Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations/Archive 2

message: Having read through the following page I find that there is a bullying attitude towards an individual who is going by the name of WIN.  Now, WIN does not seem to write in English very well, but he does back up his arguments and they do come accross quite intellegently to me.  There are plenty of people around the world who's first language is not English, and this does not make them any less intellegent.  I would think that using that against someone is a sign of both lack of intellegence and just plain lack of nobility.  But don't take it personally old chaps, use this as sound advise and get on with your lives.
: The problem with WIN isn't his English, although that doesn't win him any points, but rather that he uses the Talk pages of articles to debate theories, and never actually contributes to articles. Wikipedia isn't for chatting about whether a given theory is right or wrong, it's for creating articles that reflect scholarship. As far as I know, WIN has never cited an academic publication, he's just listed a couple of crank webpages (which he often reveals himself to have never even read completely). CRCulver 02:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WIN has declared on several Talk pages that his goal is not to make the articles better, but rather to convince people on the Talk pages that the theory behind the articles is wrong. That violates WP:NOT, particularly WP:NOR. He's called people who contribute to Indo-Aryan migration racists, and said he won't stop until the article disappears. He's not a beneficial force to better the articles. He could care less about what's on the page, he just wants us to stop doing anything with a theory he finds odious. CRCulver 03:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: WIN, web pages are not suitable references for an academic debate. You need to visit a university library and cite material  published by academic presses. Actual books, printed on actual paper. CRCulver 13:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: no, Elst and Kazanas are quite quoteable. I don't put it beyond Witzel, who has published volumes of text, to have mistranslated some verse at one time. The IAM hypothesis hardly rests upon a translation of a BSS verse, however. If anyone should insert an argument based on an allegedly mistranslated verse, you are perfectly free to cite your references debunking the mistranslation, no problem at all. The BSS verse is a side issue (interesting in its own right): It is undisputed that there is no direct description of an immigration across the Hindukush. Neither is there a description of immigration to Greece in Ancient Greek texts, and still nobody doubts that the Greeks immigrated to Greece at some point between 2100 and 1600 BC. I am not excited about Witzel's BSS verse myself. You do not seem to realize that the Hindukush is a classical invasion route, people entered India by this route all the time, again and again, the Indo-Aryans are just the earliest quasi-historical example, but there is really nothing surprising about it at all. dab (ᛏ) 12:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WIN

message: 1. Max Müller was a British agent, especially employed (in 1847) to write the translations of the Vedas in such a demeaning way so that the Hindus should lose faith in them. His personal letter to his wife dated December 9, 1867 reveals this fact.
2. He was highly paid for this job. According to the statistical information given on page 214 of the “English Education, 1798-1902” by John William Adamson, printed by Cambridge University Press in 1930, the revised scale of a male teacher was £90 per year and for a woman, £60 in 1853. The present salary of a teacher in London is £14,000 to £36,000 per year, which averages a minimum of at least 200 times increase in the last 146 years. Max Müller was paid £4 per sheet of his writing which comes to £800 of today (1999). This is an incredibly high price for only one sheet of writing. But it’s the general law of business, that the price of a commodity increases with its demand. The British were in such an imperative need to get someone to do this job and Max Müller was the right person, so they paid whatever Max Müller asked for. His enthusiastic letter to his mother dated April 15, 1847 reveals this fact.
3. Max Müller’s letters dated August 25, 1856 and December 16, 1868 reveal the fact that he was desperate to bring Christianity into India so that the religion of the Hindus should be doomed. 
His letters also reveal that: 
4. He lived in poverty before he was employed by the British, (5) his duplicity in translation was praised by his superiors, and (6) in London, where he lived, there were a lot of orientalists working for the British.
Letters of Max Müller.
“The Life and Letters of Friedrich Max Müller.” First published in 1902 (London and N.Y.). Reprint in 1976 (USA).
1. TO HIS WIFE, OXFORD, December 9, 1867. 
“…I feel convinced, though I shall not live to see it, that this edition of mine and the translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India, and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what that root is, I feel sure, the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3,000 years.”
2. TO HIS MOTHER, 5 NEWMAN'S ROW, LINCOLN'S INN FIELDS, April 15, 1847. 
“I can yet hardly believe that I have at last got what I have struggled for so long… I am to hand over to the Company, ready for press, fifty sheets each year; for this I have asked £200 a year, £4 a sheet. They have been considering the matter since December, and it was only yesterday that it was officially settled.”
“…In fact, I spent a delightful time, and when I reached London yesterday I found all settled, and I could say and feel, Thank God! Now I must at once send my thanks, and set to work to earn the first £100.”
3. To Chevalier Bunsen. 55 St. John Street, Oxford, August 25, 1856.
“India is much riper for Christianity than Rome or Greece were at the time of St. Paul. The rotten tree has for some time had artificial supports… For the good of this struggle I should like to lay down my life, or at least to lend my hand to bring about this struggle. Dhulip Singh is much at Court, and is evidently destined to play a political part in India.”
