Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations/Archive 4

message: I want to ask Paul , how IAT is not based on Anatolian hypothesis ? What IAT article says that IVC people were Indo-Iranians ( i.e. IA language speakers) . 
So, there are 2 possibilities. 
:1. IVC people were native to ancient India ever since & speakers of IA language( same as per OIT ) 
:2. they came to Ancient India as per Anatolian hypothesis or Kurgan hypothesis. If you put IA language speaking people coming to ancient India during middle IVC period then Kurgan hypothesis will hold true.
I have seen his continuous deletions in this matter on this article page. So, resolve this issue by answering here. WIN 10:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "ever since" is not a well-defined term: your 1.) is precisely the sort of national mysticism uninformed by cultural or linguistic change that we want to keep separate from scholarly debate. Your 2.) are prefectly valid migration scenarios that we have been discussing for ages. 2a) ("Anatolian") means that pre-Indo-Aryans migrated to India (say in 2800 BC), and Proto-Indo-Aryan developed within India (and, possibly,  Iranians re-emigrated "Out of India" around 1900 BC), while 2b) ("Kurgan") means that Proto-Indo-Aryan formed still outside India, and Indo-Aryans (not pre-Indo-Aryans) migrated to India (say in 1800 BC). Forget about your 1) "ever since" and discuss 2a) vs. 2b), and you'll be fine. dab (𒁳) 11:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: WIN, your English is simply not good enough for you to collaborate here. Sorry, but all of your Talk page posts end up being incoherent due to a lack of a suitable command of English. Could you not volunteer for the Wikipedia in your native language? CRCulver 06:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: WIN, you are just trotting out your usual mish-mash of obsessions and trivialities (Witzel's completely non-notable "mistranslation" etc). OIT obviously did not prevail "before Europeans came to India" because it is a product of the concept of an IE language group - a concept that did not exist before Jones. Paul B 10:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nonsense is your forte. If you can show where in the Bhagavat Purana the concept of Indo-European languages exists then we can discuss the notion that "OIT" was first proposed by "Vedic Brahmins". IAT is possible with any early PIE scenario, as I've already said, and as nids(♂) has also pointed out to you on the IAT page. If you don't understand this point, further discussion is fruitless. Paul B 12:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "further discussion" has been fruitless since day one in this case, except for those with penchant for the surreal, of course :) dab (𒁳) 12:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone provide references for which scholar has proposed Indigenous Aryan Theory in which publication?  Bryant coins a term Indigenous Aryan in his book In Quest of the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, but he has not proposed any Indigenous Aryan Theory.  I checked the page Indigenous Aryan Theory, but did not find any reference there.Sbhushan 02:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenus Aryan Theory ( IAT ) 

message: absolutely fascinating. All I can say is, As so often, I am struck by the lengths nationalists will go to create their own version of history. 
dab (𒁳) 12:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=104561638&oldid=103262445 Mandavilli]

