Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Aryan Theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indigenous Aryan Theory

Indigenous Aryan Theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I request opinions on this article, which since its creation has been a magnet for edit-warring (with WP:3RR and other problems) [1] and of a lot of uncivility and disputes on the talkpage.

About one half to two thirds of this article can already be found in the Out of India Theory and in the Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) articles. The remaining part of the article could be safely merged as a section into the OIT, AIT and Hindu nationalism articles. Most of it can easily find place in OIT, and the rest in the other two articles.

Here we have an article that claims to be about the "ideological position" that may manifest itself as "Out of India Theory", and that seems to have been created to paint views such as the "criticism of Aryan migration theories" as some sort of Hindu nazism. The article has also neutrality issues.

It does not need a separate article. Wikipedia has articles on theories like Armenian hypothesis, Paleolithic Continuity Theory and many other theories, but Wikipedia has not articles only on the psychological motives or ""ideological position" for these theories. Such claims belong in the article of the theory, not in a separate article.

I suggest that this article be merged as a section into the mentioned articles, or that at least a suitable title for this article is found. Such a title could be Ideological positions in the Indo-Aryan migration debate or maybe Out of India Theory (Ideological positions). --RF 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC) RF 01:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - The term nets a whopping 132 ghits and is uncited in any sort of academic journal. This page is dabcruft.Bakaman 02:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Not exactly, This guy appears to claim to have invented the term in a 1997 Columbia dissertation (now he is at Harvard), and presumably uses it in his book published by Oxford University Press Johnbod 18:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment:I have read that book. In my opinion, Bryant's "Indigenous Aryan" is just another name for Out of India Theory or Indian Urheimat Theory, and we have an article for that. The creator of the article may disagree with my opinion here. --RF 19:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Find sources: books, news, scholar

it is not, as you can read up in the article. "OIT" is shoddy scholarship, while "Indigenous Aryans" is nationalist propaganda. The two overlap, of course. Bakaman's google search is spurious of course (surprise, surprise), since it includes the "theory" part which we want to get rid of by a {{move}} anyway. (as you can extrapolate from Bakaman's 'dabcruft' neologism, this isn't even about any topical issue for him anymore, he just follows me around wikipedia and tries to disrupt things in various small ways). "Indigenous Aryan position" is just a term for what proponents (or should we say, disseminators) prefer to call things like "exciting new emerging evidence found by eminent professors" (and permutations, ad nauseam), which is hardly preferable as an article title. dab (𒁳) 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Follow? The pages have been on my watchlist since time immemorial, I dont need to follow you around to see what goes on on WP:DSI, or any of the hundreds of pages on my watchlist.Bakaman 17:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - insufficient notability per above searches. Addhoc 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not saying the term doesn't exist, merely that it doesn't warrant its own article. Addhoc 18:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
sorry - moved comment up - was intended to refer to Bakasupram's one Johnbod 18:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per proven lack of notability.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 19:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bad faith nom using AfD to make a point, coinciding with numerous personal attacks, by a POV-pushing contingent of editors. Article is extremely well referenced. This discussion belongs on a talk page, not at AfD. - WeniWidiWiki 19:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you referring to your own personal attacks above?--RF 19:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually I would be referring to User:Bakasuprman referring to the article with the derogatory dabcruft at this AfD Diff and user:WIN repeatedly referring to Dab as a "hypocrate" (sic) Diff. I forgot to mention the numerous violations of WP:CANVASS and vote-stacking which surround this AfD as well as the conveniently timed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann the same series of editors are involved in. - WeniWidiWiki 20:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Win has not voted on this AFD. I am also not responsible for the personal attacks that the involved editors exchange with each other on the IAT and other articles. If this article gets merged, I am resposible that there will be one page less where they can exchange this. The allegations of vote-stacking surrounding this AFD are interesting, care to explain this? I'm not involved in any way with the RFC on Dbachmann, which was not started by me. My decision to put this article up for discussion came after the AFD for the Nicholas Kazanas article which made me again for a short time active on wikipedia, where I began a discussion on the Talk:Indigenous_Aryan_Theory, which you can read there. --RF 20:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Wend Wiki sems to know nothing on the situation but quick to assign names to people. How about you add "Dab is incapable of failure" and "all those who oppose him are trolls" to your statement as well?Bakaman 21:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, well sourced and referenced. We don't have to like it. On the other side, considering the whole history of this