Talk:Indo-Aryans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic Groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
	This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Section Origins 2 What's with the picture of the Roma? 3 Vedic Aryans vs Kurus 4 The words 'gypsy' and 'negro' 5 template 6 Indo-Iranian vs Indo-European 7 ethnic group template 8 Iranian peoples 9 Wehn did Dravidians become Indo-Aryans? 10 The Infobox should not be used here

[edit] Section Origins

No sources are given for this section. Who said this and when? The information is also not given in a neutral way. (There are differing views and theories regarding dates, places and other things.) --Machaon 21:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

there is no section "Origins"; you mean the "pre-Vedic" section? details of this discussion go to the main article, Indo-Aryan migration. What do you mean "no sources are given"? I count about a dozen references in this short paragraph. You'll have to be specific about what you don't like. Obviously everything is disputed in this area. What this section is supposed to do is summarize the mainstream scholarly view. 23:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The comment was accurate when it was made. Check the date. Paul B 23:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about this article as it represents an underresearched view of who the Indo Aryans were and their religion and language. Urdu to my knowledge is 'arabised/pathanised/mughalised hindi. This article does not mention the conquest of the Dravidian lands and diputes the fact that the original indo aryans were indeed very fair, possibly blonde and blue eyed. Recent DNA research amongst the northern indians who tend to be fair show strong links to central european DNA.

I know of no good evidence that the "original Indo-Aryans" were "very fair". Please provide references. I'm not sure what you are getting at with your comment about Urdu or how it is relevant. Paul B 12:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's with the picture of the Roma?

Granted they speak an Indo-Aryan language, but many of them don't and genetically they've mingled substantially with other peoples. Not the best representation of Indo-Aryans. As this article is about the Indo-Aryans as a people rather than as a linguistic group, I think the picture of the Roma needs to come down and be replaced with one of say the Punjabis or Bengalis instead. Tombseye 10:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

-Well,race has kind of lost it's factor for determining the Indo-Aryans, as they have mixed with other groups so much as to be deemed racially heterogenous. But, I do guess using the Roma for a picture of the Indo-Aryans is a bit ridiculous as they are only a smaller group of a larger branch of Indo-Iranian people who mostly different from the Roma. I do think we should use a picture of a more common Indo-Aryan cultural group, such as the Rajputs, Punjabis or some other North Indian people. -User: Afghan Historian

[edit] Vedic Aryans vs Kurus

Aren't Kurus also Vedic Aryans, which is an umbrella term? deeptrivia (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the article disputes that. It says I-A culture expanded "with the Kurus..." I don't think that would normally be read to mean that I-A people expanded in "alliance with the Kurus". It means that the culture expanded in part because the specific Kuru realm, which was part of it, expanded - a comparable sentence would be "Greek culture expanded with the conquests of Alexander the Great". Paul B 09:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at it again, I agree that the first half of the sentence ("Together with indigenous cultures...") could lead to the reading that "Kurus" were "indigenous" allies of Indo-Aryans, though I'm fairly confident that no-one actually intended to imply that. The previous sentences also contained some confusing bracketed material, with brackets in brackets in brackets. Paul B 11:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I was referring to the list (Sec. 5.1) It has Vedic Aryans, Kurus, Shakyas, etc as separate elements. 14:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh right, well that's just a list of related articles. They aren't inteded to exclude eachother. Some are inclusive, some more specific. Paul B 18:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The words 'gypsy' and 'negro'

I know we're instructed to be bold, but since those two words have been in the article for so long (I tried to go back and figure out when they'd been added, but gave up after looking back to about September 2005), I hesitate to take them out since so many people who've been working on the article seem to think they're OK.--Anchoress 11:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with negro, which even has inverted commas around it. Do you have a better word? I've changed gypsies, but the problem with "Roma" is that it excludes "Sinti" and the problem with "Roma and Sinti" is that it leaves the reader wondering why these two names are conjoined. "Gypsy" has the advantage thsat it's an inclusive term. Paul B 11:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the change. As for your concerns, 1. what about negroid for 'negro', and (just to be consistent) caucasian for 'white race'? 2. And just as a guideline (especially for 'gypsy'), I think Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) and Wikipedia:Style_guide#Identity should be considered.--Anchoress 14:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "caucasian" is that it is an anthropological category that has also included quite dark-skinned people, especially in the variant "caucasoid". Maybe it would be best just to say they range from light to dark skin. Paul B 15:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

just use black and white, anything else is geographically tinted PC. "caucasian" for "white" in particular is US parlance, anywhere else Caucasian means "from the Caucasus". I don't see a way to avoid gypsy, since the Roma, Sinti, Gitanos are separate articles. dab (ᛏ) 17:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] template

I have doubts about the appropriateness of the Ethnic group template. Indo-Aryans are a linguistically defined super-group, not a single ethnic group. In any case, the image should show people, not a city. dab (ᛏ) 16:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

-It is arguable that most if not all the Indo-Aryan speakers have some or most ancestry to the original Indo-Iranian immigrants. Gene studies demonstrate proof of West Eurasian genes in Indo-Aryan populations through the paternal line. Their ethnic heritage should and will be acknowledged. -User: Afghan Historian

[edit] Indo-Iranian vs Indo-European

Its well known that Indo-Iranian is a sub-branch of Indo-European and Indo-Aryan is a sub-branch of Indo-Iranian. But to say that Indo-Aryan is the Indic branch of Indo-European makes more sense. We use Indo-Aryan to refer to people living in modern day northern Indian subcontinent or to differentiate between ancient Iranians (or Persians) and Indians (or Hindus) and Indo-Iranian to differentiate Vedic aryans and ancient Iranians from ancient Europeans. So if I say that Indo-Aryans is the Indic branch of Indo-Europeans make sense right. Its not about being ingnorant, its about common sense! --Spartian 22:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

To Paul: you say that I-A is a subbranch of II and IE. So by using common sense it is more accurate to say IA is the Indic branch of II and IE and since II too is a subranch of IE, IA is the Indic branch of IE. But I guess your common sense says something else or I am just too ignorant. --Spartian 22:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, fortunately, we don't have to use too much of our own common sense, but just have to use the scheme linguists have made. It shows Indo-Aryan as a sub-branch of Indo-Iranian. I don't quite understand the logic behind this classification, but that doesn't matter. deeptrivia (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Spartian, your common sense makes no sense to me. I-A is a sub-branch of both I-E and I-I, but it is more useful to say that it is a branch of Indo-Iranian than to say that it is a branch of Indo-European. Both are correct, but the former is far more precise. Short of anti-Iranian sentiment of some sort I can see no reason for trying to change this. Paul B 23:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your comments but may I know exactly why it is more precise to say IA is subbranch of II than to say IA is a subbranch of IE. Besides my version said IA is the Indic branch of IE. By saying that I have an anti-Iranian sentiment, you are trying to deviate from the topic. The reason why I want to mention IE and not II is becasue IE is a much more broader and precise term and gives the reader an idea from where these people came (i.e. Central/Eastern Europe). --Spartian 02:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this illustration would explain the point. In Case A, there's no ambiguity in hierarchy, while in case B, there is ambiguity since it can mean both (a) and (b). So it is more precise to say Indo-Aryan as a sub-branch of Indo-Iranian since that statement has more information content. Again, I am not making a statement on whether i is right to call IA a subbranch of II in terms of history and linguistics, because I think we should simply trust what linguists say. They know it better. deeptrivia (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks deeptrivia for the illustration. It makes more sense now. I've made some changes to Indo-Iranians.. so please go over it. Thanks --Spartian 10:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ethnic group template

the ethnic group template is a bit inappropriate. this is not an ethnic group, it is an ethno-linguistic supergroup. We don't label Germanic peoples as a single ethnic group either. IA languages are not mutually comprehensible, and it is difficult to postulate an ethnic unity if people cannot even engage in verbal communication (without the help of some lingua franca). dab (ᛏ) 19:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well dab, Hindi or Hindustani acts as a lingua franca for IA speakers. I daresay many non-Hindi IA speakers can relate to most of the words and its much easier for an IA speaker to pickup another IA language than for a non-IA speaker to pickup an IA language. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

yes? how does using a lingua franca make them a single ethnic group? As for 'picking up' related idioms, the same holds for Germanic languages, and for Slavic languages, and still the Norse and the Germans, or the Poles and the Serbs, are separate ethnic groups. Case in point, the Roma left India 1,000 years ago; they are Indo-Aryans, but they certainly do not belong to the Hindustani community. dab (ᛏ) 13:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

-The Iranian peoples have a template, why cant the Indo-Aryans. And also, the Indo-Aryans and Iranians, though both are diverse so as to be like the cateogrization of Germanic and Slavic peoples, are actually sub-groups of a larger people, the Indo-Iranian/Aryan peoples. The template stays.

The Iranian peoples article hasn't had the template for awhile. --Khoikhoi 21:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

dear anon, as you say, they are peoples, not a single ethnic group. Iranian peoples doesn't have the template, but a kindred spirit of yours appears to insist on including mugshots. Slavic peoples doesn't have the template. Germanic peoples doesn't. Celts doesn't. Go and add your template to Hindustani, which can be argued to form an ethnic group. dab (ᛏ) 13:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Khoikhoi and Dbachmann. This article should not have a template or that picture of 'Indo Aryans' either. This is a linguistic family group and the discussion should be about ancient tribes that morphed into various disparate peoples in many cases. Treating them as an ethnic group is completely inaccurate. Tombseye 17:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The Iranian peoples has a picture template at least. That's what I want to keep on the Indo-Aryans page as well. -User: Afghan Historian

I think the only people whose photos can be used to show how the early indo-aryans looked are people in norther pakistan and the vale of kashmir. I think only the pictures of fair skinned chitralis ,gilgitis and kashmiris from the valley should be given as how the ancient indo-aryan looked like after they intermingled with the greate indian population. chitralis, gilgitis and kashmiris of the valley speak dardic languages which are classified as highly abberant indo-aryan dialects. This abberancy is because the people of dardic designation reaced in norther pakistan few centuries earlier than the main vedic group along the indus banks.

[edit] Iranian peoples

There is not a single mention of Iranian peoples in this article, are they not Indo-Aryans? -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No. They aren't. See Indo-Iranians and Indo-Iranian languages (ignore my seemimgly bizarre edit-summary. It got added accidentally). Paul B 22:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wehn did Dravidians become Indo-Aryans?

Dravidian cultres do not have same Indo-European roots of Indo-Aryans cultres. I wonder why they are added here in contemporary cultures. Unitedroad 06:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

which ones? the Unnithan? that may be a mistake. dab (ᛏ) 06:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Infobox should not be used here

The infobox is for ethnic groups and a series of ethnic groups who happen to speak languages from the same linguistic family. I don't understand why people don't get that. Tombseye 05:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC) ?

I don't understand what you are saying. Why does that make the box inapproppriate here? Paul B 10:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is for a single ethnic group and not a series of ethnic groups who may or may not be 'related'. In fact, then the even more confusing issue of related groups come into play as there is a limited relationship between for example, Persians from eastern Iran and Bengalis. It's usage here is incorrect and lacks any credibility other than to promote pan-Indo-Aryanism (just as pan-Iranists may want to do likewise on the [[Iranian peoples]). Indo-Iranians aren't an ethnic group and neither are Iranians etc. These are linguistic categories and that's all they are at times as there is no evidence of any further 'close' relationship at all, cultural or otherwise. thus, it's incorrect to use it here other than to set-up a false picture of Indo-Aryans as an ethnic group, which they are not. The Punjabis are an ethnic group as are Bengalis etc. Not Indo-Aryans. At the very least, the related groups section needs to go as the only relationship there is linguistic in most cases. Tombseye 15:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no such thing as "pan-Indo-Aryanism", though who knows? Ironically, if there is such a movement then that would make I-As an ethnic group, since ethnic groups are self-defined. They do not all have to be closely related. "Ethnic group" is a loose concept which has no rigid definition. Paul B 16:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, ethnic groups are self-identified and the question is do all Indo-Aryan speakers view themselves as a single ethnic group? I'm pretty sure the Romany do not and I would not be surprised if smaller groups like Hindkowans would identify more with Pashtuns than with 'Indo-Aryans'. The usage in the infobox should at least be limited and not attempt define 'related' groups as the relationships are strictly linguistic and not 'ethnic'. Regardless, it's all problematic. Tombseye 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic identities do not have to exclude one another. Paul B 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)