message: Crculver, I am again & again asking you about your particular objections. For Airyanam Vaijo section , my additions contains ref. If you have any problem with wordings than write it here before simply reverting all modifications. WIN 04:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: edits like the one reverted here are childish pov pushing, rife with grammatical errors. Not worth keeping. dab (𒁳) 14:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You are not B. B. Lal. We do have a fair article on the Sarasvati (most of which I happen to have written myself). You have yet to make your first useful edit. I do commend people like Nobleeagle who go and write a bona fide Out of India article, even if I think the entire topic is made up of hot air. But your contribution to Wikipedia so far has really just been a mild waste of everybody's time, quite obviously because you  cannot wrap your head around the concept of an encyclopedia, or tell succinct prose from suggestive rambling.  dab (𒁳) 15:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: if you don't stop your stubborn edit-warring we'll have to finally block you for disruption. Your additions aren't even grammatical, and all they do is add pathetically transparent spin. You are really not up to the task WIN, I would just drop it if I were you, all you do is make "your side" look more silly than would be strictly necessary (the more intelligent authors manage to uphold at least a superficial semblance of scholarship). dab (𒁳) 09:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:DFTT dab (𒁳) 14:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: care to read the stuff right above? Or do you want a personalized introduction? dab (𒁳) 09:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This dispute has the potential to get messy for everyone. I have started a subpage /chat2007 where we can discuss the problems and end this sucker. Please add Points of Contention to the list. Geo. Talk to me 07:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will never "end". I honestly don't think the subpage will help. Paul B 08:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try it out.  Atleast we will have a neutral party to help resolve the differences.Sbhushan 19:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sbhushan, I am perfectly "neutral" insofar as I fully respect Wikipedia policy, including WP:NPOV (which itself includes WP:UNDUE). If you present pertinent academic references in good faith, we'll be sure to include them. That's really it, you cannot ask anything beyond that. What we won't have is citation of some paper which after consultation turns out to say something quite different from what was claimed. If you do that, you'll find a cool reception. similarly, if you  scatter random citation requests just to keep us on our toes, you'll find you will not get far. A bona fide summary of the position of a reference does not need more than one citation, or we'll end up citing references for every noun, verb or pronoun. If you have a bona fide point to make, make it. If not, leave it alone. If you're just here to smugly haggle over perfectly valid paragraphs just because you can, you'll just wear out your welcome. I put it to you that you are just not satisfied with the status quo of academic opinion, and you try to pretend there are "differences" where there are in fact none. If you think you can do this just because Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", you will find that this doesn't work out. If you don't like the status quo, you will not be able to anything about it even on Wikipedia. You can always discuss obscure minority opinions somewhere, granted they have some minimal notability at all, but such discussions will always need to state up front that they are about fringe views.  dab (𒁳) 14:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Dab, we agree that this is AMT page and everyting should be provided with references.  No one should be doing any original research.  I am hoping we can provide details of the Academic position supporting AMT from mainstream scholarship and counter arguments also from mainstream scholars.  I am only going to provide input from mainstream acedemic scholars who believe in AMT. What we won't have is citation of some paper which after consultation turns out to say something quite different from what was claimed. applies to all of us.Sbhushan 17:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed. but I dare you to catch me doing that. While I clean out such bad faith material regularly, and, lo and behold, they only ever go in one direction, and then I get told off for being "biased". If you are here for good faith work on the article, and if you are able to understand the terms "academic source" and "undue weight", cheers to you, do edit away. dab (𒁳) 19:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Dab, I can't resist a challenge (nor temptations) so let us talk about "Indigenous Aryan Theory".  No reference has been provided so far (see discussion at .  You have yourself mentioned that this is OR (see here .  Bryant defines "Indigenous Aryanism" on page 4 of his book as group of scholars who oppose Aryan invasions and migrations.  Nowhere in his book he mentions any scholar who accept migration pre-IVC or a scenario where PIE enters the region in question pre-IVC and develops into Indo-Aryan.  You should also know that mainstream can never argue for earlier migrations (because lots of other eveidence will support OIT in that case).  So this "Indigenous Aryan Theory" is OR, setting up "strawman" and should not be included in Wikipedia.Sbhushan 22:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contant deletions by Crculver 

