Talk:Historical definitions of races in India

message: This article is on the verge of being a soapbox. What is the interest of presenting such obviously pseudo-scientific information? Historical? There is already two articles for that, Race (historical definitions) (which, by the way, really needs clean-up) and scientific racism. That's enough, I think. Furthermore, there seems to be a problem of WP:CS and WP:RS, and in particular of using primary sources which are presented as facts! This article needs clean-up,at the very least. Tazmaniacs 18:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: We should consider moving this page to Racism in India, in coherence with Racism by country issues. It would allow, IMO, for a better article. Tazmaniacs 17:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one has commented on this move request, which makes it difficult to assess the consensus. I have, therefore, not moved it, but acknowledge that the proposed target is unobstructed, and any editor could be bold and move this article there. --Stemonitis 09:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am thus moving it for a more serious article. Tazmaniacs 16:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is clearly not about "Racism in India", a title which would imply a focus on modern social conditions. It is in fact about what it was once titled - historical definitions of racial distinctions in India. Racial classifications, whether right or wrong, are not "racist" as such, so the title is wholly misleading and inaccurate. Paul B 10:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The topics are of course related, but Paul is right: under such a title, you'd expect to read about minority rights, hate groups and the human rights situation in India, not about hisorical ethnology. dab (𒁳) 11:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX for any marginal, out-dated theories, especially as presented before cleaning-up, without any critical approach (a disclaimer in intro is not sufficient, and quite hypocrit, when the rest of the article assert things like: "the Australoids came from... and then the Negroes came from..." This article was racist non-sense, and claiming it only "presented in a neutral fashion racial theories" is also non-sense: presenting racist theories in a "neutral way" is, simply put, using Wikipedia as a soapbox for racist contents. Thus, the name "Racism in India" allows for extension of the article in more interesting lines. Tazmaniacs 16:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Racism in India warrants another article, then I suggest we move this to Scientific racist theories concerning India, which is much more descriptive than "Racial groups in India" which implies that they are various "racial groups" in India. Tazmaniacs 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please! The only person using this as a soapbox is you, since you insist on adding POV characterisations like "scientific racism" to historical theories. Yes, it'sd obsolete as is Catastrophism and phlogisten, but the theories can be discussed without the need to moralise about them. Hodson was using the theoretical models of his day. You are the one creating a soapbox by repeatedly attempting to force judgements on his views. Paul B 16:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is "Racial groups in India (historical definitions)", which is NPOV. Your proposed title is pure POV. Paul B 16:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I disagree, and so do the majority of contemporary scholars on racism. If you contest the fact that these theories belong to the scientific racism tradition, you make me wonder about your own POV. Tazmaniacs 16:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonder as much as you like. You've surveyed "the majority of contemporary scholars" have you? Paul B 16:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Do people agree with the title "Racial groups of India" or do they prefer the former title, "Historical definitions of races in India"?----DarkTea© 03:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Move 

message: This older reversion reverted to by User:Computational defunct has many maps that I made years ago that I did not cite correctly.  I think I found most of them out of a Thomas F. Gossett's Race the History of an Idea in America, but they were not correctly cited with page numbers and everything.  I can't confirm them.  At that time I didn't realize that when an anthropologist classified a section of India as a certain race that it probably didn't apply to all Indians.  This makes me suspect some of the maps may be in error.  Recently I have been more inclined to using incontrovertible quotations from the primary sources which give little room for error.  I also didn't specify the range for the racial groups for the people who mentioned different racial groups in India.  This is an important issue.  For these reasons, the current state of the article is better.  Please, do not revert it.----DarkTea© 06:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Older reversion

