Talk:Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

	Article milestones

Date

Process

Result

July 27, 2004

Featured article candidate

Promoted

September 28, 2004

Featured article review

Kept

June 14, 2005

Featured article review

Demoted

Current Status: Former featured article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects.
Click [show] for further details

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.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.

This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.

[edit] Michael Witzel

I don't know why this page along with others have not discussed more about the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth conference 9 months ago where Michael Witzel of Harvard University admitted that he no longer believe the AIT.

"Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the audience, that he and his colleagues no longer subscribe to Aryan invasion theory"

Here's the press release from University of Massachusetts Dartmouth: http://www.umassd.edu/indic/press/origin_pr.cfm

I'm going to add this in because it further supports the notion of "Indian civilization and its human population is indigenous"

Cosmos416 00:44, March 25 2007

Witzel has been misquoted. Predictably so, of course. ("Center of Indic Studies"? With a "faculty" like this for a curriculum like this? Wow.) rudra 07:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Any reason you're spamming us with irrelevant forum links, or is Steve Farmer an eminent respected

kluge-chair scholar?Baka man 19:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant to what? Paul B 19:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain, Paul: Bakasuprman, that tireless researcher, never actually reads more than the first three words of anything, so he naturally thought that the Witzel post was by Steve Farmer. Hence he thought it was irrelevant to a discussion of Witzel's presence at the Hindutva lovefest at Mass-D. Hornplease 19:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

O, Patronizer of banned trolls BhaiSaab and TerryJHo, and harrasser of contributors, I wonder where the

“

Steve Farmer <saf@...> yukifarmer

”

came from [1]. Apart from your little failed experiment at arbcom, it seems you have miscalculated once again.Baka man 19:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather it was out little White Man's Burden email play group saving the world from evil "Hindutva pseudohistorians" like ASI researcher B.B. Lal, and Director of Asian Studies Shiva BajpaiBaka man 19:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The first post was by Witzel, and was thus relevant. The second post, by Farmer, established the context of the first post, and so was helpfully linked. You are incapable of reading this? Really, Baka, do you have any idea what you are talking about half the time? As I have said before, stick to something - anything! - you know about, and keep on sucking up to all the people whom you can then pester to come and say that "he has written twelve DYKs" when your inflammatory, disruptive and ignorant editing catches up with you again. Keep off articles where other people are actually trying to do something. Hornplease 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

""Hornplease 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is little more than a cesspool of ad hominem nonsense indicating your bitterness that no actual neutral user in good standing agreed (or for that matter agrees) with your "findings". I fail to see you "doing something" here, unless "attacking our resident Hindutva troll Bakaman" is somehow productive now.Baka man 16:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't ad hominem to note that your tendentiousness is a plague on most India-related articles, one that Wikipedia should excise. Frankly, the most productive thing, and the best thing for the encyclopaedia as a whole, is if editors as disruptive as you were either confined to articles where they can do littel damage or banned outright. Given that, keeping track of 'our resident Hindutva troll', as you, with the first sign of insight I have observed, describe yourself, is one of the most productive things anyone can do. Hornplease 19:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It is quite ad hominem, as your view is a fringe minority view (kind of like Out of India theory) which is thoroughly rejected by each and every mainstream WP:INDIA, WP:SIKH, WP:HINDU, and WP:BANGLADESH user. Rather it seems your sole purpose on wikipedia is to attack me, with various version of the "lets exorcise the tendentious Hindu devil" plea. Many users have noted OTOH, that you have a poor understanding of policy and are therefore unqualified to comment on it (like P.N. Oak and comparative religion).Baka man 00:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, do stop whining. Everyone who edits for longer than a few hours in an India-related article knows exactly how tendentious you are. Whether or not they think your 'positive' contributions outweigh your disruption and incivility.

Could you, once again, put me in touch with these 'many' users? I'd like to discuss it with them. I might learn something. (Or they might.) Hornplease 21:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not find the "Everyone", the fabled everyone of the BhaiSaab continuum that agrees with your fringe POV.Baka man 22:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dartmouth

": Witzel has been misquoted. Predictably so, of course. ("Center of Indic Studies"? With a "faculty" like this for a curriculum like this? Wow.) rudra 07:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)"

What are you talking about? Your criticizing the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth website page based on the layout? Can you specifically point out where he says he was misquoted, and what he said 'supposedly' said, and cite it?

BTW: In the press release Power point document, it also claims that Witzel deliberately misquoted a important passage from the Rig Veda and was pointed out to him. It says:

"In order to give a prop to the ‘Aryan Invasion’ theory, Witzel (1995: 320-21) deliberately mis-translates a part of Baudhayana Srautasutra (18.44) as follows: “ Ayu went eastwards. His people are the Kuru-Panchala and Kasi-Videha. This is the Ayava (migration). (His other people) stayed at home in the west. His people are the Gandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasu group.”

"The correct translation would, therefore, be: ‘Ayu migrated eastwards. His people are the Kuru-Panchalas and Kasi-Videhas. Amavasu migrated westwards (and not stayed back, as Witzel says) . His people are Gandhari, Parsu and Aratta.’"

"In other words, the parting took place from an intermediary region, between Gandhara on the west and Kurukshetra on the east. There is no question of any kind of migration eastwards into India from the west."

I think that deserve a mention somewhere to because of other scholars criticizing him and his work because of lack of evidence to support any of his claims. Cosmos416 16:44, March 26 2007

It doesn't deserve a mention in the manner you suggest.

Rudra was pointing out that the 'Indic Studies' syllabus, which is heavy on 'arts, philosophy, culture, etc.', but has a faculty which is a bunch of computer scientists and engineers. Very academic.

You might want to read Witzel's post again: "The Aryan invasion of India is a 19th c. theory that no serious scholar today takes seriously." And then consider whether your Mass-D press release is worth the bytes that you are expending on it. Hornplease 21:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your priorities are a bit misguided. Unless you can Cite a Quotation specifically by Witzel stating that the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth misquoted him on that specific statement, and what he actually said, your out of steam on that.

If he was misquoted, and that’s a big “if”(seeing as there were experts from around the world in science and linguistics, and many in the audience that heard him confirm this), I think he should sue the university for slander.

The truth is however is that took place at a University conference and was also supported by Stanford Genetics expert Peter Underhill, and also the same is claimed by another renowned genetics expert from Oxford name Stephen Oppenheimer, who claims with extensive DNA analysis says that the origin of all people who migrated out of Africa (all left at one time and not over periods as previously thought) settled in India more than 50,000 years ago. From there they spread to the West Asia and Central/North Asia, and eventually to South/East Europe as the effects from the last Ice Age became favorable enough for Human settlement. Here’s a quote from his book Out of Eden:

“ …South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his [Sic] ancestors; and sure enough we find highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a ‘male Aryan invasion’ of India.”

The statements above shows strong support supplied with thorough research and citations provided, where as you claim (which I’m still not sure of) everything/nothing, and supported by nothing.

All of these arguments are supported and shown by the magnitude of scholarly research, where as Witzel was caught misleading and misquoting a imortant passage in the RigVeda, which serious undermines his creditability and noted by other scholars who say he will not show anyone his “evidence” for most of his claims. You still have not defended that point either. Show some citations with credible sources (that are in sync with the direct relationship of the nature stated), or you simply do not have a case.

Cosmos416 00:30, March 28 2007

You didnt even read Rudra's links, did you? Hornplease 21:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam links to yahoo groups are just that. Spam.Baka man 22:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Spam links" is a nonsensical concept in this context. They are reports from an academic list. Paul B 12:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease , again, your making no sense and have no position. Most significantly, you have not clearly shown what I asked for.....

"a Quotation specifically by Witzel stating that the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth misquoted him on that specific statement, and what he actually said.

I'm adding in the appropriate links and the citation about Witzel was caught misleading and misquoting a imortant passage in the RigVeda, which serious undermines his creditability and noted by other scholars who say he will not show anyone his “evidence” for most of his claims.