message: What is going on here? Geo. Talk to me
:care to read the stuff right above? Or do you want a personalized introduction? dab (𒁳) 09:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This dispute has the potential to get messy for everyone. I have started a subpage /chat2007 where we can discuss the problems and end this sucker. Please add Points of Contention to the list. Geo. Talk to me 07:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will never "end". I honestly don't think the subpage will help. Paul B 08:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try it out.  Atleast we will have a neutral party to help resolve the differences.Sbhushan 19:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sbhushan, I am perfectly "neutral" insofar as I fully respect Wikipedia policy, including WP:NPOV (which itself includes WP:UNDUE). If you present pertinent academic references in good faith, we'll be sure to include them. That's really it, you cannot ask anything beyond that. What we won't have is citation of some paper which after consultation turns out to say something quite different from what was claimed. If you do that, you'll find a cool reception. similarly, if you  scatter random citation requests just to keep us on our toes, you'll find you will not get far. A bona fide summary of the position of a reference does not need more than one citation, or we'll end up citing references for every noun, verb or pronoun. If you have a bona fide point to make, make it. If not, leave it alone. If you're just here to smugly haggle over perfectly valid paragraphs just because you can, you'll just wear out your welcome. I put it to you that you are just not satisfied with the status quo of academic opinion, and you try to pretend there are "differences" where there are in fact none. If you think you can do this just because Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", you will find that this doesn't work out. If you don't like the status quo, you will not be able to anything about it even on Wikipedia. You can always discuss obscure minority opinions somewhere, granted they have some minimal notability at all, but such discussions will always need to state up front that they are about fringe views.  dab (𒁳) 14:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Dab, we agree that this is AMT page and everyting should be provided with references.  No one should be doing any original research.  I am hoping we can provide details of the Academic position supporting AMT from mainstream scholarship and counter arguments also from mainstream scholars.  I am only going to provide input from mainstream acedemic scholars who believe in AMT. What we won't have is citation of some paper which after consultation turns out to say something quite different from what was claimed. applies to all of us.Sbhushan 17:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed. but I dare you to catch me doing that. While I clean out such bad faith material regularly, and, lo and behold, they only ever go in one direction, and then I get told off for being "biased". If you are here for good faith work on the article, and if you are able to understand the terms "academic source" and "undue weight", cheers to you, do edit away. dab (𒁳) 19:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Dab, I can't resist a challenge (nor temptations) so let us talk about "Indigenous Aryan Theory".  No reference has been provided so far (see discussion at .  You have yourself mentioned that this is OR (see here .  Bryant defines "Indigenous Aryanism" on page 4 of his book as group of scholars who oppose Aryan invasions and migrations.  Nowhere in his book he mentions any scholar who accept migration pre-IVC or a scenario where PIE enters the region in question pre-IVC and develops into Indo-Aryan.  You should also know that mainstream can never argue for earlier migrations (because lots of other eveidence will support OIT in that case).  So this "Indigenous Aryan Theory" is OR, setting up "strawman" and should not be included in Wikipedia.Sbhushan 22:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's up? 

message: Let us disucss one item at a time.  Tag for "invasive".  Which scholar is agruing for Invasion scenario.Sbhushan 15:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: your tags are not  bona fide. Read the sentence you tagged at least, it begins "linguistic evidence alone cannot determine ...." I doubt you are here for constructive improvement, but feel free to prove me wrong. dab (𒁳) 18:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: indeed not, as far as I am aware. Certainly not me. The point of mentioning the "invasive vs. gradual" scenarios is that there are often polemics by "anti-migrationists" that set up unrealistic "invasion" strawmen only to shoot them down. The bottom line is that 19th century may have over-emphasized its fascination for  "invasion", but that you can tone this down to a more realistic "gradual imposition of a superstrate" without problem. Nobody to the best of my knowledge would claim anything stronger than "gradual imposition of a superstrate" today. This certainly wasn't all peaceful, the martial character of Rigvedic tribes is more than clear, but then very few population movements in the Late Bronze Age were. The standard assumption used to be that the substrate population was Proto-Dravidian. It is an interesting development that this may not after all have been the case, but that the Proto-Dravidians just like the Indo-Aryans may have filled the power vacuum following the IVC's decline. Compare this to Gaul. Its territory presents itself completely divided between Romance and Germanic "invaders". The Gaulish language that used to be ubiquitous all over Western Europe has virtually disappeared over a few centuries. And yet, genetically, the inhabitants of former Gaul are still "autochthonous", they are the direct descendants of the Gauls, but they were linguistically assimilated either to the Romans or to the Germans. The IVC/Indo-Aryan/Dravidian case would be perfectly analogous and not in any way far-fetched or unrealistic. dab (𒁳) 13:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The emphasis on invasion is actually more typical of the mid 20thC than the 19thC, following the emergence of theories about the importance of chariots and the claim that the Aryans overthrew the IVC. But in reality there is no clear distinction between "migration" and "invasion". As you say, ancient migrations and expansions were not typically peaceful. Hardly anyone ever imagined large scale organised military expeditions like Darius's or Alexander's invasion of the Indus. Paul B 01:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is basically correct.  The IVC wasn't identified until the 20thC, long after most of the early theorizing about Aryan movements into the subcontinent.  Only after the IVC was found did it even become an issue whether the Aryans had anything to do with the IVC's disappearance.  Wheeler's pithy "Indra stands accused" was a speculation, and in fact was shot down pretty quickly too (e.g. Grahame Clark), but patient scholarly criticism gets lost in this age of sound bites.  rudra 04:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not quite. It's that the distinction between invasion and migration is, in part at least, artificial. Paul B 01:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: EJVS has moved hosting to: http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ I noticed this when I needed to fix a broken link on another page.  I am wondering if there is some way to quickly locate broken links to it on Wikipedia in an automated manner? Buddhipriya 04:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for references 

message: Add any you see missing
# Is dab's behavior a violation of OWN?
#Does the article have NPOV problems?
# What can be done to improve this article?
# Should the name of the article be changed?
# Where are the main problems in this article?
=== Discussion about point 4. Should the name of the article be changed? ===
I think a better article name would be "indo-aryan migration theory" (or hypothesis). This is analogous to Kurgan hypothesis (or Anatolian hypothesis, Germanic substrate hypothesis, Black Sea deluge theory and many others). 
I don't think this move would be controversial, as many (most?) of the pro-migration scholars believe that the migration scenario is just the most likely scenario and hypothesis of all other theories. But even if it may be the most likely hypothesis, it is still an unproven hypothesis, and not a proven theory. 
When I brought this up some time before, the reply was: "the point is that it is undisputed that the I-As migrated somewhere, at some point in time. The debate surrounds questions of date, scale and direction. Therefore IAM is not so much a hypothesis as a field containing various hypotheses." and it was also once said that the article scope's is any migration involving indo-aryan speakers that are before 0 BC. But when I once added a small sentence about migrations of Indo-aryan speakers in the ukraine it was removed from the article. As a matter of fact, most of the article is about the so-called Aryan migration theory. 
I have not insisted much upon such a move (and will not insist much upon it), because I think article titles are not that important, but it would be better if the article title would be more accurate and npov (analogous to Kurgan hypothesis). What do others think? --RF 10:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to see this question being raised - I've been very puzzled reading this and related articles. I believe it's POV to not have the word "theory" or "hypothesis" in the title. The sixth word in the article says it's a theory. It is a theory. Walks, talks, and quacks like one. The title should say so. ॐ Priyanath  talk 16:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the theory label.  It is a theory which is not proven yet, so it should NOT be presented at fact.  But it should mention that this theory is most favoured by linguistic.Sbhushan 02:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the theory label as well.Bakaman 16:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The theory label looks good enough to me as well. Freedom skies| talk  17:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This sounds reasonable, anyone have a problem? Geo. Talk to me 05:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Better sources + Standardizing in case of references (using the ref tags/footnotes instead of the paranthesis) and overcoming the dependence on Mallory (and Mair) by using other sources. Freedom skies| talk  17:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sometimes dab adds information which he says is obvious without referencing, while he removes other people's information. I have no doubt that dab is knowledgeable on the matter, but he needs to follow the same rules as others. But then I have also been accused of dictatorship on other pages I know more about.  — Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 08:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dab's behaviour on articles regarding the Vedic civilization has been extraordinary at times. I'm saying this because this concern is not exclusive to the editors involved in the crafting of this particular article, but is shared by other editors as well. Freedom skies| talk  17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was unaware that adding unsourced information was "enforcement of WP:RS".Bakaman 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Points of Contention

message: I think a better article name would be "indo-aryan migration theory" (or hypothesis). This is analogous to Kurgan hypothesis (or Anatolian hypothesis, Germanic substrate hypothesis, Black Sea deluge theory and many others). 
I don't think this move would be controversial, as many (most?) of the pro-migration scholars believe that the migration scenario is just the most likely scenario and hypothesis of all other theories. But even if it may be the most likely hypothesis, it is still an unproven hypothesis, and not a proven theory. 
When I brought this up some time before, the reply was: "the point is that it is undisputed that the I-As migrated somewhere, at some point in time. The debate surrounds questions of date, scale and direction. Therefore IAM is not so much a hypothesis as a field containing various hypotheses." and it was also once said that the article scope's is any migration involving indo-aryan speakers that are before 0 BC. But when I once added a small sentence about migrations of Indo-aryan speakers in the ukraine it was removed from the article. As a matter of fact, most of the article is about the so-called Aryan migration theory. 
I have not insisted much upon such a move (and will not insist much upon it), because I think article titles are not that important, but it would be better if the article title would be more accurate and npov (analogous to Kurgan hypothesis). What do others think? --RF 10:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to see this question being raised - I've been very puzzled reading this and related articles. I believe it's POV to not have the word "theory" or "hypothesis" in the title. The sixth word in the article says it's a theory. It is a theory. Walks, talks, and quacks like one. The title should say so. ॐ Priyanath  talk 16:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the theory label.  It is a theory which is not proven yet, so it should NOT be presented at fact.  But it should mention that this theory is most favoured by linguistic.Sbhushan 02:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the theory label as well.Bakaman 16:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The theory label looks good enough to me as well. Freedom skies| talk  17:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about point 4. Should the name of the article be changed? 

message: This is a controversial topic, with everyone having very entrenched postions (including me).  The best way to impove the article would be to provide references as per WP:V.  We can add tags where reference is not clear and if the author doesn't provide references in a week's time, the statement is to removed.Sbhushan 22:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds reasonable, anyone have a problem? Geo. Talk to me 05:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Better sources + Standardizing in case of references (using the ref tags/footnotes instead of the paranthesis) and overcoming the dependence on Mallory (and Mair) by using other sources. Freedom skies| talk  17:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about 3. what to do to improve this article 

message: I have put few tags for references.  Dab's action of reverting without providing reference is not acceptable.  For one tag, Dab is completely wrong, P. Thieme has rejected the Kuniper's list in total in his 1994 paper.  A  tag is a request for reference, it is authors responsibility to provide reference, otherwise I have right to remove the statement.  Dab has to follow WP policies same as all editors.Sbhushan 02:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes dab adds information which he says is obvious without referencing, while he removes other people's information. I have no doubt that dab is knowledgeable on the matter, but he needs to follow the same rules as others. But then I have also been accused of dictatorship on other pages I know more about.  — Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 08:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dab's behaviour on articles regarding the Vedic civilization has been extraordinary at times. I'm saying this because this concern is not exclusive to the editors involved in the crafting of this particular article, but is shared by other editors as well. Freedom skies| talk  17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was unaware that adding unsourced information was "enforcement of WP:RS".Bakaman 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion about 1. Is dab's behavior a violation of OWN? 

message: Should this article be moved to Indo-Aryan Migration Theory?
Yes
* ॐ Priyanath  talk 05:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll on 4  

message: As more and more Indians are discovering Wikipedia, there's little hope in getting this article balanced, ever. So I would suggest an unconditional surrender instead of gradually losing battle. At least this way the article will look and smell bullshit instead of disguising the odour with tons of French perfume. 212.199.22.114 22:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's implying every Indian is a dim-witted ideologist. I am counting on more intelligent Indians discovering Wikipedia, and helping protect the articles for the very reason that articles that reek to heaven of naive bullshit tend to give a bad impression of the Indian psyche. If I was Indian, I would regard it a patriotic effort to keep WIN-style nonsense off Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 23:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other ones are Arya Samaj trolls.Bakaman 23:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The future of this article 

message: Why anyone has not paid attention to the fact that languages of Caucasus mountain region is non-IE one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_languages . While this area is next to PIE Kurgan area, why this area is still non-IE language area where as Himalayan mountain range which is bigger and higher than Caucasus range is told to got converted to IE. 
Why IE languages could not occupy Caucasus mountain area despite being very much in the vicinity ? Why IE people could not convert languages of just nearby mountain people ? That means there was strong language opposition from those natives or IE people did not bother to climb Caucasus mountains ?     WIN 10:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: how could you possibly get the idea that "no one paid attention" to the Caucasian languages being non-IE? That's a universally known fact. An I-E/Kartvelian relationship is postulated by the Nostratic supporters. dab (𒁳) 14:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caucasian Languages are from Non-IE family 