message: An attempt to rename this page (Historical definitions) to Racial groups of India has been done without any discussions, and, besides, without using the proper procedure. This is not correct at all. I strongly oppose the de facto move, and propose to merge the very recently created article "Racial groups of India" here, because of NPOV considerations. Tazmaniacs 20:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what NPOV stands for, but if the two articles were merged I certainly had nothing to do with it. I wrote "Racial groups of India" with the intention of it being an entirely seperate article, which is the way it should stay as far as I'm concerned. These articles are on two completely different subjects. This one discusses a recent history of racial classifications, whereas the article I wrote discusses the ancient history of various migrations into India. Besides which Joseph Cambell never made any classifications of Indian races - he just happened to be one of the sources I used to write the article. Matt Oid 13:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: NPOV stands for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If your aim was to discuss the "Ancient history of various migrations into India", why not name the article Ancient history of migrations into India instead of having the controversed concept of "race" enters the game. Outside of the US, this concept is not accepted, in particular in the scientific community. Ethnic groups is a more clear term, which does not reduce socio-cultural differences to biological differences. Tazmaniacs 19:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, the title I used could have been chosen better. But that's no reason to merge my article into this one. The fact remains that Joseph Cambell never made any such classifications, and that he is just one of the sources used to write my article. What if I was to change the name - would that justify a seperate article in your oppinion? Matt Oid 01:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Racial groups of India" and the "Historical definitions of races in India" have the same content, making them content forks of each other.  Whereas the "Racial groups of India" article may only have a recent source provided by User:Matt Oid, the "Historical definitions of races in India" has recent and historical sources.  The main distinction between these two articles that the article with the longer title has the negative aspect of being harder to find in search engines with the aspect some consider to be positive of placing the classifications of race in the historical context.----DarkTea© 20:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: They do not have the same content, for reasons I've already stated above. Matt Oid 01:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your intention might have been to write an article about "the ancient history of various migrations into India", but the article was certainly not about that. The "Negritoid"-"Negroid"-"Caucasoid" is a historical classification scheme -- that's what the article was all about. It was based on a 1962 book written by a professor of mythology. A scientific article on the history of various migrations into India would discuss genetics (see :Image:Human mtDNA migration.png, :Image:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg etc.) and Recent single origin hypothesis; the terms like "Negritoid" and "Caucasoid" are neither used in modern scientific theories, nor in the Census of India. If you wish to write an article on "the ancient history of various migrations into India", it will have to written from scratch anyway -- the stuff about "Caucasoids" and "Negritoids" cannot be included in such an article. So, a merge is fair enough. Besides, the history has been merged as well, so you get credit for your edits. utcursch | talk 11:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Third time: Joseph Cambell never made any such classifications. It is entierly inacurate to say that he did. On that basis alone the section under his name cannot be included in this article. He was simply one of the sources that referenced an article that should be kept seperate from this one. The terms I used to describe the various ethnic groups may very well be outdated. I will change them for the sake of poltical corectness. But that dosen't change the fact that the migrations themselves were very real. Matt Oid 13:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't "change them [racial names] for the sake of poltical corectness", because that would misrepresent the sources you cited.  Joseph Cambell seems to be another anthropologist.  There is nothing that separates him from the list already in the article.  Making a new article for only his theories would be a content fork.----DarkTea© 19:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge new article [[Racial groups of India]] here 

message: ===McCulloch===
His page  which you reference actually says "The following account of the final major expansion out of east Africa into Eurasia, that of the modern humans shortly after 100,000 years ago, is based largely on the work of Stephen Oppenheimer as detailed in his book Out of Eden: The Peopling of the World (2004) which was also the basis for a Discovery Channel documentary titled The Real Eve."
If that statement is accurate, why aren't you consulting, quoting and referencing Oppenheimer, who is a notable recent scientist working in this field, or something like the Discovery Channel documentary, which is a mainstream secondary source, instead of a racial extremist? I do not understand your attraction to political extremists and it is not a healthy focus for science articles.
The second half of the page has a detailed tree structured typological classification which I suggested came from Coon and you then removed from another article. Why are you using it again here?
--JWB 06:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed McCulloch for being a redundant source.  User:Goldenhawk 0 added McCulloch back, but misrepresented him as saying all of India is Mediterranean.  I corrected Goldenhawk 0.----DarkTea© 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I never added this citation.  User:Goldenhawk 0 and another editor did.----DarkTea© 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay.----DarkTea© 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DT's quotes and sources 

message: His page  which you reference actually says "The following account of the final major expansion out of east Africa into Eurasia, that of the modern humans shortly after 100,000 years ago, is based largely on the work of Stephen Oppenheimer as detailed in his book Out of Eden: The Peopling of the World (2004) which was also the basis for a Discovery Channel documentary titled The Real Eve."
If that statement is accurate, why aren't you consulting, quoting and referencing Oppenheimer, who is a notable recent scientist working in this field, or something like the Discovery Channel documentary, which is a mainstream secondary source, instead of a racial extremist? I do not understand your attraction to political extremists and it is not a healthy focus for science articles.
The second half of the page has a detailed tree structured typological classification which I suggested came from Coon and you then removed from another article. Why are you using it again here?
--JWB 06:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed McCulloch for being a redundant source.  User:Goldenhawk 0 added McCulloch back, but misrepresented him as saying all of India is Mediterranean.  I corrected Goldenhawk 0.----DarkTea© 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: McCulloch