To the duke of Argyll. Oxford, December 16, 1868.
“India has been conquered once, but India must be conquered again, and that second conquest should be a conquest by education. Much has been done for education of late, but if the funds were tripled and quadrupled, that would hardly be enough… A new national literature may spring up, impregnated with western ideas, yet retaining its native spirit and character… A new national literature will bring with it a new national life, and new moral vigour. As to religion, that will take care of itself. The missionaries have done far more than they themselves seem to be aware of.”
“The ancient religion of India is doomed, and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be?”
4. (a) From the diary of Max Müller. Paris. April 10, 1845.
“I get up early, have breakfast, i.e. bread and butter, no coffee. I stay at home and work till seven, go out and have dinner, come back in an hour and stay at home and work till I go to bed. I must live most economically and avoid every expense not actually necessary. The free lodging is an immense help, for unless one lives in a perfect hole… I have not been to any theatre, except one evening, when I had to pay 2 francs for a cup of chocolate, I thought ‘Never again’.”
:How is this relevant? Chaipau 15:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WIN, have you ever read a single book or essay written by Max Müller? Also, has it occurred to you that the English came to England as a result of an invasion/migration a long long time after the proposed Aryan migration into India, yet, strangly this lack of ancientness in comparison to India never seems to have "humiliated" the English of the time at all? Nor were they worried that English "was not a British language at all", but originated in north West Germany! (shocking isn't it?). There is no evidence whatever that Müller was "paid by then British East India co.'s heads in London to falsely fabricate Indian scriptures". He's simply writing to his mam to gratify her with the news that he's got a good job. If you knew anything at all about Müller you would be aware that he was not hand in hand with Macaulay. He strongly opposed Macaulay's plan to make English the language of learning in India, personally meeting him to plead for native Indian languages. He expresses his despair over Macaulay's intransigence in his autobiography. Paul B 11:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: From my reading, Max Mueller was the first person to establish the antiquity of the Sanskrit language.  Further he was involved with the centrality of the Vedas in Hindu religion and was trying to establish the vedas as the backbone, not trying to break it.  The Britishers did not need to divide the Hindus—they were already divided according to different castes and ethnicities.  I find your claims outlandish. Chaipau 14:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Further, the Aryan Invasion Theory (which is not what we are discussing here), was sourced to someone other than Muller by Mortimer in 1946.  That theory was discredited within 20 years.  I do not see any reason to muddy the whole issue further, by pulling in Muller from the past and then continuing to spit venom against him today. Chaipau 14:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: WIN: you need to shut up, now. This is neither the Max Müller article, nor the Neolithic Europe article. Your stuff is 100% irrelevant. Yes, in 3000 BC, the IVC was more advanced than "Europe". Yes, Max Müller was a Christian and a colonialist,. It's granted  (although I have my doubts you are being fair on MM, but that's beside the point). Now go and read WP:NOT and stop spamming this talkpage with your irrelevant nonsense. Wikipedia is not a bloody soapbox. It is not a discussion forum. You are contributing nothing to this topic. Go away. I encourage editors to revert any further offtopic rants. dab (ᛏ) 17:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "MM was a jerk, hence AIT is bogus" is a classical, no-brainer case of association fallacy, even if the premise was correct. There is simply no reason to discuss this here. dab (ᛏ) 19:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of the letter and diary material comes from The Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Friedrich Max Müller, written and compiled by his widow, Georgiana, published by Longmans in 1902. I've no idea why the diary entry about the price of hot-chocolate in Paris is considereed to be relevant to anything. The other letters have to be seen in context. One of them is actually devoted to pushing for more money to spread education in India. It includes these lines, omitted in the excerpt above: "by encouraging a study of their own ancient literature, as part of their education, a national feeling of pride and self-respect will be awakened among those who influence the large masses of the people." In the same letter MM states that religion "will take care of itself", which is a way of saying that the education should not promote Christianity. Other claims made here are simply silly. It's fatuous to state that MM was "especially employed (in 1847) to write the translations of the Vedas in such a demeaning way so that the Hindus should lose faith in them." For a start he was not commissioned in 1847 to "write translations" at all, but to produce an edition of the RV in Sanskrit with Sayana's commentary. The only English language component is the very short preface. It's difficult to see how this can possibly be "demeaning". Paul B 00:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A SMALL PROOF FOR ALL SUPPROTERS , ABOUT MAX MULLER 

message: I'd like to take WIN to Requests for Arbitration because of his use of talk pages as rambling discussion forums. However, I need two other signatures. Who would like to sign with me? CRCulver 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: me. Paul B 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: mee too. and remember to WP:DFTT. dab (ᛏ) 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: WIN, your comment above is thankfully brief enough to comment on, so if I may: Your first statement "You want some serious discussion on this matter" shows your lack of English skill, which is too important to overlook when discussing "this matter." Your use of the word "matter" is misplaced as this topic is not one of pressing importance which can be dealt with in any immediate fashion. Your statement "But you are not ready to comment any point which seriously troubles your accepted notion of Aryan Migration" shows you cary an assumption that others here have any "accepted notion" with regards to any particular theory at all. To suggest so is quite rude, and one who treats others so rudely should not expect to gain their respect or cooperation. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am happy to engage in "serious discussion". A prerequisite for this is an intelligent partner who is aware of the literature and not immersed in religious or chauvinistic preconceptions. I am afraid WIN does not seem to qualify, and I prefer to report on the academic debate I find in literature. Much of the outrage displayed by the "anti-invasion" crowd consists of shooting strawmen. It is evident that the Indo-Aryan languages came to India in the course of the 2nd millennium, there can hardly be any serious debate about that. There is a lot of room for discussion about how and when this happened exactly. Current models assume demic diffusion and amalgamation with autochthonous cultures, not warlike invasion, so denouncing fantasies of warlike Aryans burning Dasa (IVC) forts as unrealistic is completely beside the point. dab (ᛏ) 20:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I dont think you read or understood what Dab wrote. Conquests are but a small fraction of what counts within the totality of the "assimilation" concept. Life and culture are messy and complicated, and its ridiculous to argue from any held point of view, Western, Indian, or otherwise. Whats left is a methodical and rudimetary interpretation of material findings. I agree there is a systemic bias within the sciences with regard to exonyms, terminology, nomenclature, attributions, cultural bias, and selective interpretations (for sake of writing papers, of course). But with that said, this subject gives numerous people, including yourself, lots of fun things to to talk about. (What else were you going to do today?) What we suggest is simply that we forget about the flaws of scientific and rational discourse (ie. Western rules for methodically whitewashing and reattributing the cultures and achievements of brown people to less brown people), forget about finding fault with those who hold "flawed"[sic] views, and simply focus on WP:NPOV. Is that fair enough? Thanks, -Ste|vertigo 20:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Your example that the Aryan languages could not have wiped out the extant languages is true.  The extant languages have lived on in the Dravidian and the Austro-Asiatic languages of India.  Further these languages have had an influence on Sanskrit itself (increased use of retroflex in Sanskrit) and accounts for much of the difference between Vedic and Classical Sanskrit.  The extant languages had a larger impact of the Pakrits, from which the modern Indian languages (MILS) have evolved.  You will find the evidence in the MILS. Chaipau 18:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WIN is not interested in evidence. Why, he could just consult the literature for that. WP:DFTT. dab (ᛏ) 19:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Avestan has no retroflexes, as you would be aware if you spent more time reading and less time ranting. dab (ᛏ) 15:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be more in favor of "banning" you two instead, as your calls for "reverting" and outright "banning" show a lack of civility, and an ignorance of our dispute resolution process. If you were paying attention, WIN's has simmered down enough to state his points in a more coherent way. These points are answerable directly. As with any philosophical idea, DNFTT has a balancing opposite, namely WP:BITE, and WP:NICE. There are limits, but this didnt appear to be one of those cases, and in no case will we tolerate an incivil circumvention of DR. PS: There is of course a great irony in criticising someone for their poor English, with regard to a topic about Indic languages which few (if any) of us masters of English speak natively. -Ste|vertigo 18:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: um, what? It is ironic to complain about broken English on an English language encyclopedia? It's not like we have a habit of spamming :hi: in broken Hindi, after all. Furthermore, regardless of DNFTT and BITE, this is a simple case of WP:NOT. Point the misguided but bona fide newbie to this page, politely. If they contine their aggressive ranting, we don't have to put up with them. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to babysit or entertain the choleric and logorrhoetic. dab (ᛏ) 21:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are free to get back to work Dr. Bachmann. I was simply correcting the manners of two other individuals. -Ste|vertigo 01:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem of WIN 

message: Paul,
I am sorry but I can’t let your edit stand in its current form. It must be modified to remove all anti-indian bias from it and make it neutral, factual and objective.
Regarding the first statement, i.e. “As an example, they argue that positions of stars they allege are described in the Vedas point to the 3rd millennium BC or even earlier.” The word allege will have to go. What people claim is what they claim. They never ‘allege’ while making claims. So the first statement should be written as
As an example, they argue/claim that positions of stars as described in the Vedas point to the 3rd millennium BC or even earlier.
Coming to the second statement i.e. “Such dating claims based on archaeoastronomy are widely rejected as pseudoscience”, since it is a contested statement, sources must be provided for this statement. You can’t make a sweeping statement that “such claims are widely rejected” when a significant chunk of world population hotly contests it. Moreover, such statement also violates Wikipedia policy against weasel words . I suggest that you read the policy page regarding weasel words and educate yourself about how such statement can compromise the neutrality of an article in subtle ways.
Therefore the second statement will be acceptable in the following format:-
Such dating claims based on archaeoastronomy are rejected by so and so persons and/or organizations as pseudoscience. {references' links here}
Please consider these points before attempting any more reverts.
