Talk:Out of India theory/Archive 8

message: Since you claim to have read Parpola's article, why don't you provide the page number where this particular claim is made.  This claim was challenged around Dec 2006 (see above "Urheimat section: Gandhara comment").  Dab first provide Parpola 2005 as reference.  I checked that and there is no mention of this.  Then he suggested [Indo-Iranian], then he changed to Parpola (1999).  I have asked for page number since that time, no response yet.  I have waited since Dec for correct reference, I can wait couple of more days.Sbhushan 17:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's take this slowly, okay?  First, Swat is in Gandhara.  Yes, I know, that's shocking, but it's true.  Nothing we can do about that, so let's move on.  Next, on the basis of what the word urheimat means, "Rigvedic Urheimat" means where the speakers of Proto-Rigvedic, i.e. the immediate precursor, were, when the Rgvedic language evolved.  Are you with us, so far?  Good.  Now, Parpola(1999) identifies the Swat Culture with Proto-Rigvedic.  From that, it should be clear to everyone, including my sainted grandmother, that in Parpola's reconstruction, the Rgvedic language emerged in Gandhara. Oh, you mean you were looking for Parpola to have said exactly "Gandhara is the Rigvedic Urheimat". otherwise you're going to slap an  tag right smack there?  Gee, go ahead.  rudra 19:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: your combination of saintly patience and hilarity cracks me up every time :) dab (𒁳) 20:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sbhushan, the paragraph summarizes exactly the gist of Parpola's suggestion (not "claim"). If you are unable to follow the argument, you can hardly blame that on us. Maybe you should find a topic more fitted to your cognitive faculties instead. We cannot be expected to dumb this down to :simple: level just because one reader found it too difficult. Summarizing the content of a paper is not the same as misrepresenting it, which is what the policy you quote at us refers to. You should know all about misrepresentation, as Rudra points out with angelic patience above re your doctored "citations" of Bryant. The crucial difference between Rudra and you? Rudra is aware of the pertaining literature, and wants to reflect the content of that literature in the article, no self: good for Wikipedia. You have your opinion, which you picked up god knows where, probably on the internet, and you are scavenging the literature for anything that sounds as if it would support what you decided you want the article to say: bad for Wikipedia. Unless you wisen up and realize what Wikipedia is about, you will have little joy here. dab (𒁳) 15:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: another violation of the very policy you just quoted:  while the isolated fact "Parpola said Proto-Rigvedic was spoken in Gandhara" would neither contradict nor "support" the OIT, the paper of course derives Swat < Alakul-Fedorovo < Petrovka-Sintashta . You have either not even looked at the article, in which case you are idly wasting our time, or you have looked at it and chose to consciously misrepresent it, in which case you are trolling, or you have looked at it, but not understood a single word, in which case I repeat that you might better invest your energies elsewhere. dab (𒁳) 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: my comments are perfectly plain. You are once again trying to muddy the issue by non-sequiturs. This is not a debate. dab (𒁳) 15:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parpola's Gandhara claim 

message: Indo-Aryan Migration should be titled Indo-Aryan Migration Theory.  So far I have not understood what is objection to adding "theory" to the name.Sbhushan 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See evolution theory.Hornplease 07:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (a) the term is capitalized because it is in common use in this form. (b) it is not "a theory", it is a field, comprising various theories. dab (𒁳) 09:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AIM/OIT

message: This should be mainstream linguistic scholars.  Evidence provided above that archeologist/genetics don't agree with linguistic.  To imply all mainstream agree with AIM is misrepresentation.Sbhushan 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't even read that article, have you? It's completely tangential to your claim. Hornplease 21:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we jumping to conclusions? Yourself, dbachmann, and others have tried to assert Frawley, Rajaram, et al. have not been discussed (or have been unanimously rejected) in academic journals. However, this paper does not reject R,R,Kak but notes that they are in sync with views held by Basham and others. In fact it is almost a vindication of many views espoused by Hindu nationalists.Bakaman 14:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an analysis of a 'discourse', not of the scholarship itself. Please stay on-topic. Hornplease 19:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming I had not read the paper, is also off-topic. If it was simply an analysis, isn't mainstream Indology supposed to regard the Kak, Frawley, Rajaram as lunatics? The paper does discuss that Rajaran (and Basham in some areas) do not agree with "mainstream" scholarship.Bakaman 01:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's irrelevant, as is the paper you quoted. Move on. Hornplease 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's really irrelevant are your useless quips in this section. The paper discusses the contradictions of many views, I would suggest you actually read it.Bakaman 22:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't bicker like this. I don't see the point of your mentioning the paper, which is published in a journal on pedagogy, and not history, and which in any case discusses outdated textbooks which use the word 'Invasion', rather than 'migration'. Please take this elsewhere. Hornplease 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If it is the consensus among archaeologists, cite a review article in a prominent journal stating as much and take it to the appropriate page. Otherwise this is pointless. Hornplease 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: My reading of the Erdosy preface is different. Can you provide a quote, please? And I fail to see which pages this affects other than Indo-Aryan migration. Hornplease 07:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hang on, doesn't Bryant mean to imply that archaeologists now believe that they cannot answer these questions? In which case, why is it relevant? Hornplease 10:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: mainstream scholars