message: First, oddly, the footnote for Cavalli-Sforza actually points to a reference to Blumenbach who is centuries older.
Second, you quote a classificatory sentence from Cavalli-Sforza, but give absolutely no context! Is this based on skeletal data, color or other traits, autosomal DNA, mtDNA or something else? Is it his recent result, another scientist's recent result he's discussing, or decades-old information he's giving as introductory background?
This is typical of your approach - disconnected quotes with someone apparently pronouncing an opinion, with no attention to what the original source was and what the reasoning leading to the conclusion was. Articles are supposed to have coherent exposition of the progress of a field.
I see now that farther up, you've left another section also titled "Cavalli-Sforza (1995)", this one consisting of only 9 words! How sloppy can you possibly get?
--JWB 06:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never added this citation.  User:Goldenhawk 0 and another editor did.----DarkTea© 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cavalli-Sforza

message: As noted in another article, cutting the middle out of the quote distorts the meaning completely. Please fix this.
You paste the same stuff in several articles, making it harder to clean up. You repeatedly accuse other people of WP:CFORK when there is even a vague similarity in topic but you feel like deleting their content which you don't like, then you insert completely identical, highly controversial, extremist quotes in multiple places, which is far worse a violation.
--JWB 06:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.----DarkTea© 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gobineau

message: User:Goldenhawk 0 has been adding additions to the article which are unsourced.  First, Goldenhawk 0 wants to add that Gobineau classified Indians as being part of a "degenerative race" with quotations.  This is wrong.  Gobineau considered Indians to be a mixture of the white, black and yellow races.  He considered them to have a degenerative status due to their racial mixture.  Goldenhawk 0's characterization of Mackenzie is misleading.  It is not a direct quote from Mackenzie.  It is only surmised from Mackenzie due to Mackenzie characterizing anthropologists who classified a proportion of Indians to be Mediterranean.  There is already a Ripley section I made with full quotes that explains his views about India's racial mixture.  Goldenhawk 0 has added a redundant section of lesser quality about Ripley.  The Linnaeaus section was from my earlier characterization of Linnaeaus which is unsourced and without quotes.  Richard McCulloch was agreed upon by User:JWB to be a poor source who has copied Coon's classification system, making him redundant.  David Frawley is a Hindu researcher with no expertise in the subject of race. He is not a reliable source in this issue.----DarkTea© 18:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Goldenhawk 0

message: Did he make a pronouncement about the "racial" make-up of Indians? I don't think so. Did he quote a 19th century writer on the topic? Quite possibly. But if he is to be cited on that, then the reference must be to one of his works. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Edward Said]] 

message: My God, this page has had both Dark Tea and Goldenhawk0 editing it? My sympathies to this much-abused article. I'm doing a trim and clean-up - cut material is being moved to Talk:Historical definitions of races in India/Dumping ground. Moreschi (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now I see that a slimmed-down version of "specific racial theories" does need to go back in. I'm working on one. Moreschi (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Moreschi Do not remove citations from reliable sources as you did in this edit.  Your edit summary argument about "massive overkill" does not justify your edit.  Wikipedia does not demand that reliable sources should be removed when there are too much of them.----DarkTea© 19:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, don't be silly.  applies. Moreschi (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: It appears that all the information in the article has been removed without discussion. I've undone this edit. 123.211.33.128 (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article removed? 