Sisodia 02:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: furthermore, the archaeoastronomy stuff, dodgy as it is, is also useless for arguing about migration. Take for example the Pleiades argument I've taken the trouble to examine at Hindu astronomy. Even if it is accepted that the statement preserves a memory of the 29th century (a rather big if), the Pleiades rose in the East in 2900 BC at the Oxus just as much as at the Indus. Nothing is gained in terms of proving or disproving migration. Of course it is ridiculous to argue for a 2900 date based on a mention of "east" in the SB in the first place, but even as a ridiculous argument, it is not pertinent here. dab (ᛏ) 09:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Calling all objections to archeoastronomy "anti-India" is not correct.  The Indian Astrophysicist, Rajesh Kochhar has clearly mentioned that the astronomical data is not reliable ("The Vedic People: Their History and Geography", Sangam Books, Delhi, 2000).  Chaipau 13:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if people wouldn't break things down in "pro/anti-Indian" terms all the time, I would honestly not know whether endorsing IAM as a reasonably well established hypothesis should be considered 'pro' or 'anti' Indian. We shouldn't even have to talk about this (but this is Wikipedia). The only 'anti' alignment I have is anti shoddy scholarship, which certainly applies to this astronomy cruft. dab (ᛏ) 13:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astronomical evidence must be presented in a neutral tone 

message: The article has two images about Andronovo. The Andronovo pictures would rather belong to the Indo-Iranian migration or Indo-Iranian origins article. (These articles should be created.) The Andronovo model has also its critics, and its relation to I-I and especially I-A is controversial. Therefore, one Andronovo image might be enough for this article. Also, the Andronovo is not the only model used to explain the migration of I-I and I-A. There are also other models within the AMT paradigma, but the Andronovo model is almost the only one discussed, but the other models should also be mentioned (such as Nichols Sogdiana model).  
Then the image caption says: "archaeological cultures associated with Indo-Iranian expansion (after EIEC).". I think the image caption should be rewritten a bit, because it sounds like this the source  endorses these hypotheses, while in fact it only describes them and also lists some objections to these theories. (The original image caption in the book uses expressions like "have often been seen", "which some argue", which "may reflect either" or "candidates include".) --Rayfield 19:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the relation of the Andronovo horizon to I-I is virtually undisputed. Its relation to I-A in particular is less certain, but has been suggested by e.g. Parpola. I will try to give a more informative image caption, but the EIEC obviously endorses the universal association of Andronovo with I-I (which is all the caption claims, not necessarily I-A). Obviously, the I-As didn't realize when they turned from I-Is into I-As, that is a matter of separation from the Iranians, and obviously if you point to the origin of the I-Is, you automatically are pointing to the ultimate origin of the I-As. The image does not only show Andronovo: Yaz is associated with Iranians, not I-As, while the cultures in India are, obviously and universally, identified with I-As (except for Cemetary H, which may be an intermediate stage of I-A-Dravidian contact) dab (ᛏ) 20:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: btw, I appreciate your effort at shortening the article, Rayfield. I removed the "hastin" though, because there is no "hastin in the Rigveda", just ibha. The argument was exceedingly far-fetched anyway, and this article doesn't lose by not repeating it. dab 
(ᛏ) 20:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I stand corrected.  4.16.14(!) and 1.64.7 certainly do refer to wild elephants. This is interesting, and I was not aware of it (nor was it in the section you removed). 3.36.7 and 9.80.5 are examples of the same word still meaning "with hands". dab (ᛏ) 21:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image description needed to be a bit more detailled, IMO. I changed the wording of the Andronovo image a bit, based on the  image description in the EIIC. --Rayfield 13:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks, your caption is fine. dab (ᛏ) 13:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andronovo 

message: It is true that Jones in 1782 already assumed a "common source, now lost" of Greek and Sanskrit. However, Jones was not the first European scholar to compare the two languages, and even after Jones, the archaic nature of Sanskrit was rather over-estimated for many decades. Even the "PIE" of Schleicher's fable (1868) reads almost like Sanskrit. So yes, people immediately realized that Sanskrit is not equal to PIE, but the preconception that Sanskrit is exceptionally close to PIE persisted until the later 19th century, which is the point we should be making here. (today, it is assumed that Vedic Sanskrit is a typical language of the mid-2nd-millennium in terms of archaicity, which is -duh- part of why the Rigveda is dated to the mid-2nd-millennium; if we had a "European Rigveda" dated to 1500 BC, its grammar would be similarly archaic (but it's phonology unsatemized); but since we don't have such a European text, this is a matter of (albeit rather confident) reconstruction, of course) dab (ᛏ) 13:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, yes, but make sure to separate the history of the hypothesis from the hypothesis itself. It may well be that some Brits back then brought biblical literalism into play, but you would of course be laughed out of any conference if you did that today; the 1800 BC date is based on archaeology, not on the Bible. It is sad that this needs to be emphasized, but with the kind of input we are getting here all the time, nothing seems to be too obvious to be mentioned. If you ask me, the history of the hypothesis should be treated over at Aryan Invasion Theory. dab (ᛏ) 15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I