You post one line after almost a week with the same excuse but not showing anything while I have provided citations also from Stephan Oppenheimer Oxford University Geneticist who says:

Again, show some citations with credible sources (that are in sync with the direct relationship of the nature stated), or you simply do not have a case. Cosmos416 00:44, April 3 2007

Compare:

"Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the audience, that he and his colleagues no longer subscribe to Aryan invasion theory" (from the press release)
"In the summary session, I stressed again that the 'Aryan Invasion Theory' is dead and gone, it is a 19th c. theory." (from Witzel's post)

Now, observe the use of the phrase no longer in the press release. If Witzel no longer subscribes to the AIT, it follows that he must have subscribed to it some time in the past. Now, was Witzel born in the 19th century, which is the past when he could have subscribed to the theory at all (and subsequently no longer do so)? No? Then the two statements above disagree. We don't know what Witzel actually said in the summary session, but if his paraphrase of his own words is correct, then the press release's paraphrase is wrong. Take it from there. rudra 05:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to keep out of these discussions recently because I find it incredibly tedious to go over and over and over the same points repeatedly. Witzel's alleged "mistranslation" is a matter of almost no significance at all in terms of the history of the theory. It is utterly trivial. And by the way it is not "an important passage in the Rig Veda". I've no idea what you mean by "other scholars who say he will not show anyone his “evidence” for most of his claims." Witzel has written numerous books containing detailed technical data. The DNA issue is hugely difficult to be clear about. The data is very complex. The point about believing or not believing in "Aryan Invasion Theory" is a red herring. What Witzel means by that phrase in the quoted passage is something completely different from what - say - Elst means by it. The fact that Witzel is not primarily an historian but a linguist also does not help, since he wrongly states that the "invasion theory" belongs to the nineteenth century. In fact many nineteenth century writers stressed migration. Even in 1918 Havell's book The History of Aryan Rule in India states that "it is probable that the Aryans were always a very minute fraction of the people of India". While he does describe warfare (as, of course, does the RV), he stresses that "it was by spiritual rather than physical ties that Aryans and non-Aryans were gradually bound together into a political unity with an abiding sense of nationality." Paul B 12:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

All true. Consider further: suppose instead the press release had said, "Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the audience, that the 'Aryan Invasion Theory' is a 19th century theory, dead and gone." Would Cosmos416 (talk · contribs) be as keen as he is now to "include" this, and argue at length for it? No? Gee, I wonder why. rudra 12:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know why these people keep trying. They look sillier with every iteration. They would invest their time fruitfully not trying to sell us homegrown nonsense but debunk the nonsense propounded by their "anti-Brahmin" communalist foes. Which would save us the work of cleaning up that as well. Consider this recent gem. Here is an author that spends a lifetime spouting utterly confused nonsense. In the "West", nobody remotely official or academic would have as much as raised an eyebrow. But in Tamil Nadu, he is showered with governmental accolades... (they put the man on a stamp! in 2006! I ask you, this is as if Switzerland issued stamps with Uriella on them) It really seems that in India, academia is broken at a fundamental level. If crackpots pushing 10,000 BC Tamil literature get goveernment recognition, I begin to see, why shouldn't crackpots pushing 6,000 BC Vedic literature not get just as much. And of course, if in India you are only ever attacked on communalist grounds, it is little surprising that the "indigenous Aryans" authors fail to understand that outside India, they are actually criticized on factual grounds. It appears that in India, the notion of "criticism" is completely "communalized", and nobody would dream of debunking something simply because it is factual nonsense. Thus, Witzel et al. turn out "anti-Hindu" simply because they are Sanskritists. Had they been Dravidologists, they would have debunked "Lemurian Tamil", they would now be dragged across Dravidian fora as "Brahmin cronies" (yes Baka, I realize there are Tamil Brahmins; but I expect few of these are into "Lemurian Tamil") dab (𒁳) 13:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So that opens a pandora's box, now that we have one "lens of historiography" what are we going to have next? Indian Muslim pseudohistory (debunked by Alain Danielou, with help from Wolpert as well and Basham), Indian Marxist pseudohistory (again debunked by many figures), Dravidionationalist pseudohistory. Lemuria is merely the tip of the iceberg, from Indus Valley "Tamil" literature, to of course the classic Dravidian Herrenvolk. In "dravidian" country, the stakes are even better. Hindutva is not reliant on any theory, as VHP etc portray Hinduism as a world religion (Viswa = world). DMK is based on a racial theory, a dravidian Volksgemeinschaft if you will..Baka man 22:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Rudra, dab, calm down, don't lie and make false allegations/ personal attacks trying to sabotage my credibility unjustly. I didn't hide anything since I cited the U of M Darmouth press release and power point documents, supplied a source for the supported of the claim of Genetic evidence by renowned geneticists Peter Underhill (Stanford University), and.....

Stephen Oppenheimer (Oxford University), a acknowledged world expert in the synthesis of DNA studies who claims with extensive DNA analysis says that the origin of all people who migrated out of Africa (left at one time, not over periods as previously thought) settled in India more than 50,000 years ago. They spread to the West Asia and Central/North Asia, and eventually to South/East Europe as the effects from the last Ice Age became favorable enough for Human settlement. Again, here’s the quote from his book Out of Eden:

“ …South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his [Sic] ancestors; and sure enough we find highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a ‘male Aryan invasion’ of India.”

This is not some little sample study, this was extensive, and I will add in for transparency. One more time, please show citations with credible sources that are in sync with the direct relationship of the nature stated (refuting Oppenheimer's work directly) or don't have a case for this.

Secondly, in the press release Power point doc., it exposed that Witzel deliberately misquoted a Important passage from the Rig Veda and was pointed out to him. It says:

"In order to give a prop to the ‘Aryan Invasion’ theory, Witzel (1995: 320-21) deliberately mis-translates a part of Baudhayana Srautasutra (18.44) as follows: “ Ayu went eastwards. His people are the Kuru-Panchala and Kasi-Videha. This is the Ayava (migration). (His other people) stayed at home in the west. His people are the Gandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasu group."

It's very significant it you ACTUALLY READ IT! I will be adding this also unless you can provide a Quote from Witzel refuting that statement.

Again, the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth conference "was able to bring together in one room for the first time experts from genetics, archeology, physics, linguistics, anthropology, history, and philosophy", so please don't make false and misleading accusations. Cosmos416 13:21, April 3 2007

Yes, Cosmos, we already know all about this. As far as I know Witzel is the only person who ever thought that the passage in the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra (not "an important passage in the Rigveda") was at all relevant. Even he admits in the essay in which he proposes its possible value that it is a late text and thus weak evidence. It's never had any significance to "Aryan invasion theory". It had no role in the origin or development of the theory. As for Oppenheimer's evidence, this concerns paleolithic migrations ten of thousands of years before the postulated migration of I-A speakers. Paul B 22:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

please...your trying to minimize the facts and studies, twisting the citations, and adding in original input from your conclusions about validity. It says "deliberately misquoted", read carefully...and the quote by Oppenheimer's, his evidence is actually in Sync regards to the topic, if you can read, it deals with Genetic evidence, and people of all castes and secs, and also he is recognized as a world expert in genetic mixtures.

Definitely says more than a Witzel, who is a linguist and who is a controversial character at best. I still don't see any direct evidence refuting either claims, so I will write a part for both and add it in later today. There is enough space to be transparent, but no room for closed minded, soft talk without hard evidence refuting claims. Cosmos416 01:37, April 4 2007

It is difficult to respond to someone who shows this level of incomprehension. However, here goes again:

1. "hypothesis". This article is about the multiple uses of the polemical term "Aryan Invasion Theory". The opening sentence expains that. It is not a hypothesis. The hypothesis you are probably referring to is the hypothesis that bronze age migrants/invaders entered India, bringing the Vedc language with them. However, you may be referring to other hypotheses, such as the hypothesis that the Aryans were a warrior Nordic master race, or even the hypothesis that IE languages came into existence outside India. Several different hypotheses are merged or their differences blurred in polemic writing on this topic. That's why the term is in appropriate at this point - not necessarily inappropriate elsewhere in the article.

2. The material from Oppenheimer concerns out-of-Africa migrations during the ice age (read the discussions above). If it makes you feel proud of India that a bunch of stone age hunter-gatherers wandered there before they wandered elsewhere, then I think you'd be better advised to look at India's many real achievements. Oppenheimer's evidence has no bearing whatsover on the origins and spread of Indo-European languages. Mainstream thinking - and even most OIT proponents - places this tens of thousands of years later. Your argument is like "proving" that the Romans didn't invade Britain by demonstrating that people lived in Britain before Rome was founded. Paul B 09:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No archelogical or genetic studies provide support for some `Indo-Aryan' nomadic horse riders coming to India and developing REAL something that India has developed in ancient times, when Europeans were still living savage like.