message: Is there any reason why Racism in India redirects here? This article doesn't appear to be about racism in India at all. - Borofkin (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See the secvtion "Requested move". There was an attempt to move the article and it was moved back. The redirect was created automatically. If you can find a better place to point it to, do so. Paul B (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism in India 

message: Modern studies indicate that the Dravidians of India belong to Mediterranean race. But this article appears to be having no mentions of it.Govindsharma (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dravidians are Mediterraneans 

message: Pursuant to a report of edit warring filed at WP:AN/EW, I have protected this article for 24 hours.  Bodhidharma7, Tamilan101, and MThekkumthala are strongly advised to bring their dispute to this talk page before making any further reverts after the page protection expires.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected due to edit warring 

message: Carleton S. Coon has claimed the Dravidians as of caucasoid stock in the past, as well as Richard McCulloch. This article has no mentions on these claims and I will have to edit some material as well as put this aspect of the article in. (Tamilan101 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Carleton S. Coon is dated. I'm only interested in what present-day sources have to say, not sources from the forties and fifties, that's why the passage is entitled "the modern races of India". Bodhidharma7 (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put it elsewhere, as it doesn't have any place in a section titled "the modern races of India", which is an up-to-date summary of what modern anthropologists consider is the correct racial classification of the Indian population. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It has everything to do with the article, as McCulloch is not a credible source. He's not even a recognized anthropologist or geneticist. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

text: In a section about anthropologists' opinions as to the race of Indians? Now I know you're a troll. 
And white supremacists are not considered verifiable, trustworthy sources btw. 02:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

text: But it's neither viable, nor credible. And it doesn't belong in a section which is concerned with what anthropologists think about how Indians should be racially classified. But I'll let you have your way for now. It won't last for long though. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Dravidic speakers as Caucasoid origin. 

message: remove "The races of modern India " section. It is obvious, that this section doesn't belong here. It's completely off topic and duplicates the content of a modern genetics article to be found here Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia
.--MThekkumthala (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. KrakatoaKatie 13:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: this edit is uncontroversial and therefore there no consensus required according to the edit protect template--MThekkumthala (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:   Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Edit warring over that section appears to be exactly why this page is currently protected. Go discuss the issue, don't try to continue your edit war by proxy. Anomie⚔ 18:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: see below.. no dispute. --MThekkumthala (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. No action until the active editors on this article reach a consensus. Lack of response does not constitute a consensus when there had been recent edit-warring. -- Donald Albury 21:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove "The races of modern India " section 

message: Admins think, that there is a dispute on the removal of this offtopic content. Please discuss.--MThekkumthala (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the section "The races of modern India" 

message: The Demise of the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus myths
I am publishing my sixth research paper directly online as it is an extension of my previous papers. Kindly read pages 4 to 18 as it contains a detailed discussion of the term ‘Aryan’. This paper shows why the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus theories are not tenable.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/136268397/The-demise-of-the-Dravidian-Vedic-and-Paramunda-Indus-myths
Methods to reconstruct the languages of the Harappans were presented in the present and previous papers. We hope other scholars take up the exercise of reconstructing the languages of the Indus Valley civilization!
The older papers were written taking the assumptions of the 19th century school of Indology as a base and working backwards. These may appear to be outdated now (at the end of our very long journey). However, the fundamentals are still correct.
Part one
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One
Part Two very,very important!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two
(These comprise the complete and comprehensive solution to the Aryan problem)
for those who have trouble reading part two in the above link use the link below:
part two 
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25865304/SUJAY-NPAP-Part-Two
Literacy in pre-Buddhist India (before 600 BC)
Please find my collection of papers on literacy in Pre-Buddhist India
Before mature phase of Indus valley civilization (before 2600 BC)
- There are some potters marks but none qualify as full writing
Indus valley civilization (2600 BC to 1900 BC)
1. The reconfirmation and reinforcement of the Indus script thesis (very logical and self explanatory paper)
 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46387240/Sujay-Indus-Script-Final-Version-Final-Final
2. The reintroduction of the lost manuscript hypothesis (the case for this thesis has obviously become much stronger in the recent past)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/111707419/Sujay-Indus-Reintroducing-Lost-Manuscript-Hypothesis
Post-Harappan India (1600 BC to 600 BC)
1. Literacy in post-Harappan india (obviously literacy in post-Harappan India existed in certain pockets & were limited to very small sections of society- alphabetic scripts were brought from West Asia and the Indus script also continued – this a very logical and self-explanatory paper and anyone can cross-verify the conclusions)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/127306265/Sujay-Post-Harappan-Literacy-and-origin-of-Brahmi
Sujay Rao Mandavilli
182.72.239.115 (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please find all my papers - this will be of interest in IE linguistics/ those interested in the Aryan problem 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Historical definitions of races in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5Xlqrcsme?url=http://www.censusindia.gov.in to http://www.censusindia.gov.in/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified