ahura Mazda-created land in the Vendidad means that it is inhabited by Zoroastrians and is also the Iranian Urheimat.  My compromise shall be to include and mention each of the 16 good lands created in sequence with Airyanem Vaejah in the same way that Hapta Hend was included.
In doing this, I will follow WIN's logic and approach while being fair to each of the 16 good lands under the same criteria.The Behnam 06:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are two different issues here, which may be getting mixed up. Talageri believes that Kashmir is the Indo-Iranian urheimat, but he also claims that the Indo-European urheimat is in the Eastern Gangetic interior of India. Paul B 12:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to keep discussion of Indo-European Urheimat away from this topic, since my concern is indeed with the Indo-Iranian Urheimat.  At this point, I am waiting for WIN to make the change to that sentence as he said he would.  Its clear that Talageri believes Airyanem Vaejah to be Kashmir, which makes it incorrect to mention Hapta Hend along with Airyanem Vaejah as the Urheimat.  I think WIN should mention Talageri's Kashmir belief after stating that Airyanem Vaejah is considered the Indo-Iranian Urheimat.  However, it remains inappropriate for Hapta Hend to be mentioned.  The Behnam 20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for making the change, WIN.  dab's revert got rid of it, however, so I will restore the change you made, since no reason has been given by dab for reverting that particular change.  Thanks again.  The Behnam 16:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I will make one slight adjustment to your original wording to reflect that the Kashmir identification is Talageri's argument, rather than some sort of universally accepted fact.  The Behnam 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hapta Hend and Airyanem Vaejah

message: dab, I think that the sweeping revert against WIN's edits may have been unfair.  While you two may have already discussed those particular edits before, and hence you have changed based upon previous discussion, I think that the approach may be wrong.  After all, this page should describe the beliefs of the OIT; it shouldn't be an article refuting the OIT.  Still, it shouldn't exhort the OIT either, so try to address WIN's edits by making them neutral if you believe they are being to "pamphlet" in their content.  Of course, discuss with WIN if there is disagreement.  I have been discussing with WIN on an issue of disagreement(see Hapta Hend and Airyanem Vaejah discussion above) and feel that it there is a good chance at agreement between us.  It takes more work, but in the end, may lead to a more stable result.  Even if a discussion does not work out, an edit can justified if the other person failed to respond properly in defense of the edit.  But please, try to discuss before simply wiping out his contributions, however absurd you may consider them.  Neutralization is better than destruction.  I think that by wiping out, you aren't solving any problems.  Of course, your greater experience here may justify your revert in a way I do not yet see, so I await your reply.  The Behnam 10:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted because WIN removed the link to the "substrate" main article, restoring the exported material. I have never "discussed" with WIN, since he never showed any sign of faculty for coherent thought. dab (𒁳) 10:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please remain civil dab. I do think that dab's way is the best way to spend the bytes in this article. There is no need to take the full discussion here when we can summarize it and link to the main article.Maunus 11:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have had trouble getting coherent responses from him too, but you shouldn't be mean.  He hasn't been hostile towards me, and I think he still can learn to be more on-topic in his responses. I think that being polite is very important to having a constructive discussion, so I hope you will at least try, despite your frustration.  Thanks.  The Behnam 11:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not frustrated, I simply do not accept that I am required to 'discuss' with people who show no sign of understanding the topic, per WP:ENC. I am not incivil or hostile, I simply call it like it is. I have shown all readiness to discuss with people who actually contribute encyclopedic material, but I will not discuss with those who do not. Lal's article dug up by WIN is fine, and I wish we had Lal to discuss with rather than clueless pov pushers. Lal takes the "geological Rigveda" position, which is not considered reasonable in philology, but which can certainly be quoted, no problem. My issue is with trolls and vandals who consistently try go misrepresent the debate, rather than simply reporting positions for what they are worth. dab (𒁳) 11:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possibly Unfair Revert by dab