article ... AlfPhotoman 20:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I did not say that the content should be deleted, did I? I said that it should be best merged into OIT and the other articles, or at the very least a non-confusing article title be found. --RF 20:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have a proposal... instead of screaming at me find a new title, would be a meaningful use of your time AlfPhotoman 20:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The IAT == OIT reduction is absurd. Generally, writers in the IAT rubric avoid trying to make definitive statements about OIT (and even if they do, the theorising usually ends at the Hindu Kush), or dismiss linguistics altogether. Bryant's book as a source is unfortunate, because as anyone familiar with the popular literature knows, the indigenousness of the Aryans has to do with (a) the indigenousness of Hinduism in all its antecedents and, thus since the 1920s, (b) the relation between the Vedas and the IVC. Everything else is secondary. Bryant does not cover these aspects in any particular depth. But they are the core of the "position", and rife with fringecruft. The point of this article in WP is to offer a home for the kookery, rather than have the nonsense vitiate other subjects. There really is no "debate". It's all jingoistic pseudo-historiography. rudra 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If Bryants book as a source is unfortunate, this means that you are also somehow confused over the article title? I admit I am still confused over the article title, and its relation to Bryant's use of the term (in my opinion Bryant uses it as a synonim for OIT). Which authors on history then advocate IAT as opposed to OIT? The creator of the article has defined the article this way: It is about the ideological position that may manifest itself as OIT, among a couple of other positions. [2] And looking at the content, I see no reason why it cannot be merged to OIT, AIT and Hindu nationlism. --RF 20:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Personally, I think "Indigenous Aryanism" might have been better, or even "'Indigenous Aryan' Thesis" (note the two levels of quotes). And I disagree with your reading of Bryant. It's fairer to say that Bryant would like to equate the two (mainly because he considers linguistics important), but this confuses the theoretical implications of mainstream linguistics with the historiographic concerns of the IA "school". rudra 20:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Even if it were correct that Bryant's term is about the same thing that the article is about (which I doubt), the term is not in current use outside the work of Bryant. Bryant is notable, but not every term coined or used by him must automatically be so. The term IAT was already used by H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy in 1963 in A History of Ancient India. --RF 11:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Please stop playing word games. No one has to wait for someone to coin a term like "Indigenous Aryan(ism)" for the subject to remain in limbo otherwise. Conjoining "indigenous" and "Aryan" in a phrase has been around for a long time, earlier than 1963 for sure. (Try Vol I (1951) of Majumdar's History and Culture of the Indian People, Appendix to Chapter X.) If you want a subject title like "Indigenousness of Aryans to the Indian Subcontinent", say so, instead of quibbling. Thanks. rudra 18:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Exact quote, in case you were interested: "The theory of the indigenous origin of the Aryans has been advocated by a number of scholars." A footnote says: "This Appendix is based on a long note on the subject prepared by Prof. S. Srikanta Sastri and most of the arguments are advanced by Mr. K.M. Munshi in Glory that was Gurjaradeśa, I, Section II". That's 1955, if you please. rudra 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The linguistic claims in the article can fit in OIT page, the historical, ideological and socio-political aspects of the discussion are already covered in Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies). Although some of the better referenced material (Witzel's comments after being made NPOV) from this article should be moved to that page. The article still has lots of errors, items identified with footnote 3 and 7 are misrepresentation of the referenced material. This article doesn't add any new value to the discussion, but is full of all kind of original research.Sbhushan 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per rudra comment about a home for the kookery, the fact it is well referenced and that Google alone should not decide deletion - many notable things are not referenced elsewhere on the Internet - that is what makes Wikipedia important, especially articles that are written with non-Internet sources. mceder (u t c) 13:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The "meta" issue here, as I'm sure you realize, and as I'm equally sure no one is prepared to admit, is that isolating kookery is precisely what is not wanted by those pushing for deletion. Because it would lead to removal of material from articles on subjects of legitimate scholarly concern, and thus lose "air time" for the fringecruft that seeks to gain respectability by association. The IAM and OIT articles are disasters already - reducing them should be the order of the day. rudra 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Could I suggest you make some effort to comply with the civility policy? Addhoc 17:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I would argue against widening the scope, as Hindutva revisionism involves more than just fulminating against 19th century straw men. rudra 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
"Hindutva revisionism"? You mean the article title should not only be confusing and "OR", it should also be pov? What else do you want to include into this "wider scope"? The Holocaust revisionism in India is currently not carried out by the Hindutva folk. So what kind of other "Hindutva revisionism" are you talking about?
The AIT article should be split, and be merged to IAT and other articles? AIT is the most common name for that article, while IAT is not common at all. And by policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions the most commonly used name in English should be used. You said on the IAT talkpage "A decent cleanout of offtopic observations on Nazis, imperialism and 19th century Romanticism just used to add spin ("Role in Imperialism and Nazism") would reduce it to about half its present size; the "Political and religious issues" could be merged here, while "Early history of the theory" could be summarized in the IAM article." What is meant by a decent cleanout? --Rayfield 20:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is essential to the neutrality of WP that articles about historical theories espoused by different political groups be maintained equitably. That such a theory is under attack as representing the view of only a nationalist group, is all the more reason to support it. The article seems reasonably fair and adequately referenced. That this is not the mainstream theory held on a global basis is made clear. Any effort at suppression of any POV by technical arguments, or by detailed discussion of the weakness of prima fascia RSs, or by merging in such a way as to diminish the influence or the number of articles of the minority group in such matters is to be guarded against by resolving doubts by keeping the article. (And personally, I skip over discussions of the editors involved; I think most uninvolved people here would do so also, and so I do not see the purpose of such attacks.) DGG 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Keep - I know little of this subject, but if it is to be kept, it needs to be expanded to provide context, or alternatively it should be merged with something else that does so. It is evident from the fact that is has had to be semi-protected that the subject must be controversial. If so, it must ensure that there is a neutral point of view, by ensuring that both sides of the argument are presented with their strengths and weaknesses exposed. Peterkingiron 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Most contents in the article can be found in the Out of India Theory and in the Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) articles. Insufficient notability and repeated content. Freedom skies| talk  01:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per RF's nom. The article does not conform to a neutral point of view, nor is it a justifiable fork of the AIT and Hindutva articles. An encyclopedia is not meant to promote new interpretations - the views of Bryant and Sen deserve acknowledgment but within the main article. Rama's arrow 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Rama's Arrow. Is a POV-fork, Dab's suggestion of moving the article to Hindutva and pseudoscience or Hindutva historical revisionism indicates the intentions of the article. I know Dab is quite knowledgeable on the topic, but Wikipolicy does not allow that as an excuse for him to express his views indiscriminately on Wikipedia articles. For example, most of the "Mainstream rebuttals" created by Dab on pages like Out of India theory are unsourced while the "Pseudoscientific arguments" put forward are very well sourced. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 08:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • huh? are we going to delete pseudoscience or revisionism too, since they expose crank views as crank views? The fact that you vote delete rather than merge shows that you are just out to get rid of something you don't like. We have entire categories that discuss Category:Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, Category:Propaganda of the Soviet Union, Category:Nazi propaganda and Category:Propaganda in the United States. And we're suppose to delete an article on Hindutva propaganda just because there are a couple of editors on Wikipedia who attempt to abuse the project as a propaganda tool? Much to the contrary, it requires an extra effort to screen out the propagandist pov-pushing and create a solid and well-referenced article describing their approaches. "Indigenous Aryan" is just one central aspect of this propaganda stunt, and I agree the article could be moved to Hindutva propaganda, Hindutva pseudoscience, Hindutva revisionism or whatever you prefer, but Wikipedia will not allow propagandists, or those misled by propagandists, succeed in pretending that their propaganda does not in fact exist and its discussion belongs "deleted". Quoth the arbcom, "use of Wikipedia for political propaganda is prohibited." Yet this is constantly done by our resident "Hindutva half-dozen". It is time we protected Wikipedia more effectively against such attacks, since attacks they are. This AfD is just a little incident in this epic story, of course, but it is very instructive on the present state of things. dab (𒁳) 11:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • We already have an article for historical, ideological and socio-political aspects of this controversy as Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) (AIT). That article was a featured aritcle [[3]] due to hard work of lots of editors. So what exactly is the point of creating another article for same topic. There is some good content in this article that should be moved to AIT article.Sbhushan 14:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • then argue for merging, what is this doing on AfD?? I am discussing possible merges and splits on the talkpage you know. Regarding "formerly featured", that's a joke. See here: That was back in 2004, under the title Aryan invasion theory. FAC criteria were rather different back then. this is what it looked like. FACing something like this today would violate WP:SNOW. But of course, if Wikipedia wasn't spammed by Hindutva trolls, it would be much easier to reach FA quality again. dab (𒁳) 19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
          • merging with OIT and AIT is proposed as per original request [[4]]. Interesting comment about "trolls", since you are sole source of the OR in this article.Sbhushan 19:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Dab, you said that this article was the equivalet of Hindutva and historical revisionism. I have no problems with your views being included on the article saying that "The theory is associated by some as Hindutva propaganda". But the fact that you believe this article is worthy of moving to Hindutva and historical revisionism means that it is just a POV-fork of Out of India theory where you can show everyone who Hindutvavaadis are evil historical revisionists while the 19th Western people that made the idea of a migration into India are learned and had no political motivations. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • if you would please read the article, you will note that this is not the case. "out of India" can be proposed without "indigenous Aryans" ideology (Schlegel; Elst at least claims to not follow this ideology. Funny tough he should write a dissertation on Hindutva (sympathetic), and then, for completely unrelated reasons, come up with a "out of India" suggestion), and "indigenous Aryans" can be proposed without any sort of "out of India" concepts (such as, by ideologues who ignore linguistics or reject Indo-European as a colonialist conspiracy). Neither article is a true sub-topic of the other. dab (𒁳) 14:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In that case can you demonstrate couple of things 1) How is this article different from AIT and why should it not be included as subsection there. AIT is better referenced article, more encyclopedic article for same content. 2) Why does the article not say upfront that this is about sentimennt that rejects linguistic relations and the only theory this can be compatible with is "Out of India". Bryant made this clear statment (2001 page 6), that I have explained to you number of times with exact words from Bryant. I also explained to you yesterday why joining 2 words and creating argument is OR, we need peer reviewed material [[5]]. Sbhushan 14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, does a good job at discussing the connections and differences between the various strands of thinking involved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The fact that the issue is loaded with political implications is not a criterion for deletion (I know it's not cited as one, but it's obvious what's going on here). There's northing wrong with the article, it looks very referenced to me.--Domitius 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The term is an inherent neologism, not being cited in any of the works explicitly.Bakaman 02:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WeniWidiWiki, I would have said similar but in a more toned down manner.Mathmo Talk 05:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep : There is nothing wrong with this article and entire world agree for this fact. Afd proposed to achieve political agendas, discriminatory to millions of people in India, especially the minorities, 'Lower' castes. This theory is OR and had been debated thoroughly and rejected by academics and progressive political parties in India."world specialists on ancient India", voicing "mainstream academic opinion in India, Pakistan, the United States, Europe, Australia, Taiwan and Japan" on the issue, is now part of a concerted campaign encompassing well-known scholars and hundreds of teachers and parents against this 20th Century idea.John Paul 06:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments: Turn the pages of elementry school pages of any Indian school syllabus you will learn the truth, I believe those who are proposing Afd too know the truth. "If history was easy to change, Man would not have been using internet".Those who made efforts to change history are themself wiped off from history.
  • wow, Indian elementary school syllabus is now "Truth"? Would that be before or after the 1998-2004 indoctrination stunt by the BJP government? I suppose we should turn to Turkish elementary school syllabus to establish the Truth of Pan-Turkism, then? And, it would follow, to pre-2005 Dover Area School District curriculum to learn the Truth on Creation science? I think you'll need to WP:FORK (conservapedia.com? -- hindutvapedia.com!) if that's what you want. dab (𒁳) 13:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It looks to me well-sourced and well-written.--Yannismarou 07:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Apart from the article having it's merits and being well sourced, the proposer has since decided to retire from wikipedia on the same day as this afd. He Had also raised particpated in a rfc against the creator of this article, and taken sides with a person in dispute with the creator- the motive seems suspect. Haphar 08:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you please clarify who do you refer to when you mention "retire from Wikipedia". I initiated RfC against the creator of the article (after making effort for 4 months on different article to remove OR and explain basic policy like WP:ATT to an admin). The article only has some sources NOW since I kept pushing to include sources (look at the previous version to see how many citation you can find [[6]]). Dab is STILL misquoting the sources in the article (items ref in (3) and (7)). He refuses to provide correct citation for controversial statements in the article or to remove the statements. I have been working with a third party mediator to tackle one issue at a time. Dab refuses to participate in the mediation effort. The question is do we need 2 article on Wikipedia to discuss same content? AIT is long established article for same content that is better referenced than this article and includes efforts of lot more than 1 editor.Sbhushan 14:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I refer to user Rayfield, or RF as the User signs. I correct my above statement-RF had "particpated" in a rfc and taken a stance opposed to dab.- Haphar 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)- Also in light with the request for deletion, it is misplaced as in the same request a suggestion to "merge" is also made, merge has a seperate template than afd, and if merge was the objective than the appropriate tags and discussion should have been placed and made. If the content can be added to the other article, then deletion / redirection suggestions can be looked at, but I think that should precede a request for deletion.Haphar 15:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify Rayfield (RF) has neither "certified" or "endorsed" the RfC. On talk page of RfC he has provided some advice (which any fair person would have difficulty disagreeing with) to Dab [[7]]. It would definately make it easy to work with Dab if he followed WP:CIVIL policy. I made effort over 4 months to resolve this, how long can I keep clapping with one hand. I am still having difficulty understanding how enforcing WP:ATT on all editors evenly is not the best solution to this controversial problem. Don't allow anyone's POV.Sbhushan 15:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Out of India Theory. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 12:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. "Indigenous Aryanism" gets enough Google results to be notable on its own, and it looks like there are good sources for describing Indigenous Aryanism as an ideological position. However, it may be more useful to have this material in the same article as the Out of India stuff, as that might give the reader a better idea of the role these theories play in contemporary Indian politics and culture, as well as international Vedic scholarship. I have to say I'm disturbed by the tone of this discussion, the AfD seems like it's about attacking a particular author rather than a sincere discussion of the content of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Out of India Theory. — goethean ॐ 17:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Rama's Arrow. way pov--D-Boy 23:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete Per rama's and others. This page is way too POV. THe existing pages can use what's here and assimilate it in a more NPOV manner. ThuranX 04:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a matter of course. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete - Merge with OIT and delete. Article reads like a POV fork in parts. Title is neologism. Sarvagnya 21:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Indigenous_Aryan_Theory_8e02.html"