moved the discussion from the lead to the history section and reduced it to a sentence. The AIT article did have a longer discussion of this point, but I'm not sure if I can bear to look to see if it's still there. I find it painful to read that article these days. Paul B 16:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Note to Gange Hare. If you are going to refer to Trautmann then it you will need a proper reference, rather than just "says Trautmann". This is a complex issue, partly because there was a lot of debate about the relationship between the Babel dispersal and natural differentiation of tongues (which was of course known to occur because of the evolution of Latin into the Romance languages long after Babel was supposed to have occurred). There was also specific debate about differentiation of "Japhetic" tongues independently of and possibly prior to Babel (see confusion of tongues). This is a highly complex historical issue, but is only of marginal relevance here, and of course modern IE theory has long ago left such debates behind. I moved this discussion into the history section, which is where it should go. Detailed discussion of Jones's influences should go in William Jones (philologist). Paul B 10:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to Ganga Hare, I wil revert no more today, and neither should you if you are not to break the WP:3RR rule. Paul B 10:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the book details from which the quote was taken. Ganga Hare 10:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jones and Sanskrit

message: I think the early idea that Sanskrit and Avestan were close to PIE is indicated. I've added a bit about the early speculation about a link to the Japhetites already added in predictably distorted form by User:Ganga Hare. The notion that Jones proposed IE "to show the correctness of the Biblical, Tower of Babel theory" is of course nonsense, but he does assume the accuracy of Genesis, and attempt to fit Hindu mythology into the events it describes, We have, therefore, determined another interesting epoch, by fixing the age of Crishna near the three thousandth year from the present time; and, as the three first Avatàrs, or descents of Vishnu, relate no less clearly to an Universal Deluge, in which eight persons only were saved, than the fourth and the fifth do to the punishment of impiety and the humiliation of the proud, we may for the present assume, that the second, or silver, age of the Hindus was subsequent to the dispersion from Babel; so that we have only a dark interval of about a thousand years, which were employed in the settlement of nations, the foundation of states or empires, and the cultivation of civil society.This does fit with early claims concerning the antiquity of Sanskrit, since Iran/Indus/Bactria would be assumed to be an early place of settlement for the Japhetites, from which they could then expand into Europe - OIT indeed! Jones even suggests that the figure of Odin derives from the Buddha. Paul B 12:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, yes, but make sure to separate the history of the hypothesis from the hypothesis itself. It may well be that some Brits back then brought biblical literalism into play, but you would of course be laughed out of any conference if you did that today; the 1800 BC date is based on archaeology, not on the Bible. It is sad that this needs to be emphasized, but with the kind of input we are getting here all the time, nothing seems to be too obvious to be mentioned. If you ask me, the history of the hypothesis should be treated over at Aryan Invasion Theory. dab (ᛏ) 15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I moved the discussion from the lead to the history section and reduced it to a sentence. The AIT article did have a longer discussion of this point, but I'm not sure if I can bear to look to see if it's still there. I find it painful to read that article these days. Paul B 16:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Note to Gange Hare. If you are going to refer to Trautmann then it you will need a proper reference, rather than just "says Trautmann". This is a complex issue, partly because there was a lot of debate about the relationship between the Babel dispersal and natural differentiation of tongues (which was of course known to occur because of the evolution of Latin into the Romance languages long after Babel was supposed to have occurred). There was also specific debate about differentiation of "Japhetic" tongues independently of and possibly prior to Babel (see confusion of tongues). This is a highly complex historical issue, but is only of marginal relevance here, and of course modern IE theory has long ago left such debates behind. I moved this discussion into the history section, which is where it should go. Detailed discussion of Jones's influences should go in William Jones (philologist). Paul B 10:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to Ganga Hare, I wil revert no more today, and neither should you if you are not to break the WP:3RR rule. Paul B 10:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the book details from which the quote was taken. Ganga Hare 10:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jones and Babel

message: we keep getting edits that attack strawmen, i.e. try to disprove things that aren't even claimed, the most popular being
*"military invasion"; there can easily be a paragraph on this option, presenting arguments, the upshot will be that a sudden invasion is far less likely than a gradual intrusion. The observation that the I-As are unlikely to have crossed the Hindukush in their chariots can safely be left out, because nobody in their right mind would make such a suggestion, you might as well argue that they are unlikely to have carried their fire altars without the flame going out.
*"genocide / Indians are of Central Asian origin": similarly, arguments dealing with the probable size of the population movement can be presented. The upshot from genetic studies, as well as from comparison with similar events, will probably be that the "Central Asian" intrusive element in modern Indian genomes will make up some 20-30% at most.
*"the Aryans overthrew the IVC" While there have been serious suggestions that they were instrumental,  I think the mainstream will be that it is more likely that the newcomers simply profited from the weakness following the fall of the IVC. 
in short, it should be made perfectly clear that the mainstream scenario of IAM does NOT claim a military invasion, does NOT claim that the I-As overthrew the IVC, and does NOT claim that most, or even many, of the ancestors of modern Indians lived outside India in 2000 BC.  
A useful comparison would maybe be Peru: From 1960 to 1990, use of indigenous languages fell from 40% to 30%: Only some 15% of Peruvians are of Spanish ancestry, but 70% of Peruvians speak Spanish natively. This is the situation 500 years after the invasion (and it was a clear 'invasion' in this case); extrapolate from this how the language distribution might look after another 1000 years. The point is that a slim population influx (10%) can completely overturn the linguistic landscape in a matter of a couple of centuries. Religion is even clearer: 80% of Peruvians are Roman Catholics (vs. 15% of European ancestry). Although there is a lot of syncretism: "Peruvian Catholicism" retains elements aboriginal Peruvian religion. This is what happens every time in such situations, and it is exactly what is expected in the case of India 1500-500 BC: Vedic religion was Indo-Iranian religion syncretized with post-IVC religion. dab (ᛏ) 18:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: strawmen arguments

message: 1.  Then how come Rig-Veda mentions greatness & vastness of Saraswati river & mentions as flowing from Mountains to Ocean.As found by Geologists that Saraswati river ( present Ghaggar-Hakra small water channels flowing on same route of this mightiest of all Sapta Sindhu river ) which dried from Indian subcontinent before 2600 BC or totally vanished atleast before 1900 BC, should not be known to some Indo-Aryans. And, then they should not be able to make towns ( sanskrit vedic pur ) on her banks and base their life on their mother river as said in Rig-Veda.
2.  USA was occupied by Europeans by invasion route then also USA's biggest rivers Mississippi and Missouri's names are original native american. So, how come every Indian rivers names changed based on some Central Asian tribal people's Sanskrit language. Even South India's biggest rivers names ( Godavari river, Krishna river , Kaveri river )changed based on some central asian tribal language. Then, those central asian tribal aryans must be very great people that they could do what their same native central asian Saka & Hunas invaders could not do.
3.  Greek historian Pliny ( Elder one ) mentions in 360 BC that Indians are having kings list & calender going back to some 6000 years.i.e. these ancient Indians ( Dravidians as per this theory ) were maintaining calender from such a long time. Then, how come each & every Astronomy based terms in India is Sanskrit ( so called Central Asian tribal people's language ). Check Pliny the Elder's `The Natural History' 6.21 and it's link http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137&query=head%3D%23253    and    his writings from the link " From the time of Father Liber to that of Alexander the Great, one hundred and fifty-three kings of India are reckoned, extending over a period of six thousand four hundred and fifty-one years and three months". When Pliny finds India and Indian population to be very vast which they have never seen alike in any country then how come some so called central asian tribal aryans were so so so able as told ?
4.  From IVC , it's found some teeth being drilled to do dental treatment and this dental treatment drilling is found by European excavators. i.e. IVC people were having developed Dental surgerical knowledge and knowledge about human health and well being. Which is exactly Ayurveda as known to Indians today. Ayurveda's foundations are considered in vedas like Atharvaveda. Refer the articles http://archaeology.about.com/od/inventions/qt/dentistry.htm   and New York Times report http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07teeth.html?ex=1152417600&en=501d7993d9a79d1a&ei=5070 . Why IVC Indian people will change each & every terminology of human health to some Central Asian tribal people's language ? Dental word is derived from Sanskrit word Dant = Teeth. Since ancient Indians were having good dental surgical knowledge then why they will change teeth's name to Sanskrit Dant. Ayurveda is full science of human health whose roots are found in other vedas. Then how central asian aryans were able to make such in depth knowledge about Indian plants & it's medicinal values, effects of seasons on human health etc. within some hundreds of years which their so called non-Indian brothers & sisters could not do still today.
5.  Yoga postures are found from IVC excavations as small terracota statues. Why anybody will change each & every Yoga postures' names to some central asian tribal people's language ? 
6.  During Indus Valley Civilization ancient Indians were very advanced with number system and decimal system as evident from weight measurement stones used.They are found over entire IVC ancient India. They had uniform bricks in perfect ratio of 1 : 2 : 4 which is still best ratio for brick and still used. This shows that time's advanced mathematical knowledge  permeated down to common man and over extremely vast civilized area. Then, why ancient Indians will accept names of 1,2,3,... etc. very basic thing from some central asian nomads via Sanskrit ?
All these means that Sanskrit having highly advanced technical grammer and words can be a native language of India and not of some tribal people of central asia. WIN 12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the quote "MY WRITINGS HERE ARE NOT ANY DITRIBES AS TOLD BY MY OPPOSERS." may be an all-time Wikipedia classic :) dab (ᛏ) 11:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I WAS REFERRING TO THE ALLCAPS (although the spelling adds to the quaint flavour, of course) dab (ᛏ) 12:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Points which suspects concept of central asian aryans 

message: What in the world is going on here? First of all these opponents of WIN do a robot like delete of all of his article edits. Now, getting emboldened by the fact is WIN is alone on the other side, they think that they can get away with anything. Now they are deleting some well constructed (and in fairly comprehensible English to boot) arguments by him from the talk pages too! This is pure undisguised vandalism and will not be accepted by other like minded editors. 
If you can't answer his questions at least let them stand in talk pages unanswered. Future editors of this article will have some background knowledge of the issues that came up during the development of this article. If nothing else a full archive of talk pages will prevent such disputes from re-erupting because it will show futures editors that these issues have already been argued and left inconclusive.
Crculver, I am refraining from reporting you to admins notice board this time. Next time you will have it if you still engage in such idiotic behavior.
Sisodia 03:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk pages are only for defending or critiquing edits to the article, they are not chat rooms. WIN never makes any edits to the article, he only posts on Talk pages. This is inappropriate. WIN has stated that he will not stop posting on the Talk pages until we other editors remove the mainstream scholarly view from the article and replace it with his points. That is where OR comes in. CRCulver 14:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, the admin who blocked WIN gave permission to delete any statements which do not directly relate to changes made to the article. You should read his points. CRCulver 14:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: it is easily possible to answer your naive 'refutations', but it is impossible to convince you, because you have no interest in actual dialectic argument. We are not here to give you basic education in linguistics or historical method, and it would be wasted time anyway (if some day you want such education, you should try spending a few years at university, this often helps). Either stick to quoting expert opinions, or find another forum to air your views. You have been told so repeatedly, and if you do not finally respect Wikipedia policy, I am afraid you will end up being blocked from editing. Sisodia is perfectly right in stating that WIN is advancing "popular alternate view of origin of Aryans" common in certain "ideological currents" in India. This is perfectly notable on articles on Indian sociology, and notably on the Hindutva article. It has no place here, since Wikipedia is supposed to give an overview of mainstream scholarship. For the same reason, we do not discuss Xenu or the Teutonic race on Neolithic Europe, or  Epsilonism on Ancient Greece. These examples show that examples of propagandistic pseudohistory may get their own articles if notable in their own right, but they have obviously no place in discussions of mainstream topics. This is why we are asking for citations: If WIN cites a source that is undisputedly academic, there will be no problem in keeping it. As long as he doesn't, he will be rolled back. That's simply the rules of Wikipedia, Sisodia, and you should know them by now. dab (ᛏ) 10:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: thanks for pointing out the nonsense on History of Greece though. A kindred spirit of yours must have been at work there, I'll look at the article in greater detail. Feel free to ask for citations yourself if you find such ridiculous stuff. dab (ᛏ) 10:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sometimes it is necessary to answer you because otherwise other editors will get the impression that your "logical points" are as unanswerable as you think. But there is no point in discussing these issues with you because you simply refuse to acknowledge arguments against your position or to build consenus. Sadly, it's true there are Greek nationalists who have views that would be virtually indistinguishable from yours if the word "Sanskrit" were replaced by "Greek". I have met two myself at conferences. They believe that Greek is a perfect language that could not conceivably have been introduced by "primitive barbarians". Greece is the fount of civilisation. Similarities to Greek in other I-E languages are due to the diffusion of Greek concepts and the prestige of Greek culture, leading to the adoption of Greek words and gramatical forms, etc etc.... Paul B 10:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: we will not 'answer' your home-spun 'points', per WP:NOT, as was patiently pointed out to you several times. Cite journal articles, and you'll be fine. Continue repeating yourself on talk, and you'll be reverted. dab (ᛏ) 11:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DO NOT delete arguments which may be unpalatable to you. 

message: The following has been added and is disputed:
There is a complete absence of Harappan sites along the present courses of the Yamuna and the Sutlej. Had these two rivers been flowing in their present channels during the Harappan times, the Harappan people would have certainly established their settlements along their banks. On the contrary, there are many sites of the later Painted Grey Ware (PGW) culture, dated 1000-600 B.C., along the banks of these rivers. 
Saraswati has been eulogized in many hymns of the Rig Veda as a mighty, perennial and sacred river, flowing from the mountains into the Arabian Sea. In the later epics Mahabharata and Ramayana this river is described as having disappeared underground.  Critics point out that the Vedic Saraswati could have been river Helmand in Afghanistan and since there are many rivers with name Saraswati in India, the name could have been transported from Afghanistan. However, B B Lal states (B. B. Lal: Lecture given at NCERT, New Delhi) that according to Rig Veda: 
*Saraswati lay between the Yamuna and Sutlej - imam me Gange Yamune Sarasvati Sutudri stotam sachata Parusnya (RV 10.75.5). 
*Drishadvati and Apaya were its tributaries - Drishadvatyam manusa Apayam Sarasvatyam revadagne didihi (RV 3.23.4). 
*The Saraswati flowed all the way from the mountains to the sea - ekachetat Sarasvati nadinam suchir yati giribhya a samudrat (RV 7.95.2).  
In Afghanistan there are no rivers by the name of Yamuna and Sutlej, nor are there Drishadvati and Apaya. Further, there is no sea in Afghanistan. 
I don't understand the purport of this text, which fails to clarify what bits of "fact" are related to what argument. It is not clear what the opening para is intended to argue. If the yamuna and sultej were not running they couldn't have been mentioned in a "Harappan" RV. I don't know of any mention of the "Arabian sea" in the RV. The issue about flowing to the "sea" is a translation dispute. This is discussed far more coherently in the current Sarasvati River article. Paul B 11:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the text is inaccurate (the Rigveda mentions Sarasvati once as flowing into samudra, not "many times as flowing to the Arabian sea", and repeats some points that are documented in the Sarasvati article as if they were pertinent to IAM while they are not. Remember that this is the IAM article, not an article on the Harappan civilization. The Yamuna-Sutlej point is from the Nadistuti sukta, in RV 10, dating to after 1200, if not after 1000 BC, many centuries after the IAM, so that while it is certainly worth discussing on Sarasvati River, it is of very little relevance here. dab (ᛏ) 12:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: we understand this is your opinion, but we aren't interested in your opinion. Go to a library and look at books. 130.60.142.151 15:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Samudra is ocean in Indic languages. And IP address, personal attacks can get you banned.Bakaman%% 03:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you don't get banned for editing with an IP, especially one that redirects to your log-in ID. The translation of samudra in this passage is disputed. See . WIN's spectacular obtuseness is evident in his response as usual. He simply does not get that there is a debate here. He seems to think that all words in all Hindu "scripture" from the RV to the Mahabarata must always mean the same thing. His opening comments indicate that he hasn't even read our Sarasvati River page, let alone any relevant books such as Bryant's, for example. 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Samudra could have changed, I don't disagree.But river won't change to ocean ok? People look at a river and see the other bank. When they look at the ocean however, its infinite. A pandit well-versed in Sanskrit can easily show this. But dab and his crew only think that Witzel is an authority on Hinduism. They downplay Indian scholars and Pandits who are much more qualified to analyze Sanskrit than Witzel and the Indology crew.Bakaman%% 22:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid that's not true at all. It's like saying that only people who hold American passports should be able to edit articles here on American history, even if they have actual qualifications in history, while foreigners with university degrees in American history should keep out. Many Indian scholars and pundits simply ignore all of the advances in historical linguistics made over the last two centuries. The amateur websites that WIN has linked to here show no knowledge whatsoever of the comparative method or internal reconstruction. I'm not saying that Witzel et al. are automatically right, and indeed the pundits might be able to provide a useful critical perspective on his work. I take issue only with your assertion that only Indians, by mere virtue of their birth and religious training (which doesn't necessarily involve rigorous comparative linguistics), are capable of working in this field. CRCulver 22:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Precisely, there is disagreement on each of those matters. FWIW, the Saraswati River argument is not clear-cut enough to work in favour of the anti-migration crowd. You'd do much better leaving the Saraswati river off Indo-Aryan migration, except for a link to the SR article, and instead bringing into play arguments that aren't so controversial. CRCulver 10:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Read the Sarasvati River article. The discussion may be relevant there, certainly not here. I am tired to spend my time pointing out what can be read in the article, and in the sources provided. Basically, Sarasvati is a name, and may historically refer to various rivers, including a "mythical river" (like Rasā). So obviously the "existence of a Sarasvati river" is undisputed (since there are two rivers known to have been called by this name). But your "logical steps" presuppose only a single river was ever called "Sarasvati". Please leave the arguing to the experts, Wikipedia is not a forum for amateur philology. dab (ᛏ) 10:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "logical points"

message: Why some Israel place names are Sanskrit and associating Mahabharat like Palmahim, Kishon and Caesarea.
Kishon  is kishan ( or Krishna's apbhransh similar in Hindi ) . Caesarea means Kesaria ( which is also very sanskrit ) and this name is also related with Krishna as Kesaria for Krishna. Kesar = Saffron in English. Palmahim is word in Sanskrit and used specially for Kings. This word is used like ` My Lord ' used for Judge in Courts.
Word movement is indeed very old process. WIN 10:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Golly. And "Christianity" was originally Krishna-neeti, and "Islam" is a corruption of the Sanskrit term "Ishalayam". Paul B 10:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  place name similarity 

message: Can we have a common spelling of Rig Veda across the article? Should it be:
* Rigveda
* Rig Veda
* Rig-Veda
--UB 11:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know, there is no dominant normative English spelling, but the article on the RV is currently called "Rigveda", so that would seem to be the one to go for. Paul B 11:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of Rig Veda