message: I have been requesting citation for Indigenous Aryan Theory since Feb 13th (see here [], [] and    []).  So far I have not seen any citation of verifiable source.  The arguments I have got so far are:
*Join two separate words and attach theory after that.  This is not acceptable verifiable source.  Some one in published material has to present this theory, before it can be used like this.
*The words "Indigenous Aryan" is coined in Bryant (2001).  I have provided ref to show that Bryant also says that unavoidable corollary is Out of India theory.
*Another proposal is to use this as political/ideological motivated theory.  This might be possible, but then the theory cannot make claim that are being presented.  Individual claim need citation from a published material.
I am going to request deletion of Indigenous Aryan Theory page as it does not meet verifiability requirement.  If any editor feels that citations are available, please provide them on []) page.  Providing original research is not acceptable.Sbhushan 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bryant does not say that the unavoidable corollory is OIT, as I have shown. In any case the term is not confined to him. It's an out and out lie to say that the phrase is an arbitrary coinage joining "two separate words". You know this because of the references that have been provided. Your arguments are utterly nonsensical and endlessly repetitious. They serve no purpose other than to attempt to delete something that you don't like, even though the term Indigenous Aryanism is very well attested. You support adding "theory" to the title of this article without demanding peer reviewed citation for the exact phrase "Indo-Aryan migration theory". This is sheer hypocrisy. It's nothing more than an attempt at censorship through pedantry. Paul B 14:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: um, the "indigenous Aryans" article is about propaganda. It's so categorized. It's stated up front. It's all referenced. It's so much glorified gibberish spiced with testosteron. I'm sorry, but you are not making sense. As propaganda, it doesn't make strict scholarly sense, and there can be all sorts of "corollaries" from it, including, but not limited to OIT, since ex falso quodlibet. While otoh "OIT" is at least a well-defined proposal which in a certain sence includes an "indigenous Aryan" position a fortiori. dab (𒁳) 17:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Rudra is quite right, Bakaman's selective policy-awareness nonwithstanding. He still has the sanity to wrap it in conditionals, but this statement clearly puts Lal in the loony camp. "a language called Sanskrit", heh. By the same argument, you can prove that the Sumerians really spoke Aramaic. Shame on any archaeologist who argues nonsense like that, even if he never saw a linguistics textbook in his life. I'm still waiting for the moderate voice arguing "yes, there are the nationalist crackpots, but...". But the Hindutva ideologues, and their WP minions, obviously cannot get themselves to accept even the most blatant nonsense for what it is. Until they learn to differentiate between "complete nutcase" and "arguable if fringy", this simply means that all their stuff looks like complete bollocks. Wake me up when some pro-OIT editor comes along who exhibits this minimal amount of honesty.  dab (𒁳) 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting -- your comment about honesty.  Lal's article was provided by you, you thought BB Lal was comparably reasonable voice, you misquoted BB Lal's words to push your POV.  You still haven't provided any citation for your POV that you want to publish in Wikipedia voice.   Source of dishonesty is very obvious.Sbhushan 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this is what you keep saying. None of it is true (except that I called Lal "comparatively reasonable", yes). I don't know why you keep saying it, but repeating it doesn't make it any more true. Now will you, or will you not get mediator assistance, and have a mediator talk to me? There is no other way I will debate with you at this point, sorry. dab (𒁳) 19:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenous Aryan Theory deletion 

message: I have opened an RfC related to IAT at [].  Could you please add your views to that.Sbhushan 16:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC re [[User:Dbachmann]] 

message: I have reverted this edit . The Indra part would rather belong on the Indra, AIT Dasa article (if at all). The Indus script part is offtopic here as well. Discuss on talk before reverting. --Rayfield 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edit 

message: Shouldn't the first paragraph and map in this section belong to the Indo-European languages page (where it could fill out the information on isoglosses)?  I don't see how erudite details on dative plurals in Celtic, etc illuminate anything about IA migrations.  rudra 02:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialectical variation 

message: We have three article to deal with broader topic; Indo-Aryan migration for mainstream view, Out of India for minority scholarly opinion, and Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) about historical, ideological and socio-political aspects of this controversy.  There is no need for a fourth article like indigenous Aryans.  Would this be acceptable compromise.Sbhushan 14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible compromise