If Witzel was not trying to prove IA migration in India by faulty traslation of that BSS verse then was he proving other way round ? Now, when Witzel's ( a western Sanskritist) mistraslation motives are exposed, then his supporters are trying throw water on the fire. Even they are not able to quote that the US university quoted wrong. If Witzel is misquoted then he should sue the university and his fellow supporters on WP should stand by him by helping generating a sign campaign ! WIN 11:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M17

Cosmos, it is evident that you are too ignorant on this topic to engage in meaningful debate. Oppenheimer has done no new archaological research at all. The quotation is specifically about the use of M17 as a marker of migration into India, and that's all. You don't even footnote the quote - including the superfluous "sic", presumably added by some rather silly teacher who hasn't noticed that it is about Male ancestry. Paul B 09:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to compromise if you show some grasp of the real issues rather than parroting what some obviously ill-thought-out "power point document" says. Oppenheimer's reference to M17 concerns previous claims that it could be used as a marker to explain the origin of Caucasoid racial features in India. If you equate the advent of Caucasoids with an Aryan Invasion, then you can argue that M17 is evidence of it - equating "Aryans" with a Caucasoid phenotype. In fact the idea that Caucasoids originated in India has been well known for a while - eg in earlier claims by Russell-Gates that Caucasoids diverged from Australoids in South India. None of this, in any case, has any relevance to the linguistic issues at all. It only relates to one specific hypothesis - the always contested claim that Aryans = Caucasoids. If it is added to the section discussing the racialisation debate then it will be useful. Paul B 09:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"this is a bout a controversial TERM. The hypothesis is the migration. Oppenheimer's Stone age migrations are off topic - this is about late Bronze age)"

Yes true it is a controversial term, however, Aryan Invasion Theory is a hypothesis foremost, which is the subject of the controversial meaning ,so please don't try "spin" on me, try that on your next victim. Secondly, Stephen Oppenheimer is discrediting the Aryan Invasion theory into India with genetics and new archaeological findings, which is in sync with the article. No more spin please. Find the relevant sources to discredit my facts in the article, you you don't have any legs to stand on.

Instead of compromising, you just reverted when I asked you for sources, and your response contained various cherry picked nonsense that can be easily fixed. I'll add a footnote, take out the [Sic] part (that was placed by accident, it was in the power point document). By the way, Oppenheimer is not talking about a migration into India 90,000 years ago, he is refer more so on the migration taking place out of India (as they evolved in India over 30,000-40,000 years). Show some transparency, please.

Listen, were going around in circles, standing in the same spot. I see how since you have no real position, and keep changing the one you had. Your personal attacks were not appreciated, and you have gone from criticizing and cherry picking want you want to eventually find some "loop Hole" so that the information is striped of it's substance. I have proved to you already of the connections, and you only started with this after you could not disprove the facts. So your twisting his statements and adding in your own research. If you want to talk about "incoherent" sentences, your trying to connect 1 with 2, and if 2 fails, there is 3,4,5...and so on (talking about your spin that the AIT is only about the linguistic aspect).

Well...the language is in sync with the theory/hypothesis of migration/invasion of people/culture/infusion of languages,etc,etc., from central Asia/elsewhere. And Stephen Oppenheimer is saying is that 1 group of the 4 or 5 in Africa, left in one push, and went along the Indian Ocean coast line, and settled in India, and how overtime genetics mixture, physical features changed over

It's been debated for 2 weeks without any one showing refuting sources, and you as well the other page-protectors won't even acknowledge that a "theory" and "hypothesis" are one and the same. Look on the Google for "AIT" "hypothesis", you'll get more hits then you can read also. I wouldn't criticize my sources, when it's my Stephen Oppenheimer, and a dictionary, and yours is Original thought, without any sources refuting the claims presented. Cosmos416 06:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have maintained the same position throughout, as it happens. I answered your points but you are too blinkered to see it. Perhaps my reference to Havell in an earlier post was too obscure for you to understand it at the time , so I will spell it out. Oppenheimer is arguing that M17 cannot be a marker that equates Indo-Aryan with Caucasoid "intrusion" into India. The Havell quote demonstrates that even nearly a century ago notable commentators on IA advent were making no such equation and were arguing that IA advent made NO APPRECIABLE DIFFERENCE to the racial make-up of India. Do you understand this point? That's not to say that others didn't argue the opposite. They did. It's simply to point out that there were a variety of views, and that it is typical of populist polemics on this issue to confuse quite separate issues. One issue is the advent of IE languages. Another issue is the intermingling of this with theories of racial differences.

Your published sources don't need to be refuted, because there is nothing wrong with them as such. What is wrong is your interpretation of them - or perhaps the interpretation of the author of your mysterious "PowerPoint document", which you seem to repeat as gospel. Thoughout your lengthy post you never even address the issue about the several thousands of years difference between what Oppenheimer is referring to and what I-A migration refers to. See the Roman analogy above? The quotation from Oppenheimer might be used in the section which discusses the theorisation of racial differences in India. Paul B 12:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Clam down, take a deep breath. Stop lying and twisting my words, last time I'm warning you because I 'm tired of you changing you position(s), personal attacking me, and refusing to shows sources to back up your claims. The text is clear, and quoted, so don't try and add a "spin" to it. Sorry, but the Quote fits in directly, if you read it. Show sources, and quit dragging you feet. I proved my side, you haven't.

Stop criticizing University sourced Information, and quotes by a World Expert in Genetics, when you can't even provide a single sources directly refuting the statement. You presenting Original thought and bias, and you don't even know what a theory or hypothesis is, which questions your abililty to reason and understand at an adult level. Shows some Sources, Shows some Sources, Shows some Sources! Cosmos416 12:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't criticised "quotes by a World Expert in genetics", as I have clearly said. What is wrong with you? Ironically, the only World Expert I criticised was Witzel, for misrepresenting 19th century views! What I have criticised your interpretation of Oppenheimer's words, as I said very very clearly in the above post. I've no idea what "university sourced information" you refer to because only you seem to have access to it. Perhaps you have misunderstood that too, but I suspect the information itself is flawed. Not all university tutors are right all of the time. I would not trust what an Arizona Bible university tutor says about Darwin. I have quoted several sources. You are not making any sense at all. I said that the stuff about paleolithic migrations is irrelevant to a late bronze age event tens of thousands of years later. I repeat - do you understand this point? Do you? Paul B 19:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppenheimer is a "world-renowned expert" in genetics? Sez who? His career was as a pediatrician. His stuff qualifies as "popular science", not as the best thing since Cavalli-Sforza. Puhleeeze. rudra 07:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] no Dravidians?

The real issue here seems to be adoption of "Aryan Invasion" as part of anti-Brahmin propaganda in Dravidian ethnic nationalism. The bashing of Western scholars appears to be a mere xenophobic reflex of filing the problem as an external threat, while the actual controversy is the abuse of such scholarship for political ends within Indian society. Nazis and Churchill may serve to illustrate the historical backdrop, but they cannot explain the present-day zeal invested in the topic. We might need a dedicated Dravidian ethnic nationalist propaganda paralleling Hindutva propaganda, rather than keeping the topic scattered across biographical articles (E. V. Ramasami Naicker) dab (𒁳) 08:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. Thats trivialising it way too much. Opposition to AIT/AMT etc., has little or nothing to do with ~~Dravidian~~Tamil ethnic nationalism. While the high priests of Tamil nationalism like EVRN and his political quislings certainly form one of the dimensions(bogus) in this confused debate and rhetoric, their rhetoric was limited to Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu alone. EVRN enjoyed a near-zero clout in the rest of India. While few people even in neighbouring states of southern India may just about know his name(for crying out loud), the rest of India remains largely oblivious to him and his nonsense. Afterall, only a EVRN could club a bogus race theory(Nazism's Aryan) and a genuine linguistic theory(Caldwell's 'Dravidian') and synthesise his own BS. The only space that the rest of India affords these people(EVRN's intellectual progeny) in these matters is that of the flag bearers of the anti-Hindi movement[2][3]. This dimension of their rhetoric has far more takers all over the rest of India as, in 1965, the anti-Hindi agitation that started in TN soon spread across several non-Hindi states all over India(not just the south). That however, has nothing to do with any of the AIT-anti-AIT debates. Sarvagnya 10:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely convinced, "Dravidian propaganda" produces 12 google hits including various Wikipedia articles, while "Dravidian ethnic nationalist propaganda" produces none. Addhoc 18:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

was that for me or dab? Sarvagnya 03:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Look up Dravidianism or websites like this [4]. It's a factor, but I agree it's not the major one. Paul B 19:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Sarvagnya (talk · contribs) has it mostly right. It's all very confused. Periyar et al have little visibility, and even less mindshare, outside the Tamil sphere. They do have plenty of propaganda, but it doesn't rate to be the case that primitive AIT rhetoric emanating from such sources instigated an "anti-anti" response. As it is, the Indigenists basically ignore the Dravidianists. Their ire is directed towards the Grand Unified Indologist Conspiracy. rudra 02:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

stop calling it 'Dravidian'. Its NOT 'Dravidian'. Emphatically not. If anything, its just 'Tamil' nationalism. The only valid and academically attested meaning for the word 'Dravidian' is as defined by Caldwell.

All other connotations of the word are bogus and politically motivated. And all other connotations stem merely and only from Tamil nationalists trying to pull a fast one on others by unilaterally branding it 'Dravidian' and hoping that it would somehow earn some support/sympathy and legitimacy over time. Fact of the matter is that their hoary theories have 'zero-takers' from the other 'Dravidians', be they Telugus or Kannadigas or Brahui. Neither Brahuis nor Telugus nor Kannadigas, for example, consider Tamil to be a Divine language.

If the Nazis had unilaterally called their theories 'Germanic' or 'Indo-European' or something like that, it doesnt become 'Germanic' or 'Indo-European' or anything like that. Sarvagnya 03:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Who said I disagree? I used the term Dravidianists, as in "Dravidianism" which is indeed a hijacking of a legitimate term ("Dravidian") for political ends. And yes, it's Tamil only too. rudra 03:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

They typically use the term Dravidian rather than Tamil, and the "Dravidianist" ideology also overlaps with the fringe Dalit movements, which do not see themselves as Tamil nationalists, but as political leftists allied to Afrocentrist ideology. Paul B 09:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ganging Up and Page Protectionism

Can you please accurately show how my additions "hypothesis" and the Stephan Oppenheimer addition is irrelevant Paul B and with sources? Because I'm making the claim that your reverts, along with others are based on Censorship. I'm asking you to....

1.Clearly state your position on the irrelevance of my claim, as you have stated

2.Show sources/citations directly supporting your claim

PS: It's not up to you or others to debate the claims of Oppenheimer, or his research, it's up to you guys to show the irrelevance directly related to my claims, with sources/citations. Cosmos416 06:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, the burden of proof is on editors who want to include material. That is citations have to be provided in order to include content, not for its removal. Addhoc 13:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did...I already posted them above in a few sections. Here it is again.....

1. Inclusion of "Hypothesis": in describing the "Aryan Invasion Theory" because first off, the words "Theory" and "Hypothesis" are one is the same, sharing a direct relationship. The "Aryan Invasion Theory" is a "controversial term", however, it is also a multi-faceted concept, and the basis on which is made on various hypothesis. And that's what the "Aryan Invasion Theory" is, a "Hypothesis".

2. I added in info and a citation from Stephen Oppenheimer of Oxford University, who is a expert in genetic synthesis, claims with extensive DNA analysis and Archaeological evidence that the origin of all people who migrated out of Africa (all left at one time and not over periods as previously thought) settled in India more than 50,000 years ago. From there they spread to the West Asia and Central/North Asia, and eventually to South/East Europe as the effects from the last Ice Age became favorable enough for Human settlement.

He is also claiming that his research of DNA analysis points to that India is the Origin of the M17 or Haplogroup R1a1 (M17)in the Y-chromosome haplogroup, originated in India, and states that this "undermines any theory of M17 as a marker of a "male Aryan invasion" into India." To paraphrase, he is claiming that if there are actually any so-called "Aryans", they are Indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, and that there was no Aryan Invasion into India. Here’s the quote from his book Out of Eden:

“ …South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a ‘male Aryan invasion’ of India.”

Here is the New York Times publishing an article about the book in 2005:

New York Times: "DNA Study Yields Clues on First Migration of Early Humans" by Nicolas Wade http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/13/science/13migrate.html?ex=1273636800&en=4a3b9de4a84891b7&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

I'm asking for transparency to improve the article, by showing various views in researched publications.

The only reason why I'm asking Paul B and people Revert (many without even giving a reason) and changing their position(s), and had not provided sources to support their counter arguments. So I'm asking him/them to state clearly in a couple of sentences, why exactly my edits are not appropriate, and show supporting citations/sources to prove his argument. If someone has a problem with my additions, and takes a position of why it's not relevant, that person also has to show some type of reputable sources/citations to counter. You can't expect EVERYTHING to be one-sided, and when someone is taking a position, we have to make sure their is no "Original Research" involved to make false allegations, because they are heavily bias. Cosmos416 01:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

your discussion of paleolithic migrations is completely offtopic. This material belongs on Stone Age India and historical migration: valid topic, wrong article. The only pertinent edit of your edit is the question, did M17 originate in India. This is discussed here, where we already state that scholarly opinion is divided on this, citing original publications, no need to add newspaper articles to that. Again, you got the wrong article for this. This is the article on the notion of "Aryan Invasion" in Indian "communalism". If you want to discuss Indo-Aryan migration, go to Indo-Aryan migration. If you want to discuss Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia, go to Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia. dab (𒁳) 09:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not off topic considering that he says "thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a ‘male Aryan invasion’ of India”. Can you read? To paraphrase, he is saying that their was no Aryan Invasion of any kind that EVER took place, and any "Theory" dealing with an "Aryan Invasion" is hardly plausible, according to him, and his team's research. Like I said, you/guys are pretending as if this theory isn't multi-faceted, and has various meanings then and know. Read the article itself, it is multi-faceted. They Aryan Invasion Theories are also changing in both directions, and supporters of the Invasion Theory has been pushing back the dates they "claim" happened into India, So I just disproved your argument.

Secondly, I'm NEVER said I was adding the New York Times article inside the text of the wikipedia page. I said I'm adding the citation by Oppenheimer (Direct Quote from his Book) that presents a Neutral view, and also has a aspect that deals of any "Theory" of "Aryan Invasion" into India, shown clearly in the citations, and it's neutral.

If can you show a citation or source, because your supporting your certain claims about the irrelevance, so I want to know if that's original thought/Research of some of you, or something in researched publication(s), because I have shown mine, and stated my views. So I'm asking you to support your "counter argument" with a source saying the Oppenheimer work is irrelevant to any theory of Aryan Invasion, because it sounds like Original Thought/Research by many of you.

"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." Cosmos416 13:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

again, this article is "Aryan Invasion Theory, history and controversies", not "bleeding edge research into a possible Indian origin of R1a". Please discuss origin of M17 at the proper place, Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA), and possibly Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia. Oppenheimer is perfectly relevant there, but he isn't relevant here: this isn't the place to state why you think no "Invasion" has taken place, but the place to explain why people in India care about this "Invasion" meme ever so very much. dab (𒁳) 18:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I might add that I would be very interested in new data on M17 origin, but this really, really isn't the page for it. Not to even mention your discussion of paleolithic migrations, I have no idea what you are even trying to say there, or why you insist on reporting on Y-chromosome research in a section titled '"Indogenous Aryans" and Indo-European linguistics' in an article about an ideological controversy. dab (𒁳) 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm saying your adding your Orginal Thought/ Research into your argument, so I'm asking you for the last time, show me exactly where it says, what you saying, supporting you argument. To paraphrase, he is saying that their was no Aryan Invasion of any kind that EVER took place, and any "Theory" dealing with an "Aryan Invasion" is hardly plausible, according to him, and his team's research.

Like I said, you/guys are pretending as if this theory isn't multi-faceted, and has various meanings then and know. Read the article itself, it is multi-faceted. They Aryan Invasion Theories are also changing in both directions, and supporters of the Invasion Theory has been pushing back the dates they "claim" happened into India, So I just disproved your argument. Stop making baseless claims, unless you can show sources/ citations to back up your arguments. Cosmos416 14:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

you are not making sense. I gave excellent reasons why your material is offtopic here. "original research" doesn't enter into it, I am sure Oppenheimer is an excellent source, but sadly completely irrelevant to the topic. Btw, he does not argue that "their was no Aryan Invasion of any kind", he is merely saying that in his view, M17 isn't a suitable marker for Indo-Aryan migration, which is hardly the same thing. If you insisted discussing continental shift, the Apollo project or sandwich recipes in this article, what "source" do you expect me to present that would "prove" that your material is offtopic? I am sorry, but this debate is pointless. dab (𒁳) 19:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, and that's why you changed your position, again. You went from saying the whole thing is irrelevant, and then accepting it, with a heavily striped down version. Your playing the "reverse everything" on him card. which won't work here.

I keep on reposting the same facts, and you continue to change your position with original research present, and in that case where I'm challenging your argument because of that reason, you won't provide sources or citations of your claims, because you "made it up". Every argument you claim, I can't find anything, anywhere. It sounds like original research, so I want to see the source of where your getting your information from. It's easy to make a claim of irrelevance in many ways, as claims of relevance. However, if you are presenting an argument that is bold, you need citations or sources showing exactly that.

And your right, this debate is pointless, because you changed your position from not accepting it at all, to accepting it, to not accepting it again. Can you say hypocrisy? Cosmos416 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

what utter BS. I accepted nothing. It's called a compromise. Your thing is, indeed, completely offtopic, but I stopped removing it completely because you wouldn't give peace. Am I now "accepting" all the nonsense on WP because I am not removing it? dab (𒁳) 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop with your BS, you first said the whole thing was irrelevant, then you AGREED, but with a biased view, twisting the meaning of the citation, and then went back for the fifth, sixth, seventh...time? And you removed hypothesis too, for which I already proved right, and you haven't even mentioned as a irrelevance, and that shows retaliation, which is a serious offense.

Your bias is shown in the repeated acts similar to Vandalism, and I consider it that, because I'm claiming your arguments/claims you are contrived and of Orginial thought/ research, and asked over 10 times now (included previous, search above) for sources/citations to see where you claims are supported by.

If you can't properly show supporting sources for your claims, stop with your biased censorship, and cherry picking/ twisting facts in the article, and twisting other people comments. Cosmos416 18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

it is you who are twisting the source. Oppenheimer says that he thinks M17 is not useful to track IAM, not that he doesn't believe there was any IAM altogether. Even if you got that right, it would still be offtopic here. You are misquoting people on the wrong page, but unfortunately these are two fallacies do not compensate each other. dab (𒁳) 08:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

dab, rudra, you both have lost all credibility. Another user has also reverted your claims. You won't answer my request for sources, because your arguments are contrived, rather than being researched. Your contributions to wikipedia seem to be leading many criticizing you for forcing "down people's throat" your views, instead of showing sources/being neutral. It seems you just go around vandalizing people's hard work, who want to improve wikipedia, not take from it. You lack any will to show transparency. Maybe if you guys edited in a ethical manner, you would be more successful.

You know what's crazy? Seems like you both are the same users. You share the same ideas, talk the same way, and support each other, and that's bias at it's best. You guys seem to criticize anything and everything. Also, you don't want other people giving citations for anything Genetics related (Quote by dab on the Aryan Migration Theory Talk Page), because you guys want people to think the same way you do about the hypothesis of an Aryan invasion/migration into India, by Force. Paul Barlow also seems to be in cahoots also, seeing as you just gave him an awards (what more propaganda?). All seem to give each other support, and definitely a conflict of interest. You guys all gang up on various pages (maybe not at the exact same time, but days apart). Original Research + No Sources/Citations + 2+1guys+(more) who has shown a support each other in past and present, self-perpetrated baseless conflicts + Pages and pages of me asking you guys the same questions and for sources for over a month + (dab) not accepting it, to accepting it, then back-tracking again = Case Closed. Cosmos416 14:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I for one welcome additions on topics of genetics, on, like, genetics related articles. What part of "offtopic" do you not understand? Regarding general credibility, I think this compared to this speaks for itself, I wouldn't insist on pursuing that avenue if I were you. dab (𒁳) 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going go slow for you...dab, rudra, you both have lost all credibility. Another user has also reverted your claims. You won't answer my request for sources, because your arguments are contrived, rather than being researched. Your contributions to wikipedia seem to be leading many criticizing you for forcing "down people's throat" your views, instead of showing sources/being neutral. It seems you just go around vandalizing people's hard work, who want to improve wikipedia, not take from it. You lack any will to show transparency. Maybe if you guys edited in a ethical manner, you would be more successful.

Simply stating it's off topic it a original researched argument, unless you can shows exactly where your getting that claim from. You have the exact same 2-3 lines every time. And it's funny how your tryig to show me as some sort of bad guy, really? Don't play these games please. You have nothing. You on the other hard, have a closet filled with hate....

From your talk page: 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&oldid=121859920 2.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&oldid=116210142 3.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&oldid=116210142

You archived your talk page 3 times in less than 3 months, that shows you have serious issues here. All people claiming the same bad things about you.

From out of India Theory: 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Out_of_India_theory

From Indo-Aryan Migration Theory: 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration

Here's the Clincher.... Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (dab): 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann

Wow, you and rudra are in cahoots with each other, You guys are everywhere together. Enough said. Cosmos416 21:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

a rather pathetic attempt at ad hominem trolling. What you are doing here has really not the remotest connection to what Wikipedia is about. Read WP:5P and work your way through the guidelines from there, maybe you'll come across a clue somewhere. dab (𒁳) 06:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your so funny dab....you start by criticizing me by putting links to my edit history (which I don't care), so I showed your closet full of hypocrisy, and page-protecting, and people disliking you because of your attitude. You even has a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (dab). Stop your Vandalism and Trolling. Please show sources/citations to verify your claims and arguments, because it sounds very contrived (Original research). Cosmos416 00:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why this title?

Aryan Invasion Theory was moved to Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) but Out of India theory isn't reffered to as Out of India theory(history and controversies). This is a deliberate attempt to make push the POV that AIT is outdated and incorrect while OIT is correct. Nothing shows the bias more than this. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

no it isn't. this was never more than just a temporary solution. There have been cleanup tags, and suggestions to split this material into relevant articles for months. The reason for the existence of this article is that there is a lot of polemics and propaganda surrounding "Aryan Invasion" that have nothing to do with factuality or scholarship. The term "out of India" otoh was only discovered by the propagandists in 2000 or so, and it isn't surrounded by as much polemics, mostly because the factions involved to not care much about anything "outside India", the only reason they are interested in the idea is that from "out of India" follows that no Indo-Aryans even arrived "from outside India". It is only possible to have this page make sense if we agree that the propaganda can be discussed regardless of its pretext. Attempts to discuss why the "AIT is wrong" are without consequence here: the scope of this article is Indian "communalism" of ca. 1980 to present and its roots in the 19th century, and not the 2nd millennium BC. You are right that the title should make this more clear, e.g. for people like "Cosmos416" who seem to have a hard time making the distinction. dab (𒁳) 06:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a newcomer to this debate although I have read this article intermitently over the past year or so.There have been a hell lot of changes. From what it seems there is a lot of bad air around the AIT and OIT and Indegenious Aryans and I feel it is best I do not add to the commotion. As a person who studied AIT in school , switched to Indegenious Aryans in my teens and came back to AIT , I do fee that AIT is slightly misleading in its name. However I feel strongly that we shoudnt be tampering with the names of the theories(that is for historians to debate , not us). From what it seems there has been a lot of discussion before this move has taken place, so I'll rest my case for now. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ganging Up and Page Protectionism (Continued)

dab, please show sources/citations to verify your claims and arguments, because it sounds very contrived (Original research). You have had over 6 weeks to prove your case, and shown history of ganging-up with rudra (and others) on this page and other pages noted in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (dab) . You are a terrible liar, and push your on agenda on others. You have been show to be a hypocrite, to be biased and not neutral. You accepted my edits (with your own original researched spin) because you couldn't prove your argument, and then went withdrew your acceptance, and removed the hypothesis addition, with no citations to prove your argument. It deal's with any "Theory" of "Aryan Invasion" into India, and noted in the Citation, which your continuing to use a variable argument, with no citations or sourced to prove it’s a published claim. The "Theories" are based on a hypothetical (or Hypothesis) argument/scenario. Prove your argument and stop stalling. Cosmos416 00:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether you've actually read Oppenheimer's book. More than once you've offered this:

“

…South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his [Sic] ancestors; and sure enough we find highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a ‘male Aryan invasion’ of India.

”

In particular, note the leading ellipsis ("..."), and the capital S in "[Sic]". Tell us, where did you really get this quote? Did you copy this from Oppenheimer's book, or from some blog? LikeThis one? Or maybe this one? How about this one? Getting it from a blog would explain why you can't understand the misuse of the material. rudra 23:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the whole book? No, I seriously doubt you have even read a word. Stop adding baseless claims. In the Talk page I added that quote, which was from a University of Massachusetts Dartmouth published pdf document, however, I never added that in the article, as I added the original citation.

So rudra aka Rudrasharman and dab, again, you guys are terrible liars, and push your on agenda on others. You guys have been show to be hypocrites, to be biased and not neutral. dab accepted my edits (with your own original researched spin) because he couldn't prove your argument, and then withdrew his acceptance, and removed the hypothesis addition, with no citations to prove your argument.

It deals with any "Theory" of "Aryan Invasion" into India, and noted in the Citation I added in article, not the talk page, which your continuing to use a baseless argument. The "Theories" are based on a hypothetical (or Hypothesis) argument/scenario. Prove your argument and stop stalling!

P.S: Here was what I added to the article:

Cosmos416:

1. "...is a hypothesis and controversial term used..."

2. "However, expert of genetic mixtures Stephen Oppenheimer of Oxford University released the book Out of Eden or The Real Eve of published research combining newly discovered archaeological findings, and comprehensive genetic testing through various regions and caste populations throughout India. His findings through interpreting his research, Oppenheimer comes to conclusion that all Eurasians left Africa in a single migration about 85,000-90,000 years ago, moved along the Indian Ocean coast line and settled in India. He mentions that Caucasoids migrated from North India over time, and spread throughout West and North Asia, and finally into Europe as the climate became more favorable for human settlement:

Firstly, you cannot describe other editors to be liars, this is clearly explained in WP:CIVIL. Ok, there have been times when other editors have been uncivil, however such comments aren't conducive to swiftly resolving this content dispute. Secondly, dab and Rudrasharman hold entirely reasonable and mainstream views, which is perfectly acceptable. Addhoc 22:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There could be other explanations for such strong words, too. rudra 01:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's see:

As of this post, for this Talk page there have been (each set in reverse chronological order)
- 43 edits by Cosmos416 (talk · contribs): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
- and 15 edits by IP 74.104.74.27: 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
- The total number of posts is fewer because some of these edits were revisions.
The only non-WP links provided in these 58 edits are to
- The UMass-Dartmouth Press Release
- a NY Times piece on Oppenheimer

The Oppenheimer quote, with the "[Sic]", appears in 42, 35 and 52, with this last one claiming that a power point document has been cited.
In 33, it is claimed that the (cited?) power point document is the source of the "[Sic]".
In 5. it is claimed that UMass-Dartmouth published a PDF document.

Since we have neither a link to a PPT, nor a link to a PDF, we have to guess, wandering the Indic Studies site, from the PR to the Home page and then the "Conferences" link, where we find a PPT document. Could this be it?

The PPT has 46 slides. Witzel's gaffe with the BSS is covered in slides 17-19. But there is no mention of Oppenheimer, much less a quote, never mind a "[Sic]".

Nevertheless, in 23 the quote is paraphrased as: he is claiming that if there are actually any "Aryans", they are Indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, and that there was no Aryan Invasion of India, echoing the "conclusion" deduced by Rajaram in these blogs 1, 2 and 3.

Should we wonder about "liars", or should we wait for the real power point document to be revealed? Or was that a PDF? rudra 01:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Clam down rudra, and Stop Personally Attacking me and linking pointless, misleading debates, going off topic. Your trying to discredit me by making misleading allegations, based on topics of irrelevance. I'm talking about my addition in the the article, which is sourced from Oppenheimer. Stop copying my accusations as well. I'm paraphrasing in my own words, and keep it straight by citation and being neutral in my article additions, where as you lie, and have a relationship with Dab, Paul Barlow, and AddHoc (whatever his name is, who supported dab,as you did rudra, in his request for comments because of his behavior on the site, and he also supported you 2, esp dab when he violated the 3RR as well, and "did not see that") Stick to the Edit strictly on the ARTICLE....Prove your case....

Cosmos416:

1. "...is a hypothesis and controversial term used..."

Direct Quote from Stephen Oppenheimer Book:

Kick up a dust cloud of accusations -- to hide a change of subject. Where have we seen this technique before? Cosmos416 (talk · contribs) is reluctant to reveal the mysterious source -- was it a PPT? was it a PDF? -- of the "[Sic]", not to mention the leading ellipsis, that he faithfully reproduced. Meanwhile, we all know that Cosmos416's unsung hero, N.S. Rajaram, is the real source, from multiple copies. Despite Rajaram's known difficulties with accuracy, let's assume that he has transcribed correctly from p.152 of Oppenheimer's book (affecting, of course, to know better than Oppenheimer about the gender specificity of M17):

“

...South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his [Sic] ancestors; and sure enough we find highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a 'male Aryan invasion' of India.

”

From this, Rajaram concludes: "So there was no Aryan invasion". Never mind accuracy, Rajaram clearly has difficulties with logic, time frames and perhaps also simple English.

Oppenheimer's remark about a 'male Aryan invasion' has to do with the possibility (i.e. theory) of using the distribution of M17 to diagnose (i.e. mark) such an invasion. But, if M17 has been present in South Asia since palaeolithic (i.e. "Out-of-Africa") times, then any later influx would obviously be indistinguishable. Which is to say, if there was an "Aryan Invasion", then M17 can't be used to corroborate it. This doesn't rule out the possibility of some other marker, only that M17 is definitely not it. Which leaves the issue of an "Aryan invasion" per se unresolved -- not to mention that the "Aryan Invasion" exercising Rajaram's polemical muscles pertains to the 2nd-3rd millenium BCE, whereas Oppenheimer's discussion of M17 pertains to a time at least 50,000 years before that. Which is why Oppenheimer's ofhand remark is completely irrelevant to this article.

Now would someone be kind enough to explain this to Cosmos416 (talk · contribs) in terms he can comprehend? Thanks so much. rudra 03:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yawn....this is getting pointless. You cannot disprove my edits in the article, because you have no proof, only contrived research. You make servaerla speculactions, with no published researched, only your own personal yelling match. So stop yelling at the wall, and calm down...Please reference citation or sources relvevant to the article edits, and not discussion page. Dab even accepted the edits on the article page, and then he leaves, then you come out of nowhere, kinda strasnge eh? Maybe we should request a IP check to see if you are in the same region, because you 2 gang up and support each other, biggest hypocrite on Wikipedia.

Read again......Clam down rudra, and Stop Personally Attacking me and linking pointless, misleading debates, going off topic. Your trying to discredit me by making misleading allegations, based on topics of irrelevance. I'm talking about my addition in the the article, which is sourced from Oppenheimer. Stop copying my accusations as well. I'm paraphrasing in my own words, and keep it straight by citation and being neutral in my article additions, where as you lie, and have a relationship with Dab, Paul Barlow, and AddHoc (whatever his name is, who supported dab,as you did rudra, in his request for comments because of his behavior on the site, and he also supported you 2, esp dab when he violated the 3RR as well, and "did not see that") Stick to the Edit strictly on the ARTICLE....Prove your case....

Cosmos416:

1. "...is a hypothesis and controversial term used..."

Direct Quote from Stephen Oppenheimer Book:

P.S: rudra, if you want to be disruptive by sourcing non-relevant information, and personally attacking someone, rather than focusing on the Article Edits, I think we could go through your talk page and edit history and pick out each and every time you have had problems with other users, or questionable edits, which could literally have it's own archive its that massive.

So stick to my article edits, stop personally attacking me by posting irrelevant information pertaining to the article edits, because it is sourced from Oppenheimer's book. You still have not provided a reason for my my article editions are irrelevant clearly in a couple of lines and providing published research claiming your argument. And again, it's not up to you to criticize Oppenheimer or an other researcher works, it's up to you to prove you claims/arguments with published research. Cosmos416 14:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

By now it's clear that Cosmos416 (talk · contribs) can't see the problems -- note plural -- with his "article edits". He is parroting a blog, with the mistaken notion that the conclusion drawn in the blog is somehow substantiated by the quote from p.152 of Oppenheimer's book. He still hasn't understood that Oppenheimer is talking about M17 roughly 50 kya, which could be relevant to Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia but certainly not to this article. And he still hasn't understood Rajaram's non-sequitur, compounding the error by trying to pass it off as his own. It's possible that Cosmos416 wants to make a laughing stock of this article by inserting an absurdity, but the more likely explanation is that he hasn't the faintest idea of what Oppenheimer is talking about, because he hasn't read Oppenheimer's book. He has no idea, for instance, what the missing first part of the sentence is behind the leading ellipsis, or for that matter, what Peter Underhill could have to do with that -- for which he would need to have read the previous paragraph (still on p.152!) which, of course, he hasn't. Besides, Cosmos416's rendition of the quote isn't exact anyway. Rajaram's legendary inaccuracy strikes again (though, this time, it would have been difficult to get it right.) rudra 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Some notes:

Stephen Oppenheimer is not on the academic staff of Oxford, either at Green College, where he is a member, or at the Institute of Human Sciences, where he has been a Research Associate (and may still be).
Oppenheimer's career was in pediatrics. He later took up writing informed "popular science", specializing in genetics. He has never been an archaeologist, and he is not a genetic researcher in the sense of, say, a Peter Underhill. That is, he is an expert on genetics by dint of study, not as a professional geneticist. Oppenheimer is both honest and generous in acknowledging the work of others that he draws on. In particular, the genetic research on South Asia that he uses is mainly that of Toomas Kivisild and his associates.
The quote from p.152 of Oppenheimer's book is badly lacking in context. In particular
- The leading ellipsis suppresses six words (and a comma) which identify the rest of the sentence, not as a plain "fact", but as an interpretation which contrasts with others, the matter still being in some dispute. The major alternative is covered in the preceding paragraph.
- The immediately following sentence explicitly sets the time frame involved.

To round out this discussion, our insistent "clam down"-er is invited to provide these missing pieces, also from p.152 of Oppenheimer's book:

The last two sentences of the preceding paragraph.
The six words and comma to replace the ellipsis.
The immediately following sentence.

How can he though, when he hasn't read the book? rudra 01:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have so much problem over citing Oppenheimer as you are telling that " he is expert by dint of study and not professional geneticist" ! Then, Witzel who is just Sanskrit professor should not be cited & given weight for his remarks involving aryan migration ! This subject involves vast array of sciences as so called nomadic language can not subjugate over highly advanced Indian subcontinent and make dravidians to "fly off " to their present abode !!! ( who are now claimed to have come to Punjab in mid Rigvedic period by Sanskritist Witzel or Asko Parpola's central asian Proto-vedic & Proto-Dasa people beliefs. And this is cited in many WP articles as some new "invention" ! ) WIN 10:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments/Claims, Citations/Sources

[ Rudra', you leave, and take turns with dab, you have a long history of problems with neutrality, bias, and hypocrisy. Your using lame tactics with no relevance to the article edits, and keep going off topic(as a distraction), making yourself look quite foolish by linking pointless edits, and personally attacking me, because you have the capacity to write 2 paragraphs of mindless blabbering, and spend all your time on wikipedia, like dab, but can't provide a single argument with citations or sources. You should try going outside once in a while. Stop adding your own personal perspective on what citations mean, or criticisms on Stephan Oppenheimer, unless you have researched sources with citations saying otherwise with sources. Because after 7 weeks, you still have not presented any citations/ sources supporting any of your claims, or neither are you an expert in the subject. I'm not either, but I have research clearly supporting my claims.

(rudra-dab, please state your argument/claim and show sources/citations to verify your claims and arguments (Clearly, in a few sentences so everyone can understand), because it sounds very contrived (Original research). You have had over 6 weeks to prove your case.)

I'm talking about the article edits, so whatever fantasy world your are in, you can stay in, talking to yourself.

You have nothing. No case.

P.S: He is a Professor at Oxford university, and well known around the world and established as a expert in genetic mixtures.

For everyone else, like I have taken the position....:

Cosmos's Case' 1. The "Theories" are based on a hypothetical (or Hypothesis) argument/scenario. Please disprove my argument with supporting evidence claiming directly otherwise, that is insync with the nature of the multifaceted topic.

2. It deals with any "Theory" of "Aryan Invasion" into India, and noted in the Citation I added in article, not the talk page, which rudra-dab continuies to use a baseless argument. Again, please disprove my argument with supporting evidence claiming directly otherwise, that is insync with the nature of the multifaceted topic.

Article Additions by Cosmos416:

1. "...is a hypothesis and controversial term used..."

Direct Quote from Stephen Oppenheimer Book:

Cosmos416 (talk · contribs) gets one last chance to demonstrate that he got his quote from reading Oppenheimer's book and not from a Rajaram blog. He should provide:

The last two sentences of the preceding paragraph.
The six words and comma represented by the ellipsis.
The "direct quote", corrected.
The next sentence after the "direct quote".

If he can't do that, there's nothing to discuss. WP is under no obligation to accept random text from addlepated blogs. rudra 05:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, Cosmos416 (talk · contribs) needs help. Let's give him a hint. If he has read Oppenheimer's book, he should know that there is a problem with the word 'characterizes' in the "direct quote". rudra 05:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Have your read the book rudra? No. Sorry, your adding your own unique perspective once again. That's contrived, and your own personal understanding. Why is it so hard for you to understand this simple request. I presented my Article Edits, leading into a few sentences clearly explaining myArguments/Claims. I then gave supporting evidence and a direct citation from Oppenheimer book.

Don't waste mine, or anyone else's time (including yourself) if you cannot provide verifiable (neutral) sources, for the rather weak argument (hardly one) to show it's not your own perspective (contrived, i.e:original research)

So rudra-dab, please state your argument/claim and show sources/citations to verify your claims and arguments (Clearly, in a few sentences so everyone can understand), because it sounds very contrived (Original research). You have had over 6 weeks to prove your case.

P.S: Can you additionally cite a published quote saying that there is a problem with the direct citation? Sounds pretty general, and vague. Don't try and say who has "a last chance" to prove...sounds like "threat" to me. Stick to the Article edits once again, and it's not up to you to criticize Stephen Oppenheimer with your own contrived perspective.

You can't even present one Clearly defined Argument/Claims/Source/Citation. Your Pure Hot Air. Your a Troll (and possibly sockpuppet > similar edits/language/character in language/conflicts, under different users.) at best. You have No Case.

Cosmos's Case':

1. The "Theories" are based on a hypothetical (or Hypothesis) argument/scenario. Please disprove my argument with supporting evidence claiming directly otherwise, that is insync with the nature of the multifaceted topic.

Article Additions by Cosmos416:

1. "...is a hypothesis and controversial term used..."

Direct Quote from Stephen Oppenheimer Book:

BZZZZZT!! Game over. Thanks for playing. rudra 11:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The GAME was started by you without any scholarly basis and zealously deleting newer & related findings. Despite asking for opposite ref. , you failed to do so. But, never the less your edit warring was going on despite asking ref. several times. This behaviour clearly shows bad faith. Similar edit warring was carried out by same Dab & Rudra on Sarasvati river article. They were deleting whole section of Paleogeography which was well written with ref. But, since it involves newer findings ( against their zealous POV version ) , it was deleted repreatedly.

I express strong oppositions for such behaviours which are against WP policy. WIN 12:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any idea of what Oppenheimer's book is about? Didn't think so. rudra 16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cosmos416 (talk · contribs) has not read the book.

From [5] :

“

I'll add a footnote, take out the [Sic] part (that was palced by accident, it was in the power point document)

”

From [6] :

“

In the Talk page I added that quote, which was from a University of Massachusetts Dartmouth published pdf document, however, I never added that in the article, as I added the original citation.

”

He imagines that removing "[Sic]" from a blog excerpt -- PPT and PDF were maladroit inventions -- makes something a "direct quote" or "original citation". In all this time, he has not even verified this "quote". He cannot provide the context of the "quote", and he cannot even correct the "quote". He cannot explain how M17 50,000 years ago is relevant to the Bronze Age. And he thinks that bluff and bluster will hide his ignorance, incomprehension and bad faith. The discussion is over. rudra 12:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cosmos416, you are wasting everybody's time by filling pages and pages after it has long become clear your quote doesn't say what you think it did. You got a soundbite off a blog. Oppenheimer says nothing controversial. He says, if M17 did originate in India, it has nothing to do with any migration to India. That stands to reason as a perfect truism, but has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. Now please play fair and don't waste other editors' time with such nonsense. I trust you are not really too dense to appreciate the difference between "undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a ‘male Aryan invasion’ of India" and *"undermining any theory [...] of a ‘male Aryan invasion’ of India". dab (𒁳) 22:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Losing "M17 as a marker of" -- classic, isn't it? The problem isn't just that Cosmos416 (talk · contribs) is parroting a blog and perforce, its nonsense; it's also that he knows that we know it. Since he hasn't read the book, he hasn't the faintest idea that the quote is lifted from a discussion of two theories of the origins of M17 roughly 50,000 years ago (and, indeed as you pointed out, treated elsewhere) and thus has no bearing on any 'Aryan invasion' except for a tangential remark. This would become obvious if the surrounding context were restored (last two sentences from the preceding paragraph, leading six words of the quote, and the sentence following.) So Cosmos416 is in an impossible position: he can't afford to provide that context even in the unlikely event that he has read the book! So, he's here to waste everyone's time while salvaging his ~~vanity~~pride. rudra 23:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I know. the sad thing is that they know what they are doing, but it is enough to simply deny it and fake stupidity, and Wikipedia will allow them to keep going forever per "AGF". Cosmos hasn't shown even a dim glint of honesty or genuine interest in the topic, he's just here to muddy the issue until he can slip in his fallacies. A genuine little Rajaram, it seems. dab (𒁳) 11:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cosmos again

Rudra', you leave, and take turns with dab, you have a long history of problems with neutrality, bias, and hypocrisy. Your using lame tactics with no relevance to the article edits, and keep going off topic(as a distraction), making yourself look quite foolish by linking pointless edits, and personally attacking me, because you have the capacity to write 2 paragraphs of mindless blabbering, and spend all your time on wikipedia, like dab, but can't provide a single argument with citations or sources. You should try going outside once in a while. Stop adding your own personal perspective on what citations mean, or criticisms on Stephan Oppenheimer, unless you have researched sources with citations saying otherwise with sources. Because after 7 weeks, you still have not presented any citations/ sources supporting any of your claims, or neither are you an expert in the subject. I'm not either, but I have research clearly supporting my claims.

(rudra-dab, please state your argument/claim and show sources/citations to verify your claims and arguments (Clearly, in a few sentences so everyone can understand), because it sounds very contrived (Original research). You have had over 6 weeks to prove your case.)

I'm talking about the article edits, so whatever fantasy world your are in, you can stay in, talking to yourself.

You have nothing. No case.

P.S: He is a Professor at Oxford university, and well known around the world and established as a expert in genetic mixtures.

For everyone else, like I have taken the position....:

Cosmos's Case' 1. The "Theories" are based on a hypothetical (or Hypothesis) argument/scenario. Please disprove my argument with supporting evidence claiming directly otherwise, that is insync with the nature of the multifaceted topic.

2. It deals with any "Theory" of "Aryan Invasion" into India, and noted in the Citation I added in article, not the talk page, which rudra-dab continuies to use a baseless argument. Again, please disprove my argument with supporting evidence claiming directly otherwise, that is insync with the nature of the multifaceted topic.

Article Additions by Cosmos416:

1. "...is a hypothesis and controversial term used..."

2. "However, expert of genetic mixtures Stephen Oppenheimer of Oxford University released the book Out of Eden or The Real Eve of published research combining newly discovered archaeological findings, and comprehensive genetic testing through various regions and caste populations throughout India. His findings through interpreting his research, Oppenheimer comes to conclusion that all Eurasians left Africa in a single migration about 85,000-90,000 years ago, moved along the Indian Ocean coast line and settled in India. He mentions that Caucasoids migrated from North India over time, and spread throughout West and North Asia, and finally into Europe as the climate became more favorable for human settlement:

Direct Quote from Stephen Oppenheimer Book:

P.S: Sorry, You guys have not shown any sources or even provided a properly stated argument in a couple of sentences. You both leave, then come back. On and off, taking turns, in 3-6 day cycles. That's Trolling, and this is happening in (*)Multiple Article and Article Talk pages' where it is shown the both of you are fighting with hard working, intelligent users on various article pages, jointly.

Can you gentleman please explain why only 2 users together have several current disputes where it is claimed both ranging from non-neutrality, heavily bias, contrived arguemnts (original research) , Vandalism, Trolling, etc.

You can find all the Evidence in their history by going through the Wikipeda Article's Talk pages, Reverts (Rv.), Edits they have done.

(*)rudra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rudrasharman (*)dab: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dbachmann

Case Closed. It's getting changed tonight because you have not dis-proven or even debated my article additions, and giving your own contrived (original researched) argument (not even properly stated).

Oh by the way dab: You (1) Accepted my edits remember???? You couldn't disprove you contrived view, so you accepted it, but changed it around. When I wasn't completely satisfied, you (2) Reversed your acceptance entry, and Retaliated by taking out the "Hypothesis" addition, even though you haven't dis-proven it, and wasn't even an issue with you. That's hypocritical. And now rudra is taking the exact same position. Still, with a made up perspective with no citations to back up any of the claims. You BS has already been noticed on the many Article Talk pages you gang-up together, and the Request for Comment on you.

(1) 18:24, 11 April 2007 Dbachmann: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=122005654&oldid=122003355

(2) 21:40, 11 April 2007 Dbachmann: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=122057038&oldid=122041137 Cosmos416 02:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cosmos, it's virtually impossible to make sense this rambling screed. BTW, before you accuse me of "taking turns", the reason I have not commented for a while is that I have been in the middle of Brittany, without much access to the internet. Several points: Rudra seems to have demonstrated that your "PowerPoint document" is in fact Rajaram's utterly ludicrous online "article" - a text which makes such ignorant comments as "Caucasoid (politically correct term for 'Aryan')" and wildly misrepresents what Julian Huxley says (also the historical context in which he said it). So does this mean that you have been fibbing when you claim to have been using "university sourced information"? You have not expalained why Stone Age migrations are on topic in an article about Bronze Age ones. You have not answered the point about why the term hypothesis is relevant where you put it (that the term AIT in fact covers a number of different, sometimes incompatable, hypotheses). Paul B 10:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid he is serious, isn't he, not just trying to exasperate us, but really unable to do any better? Anything is possible on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 11:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, anyone claiming that Oppenheimer is a professor at Oxford should be able to answer: Professor of what and where in Oxford? (Blogs or blurbs don't count, sorry. Practically all of the institutions at Oxford have official websites, with faculty listings, etc. Oppenheimer is a member of Green College by virtue of having graduated his medical degree from there.) rudra 12:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

it appears he is a bona fide geneticist, PhD in medicine[7] at Green College, Oxford. Of course anybody who says anything of any use to the propaganda machine is immediately touted as an "eminent professor" (remember "Professor Egbert Richter-Ushanas" here?) , and gets fawning biography articles on WP, no fault of Oppenheimer's of course. I would say there is no low the propagandists aren't prepared to stoop to, if it didn't appear that they aren't stooping at all, or at least are unable to get up. dab (𒁳) 14:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dab-rudra, Paul Barlow Connection

Can all 3 of you guys stop stalling, and please state you argument clearly and show supporting sources, verifying your claims? I have taken the time do, please be respectful and do it as well. No Original Research please. Paul Barlow likes to go to the Nordic Theories and other Aryan/Hindu subjects, dab-rudra go to Aryan Migrations/Aryan Invasion/Out of India/Hiduveta/etc. Article pages, all supporting each other, but can not provide a single sources after 7 weeks, supporting any baseless claim. Other users have also stated that you guys do not provide sources, and not being neutral, because you guys aren't. dab, wasn't it you who started the hindvneta page that go deleted because it was created maliciously? How shameful. That's the biggest stain on any record I have ever seen. Not to mention you accepting my edit, and then reversing hours later. Cosmos416 19:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As dab had already pointed out, it would be impossible to find a reliable source stating "cheese sandwiches are irrelevant to AIT", but that would not justify adding a section on cheese sandwiches, no matter how well referenced it was. There is no WP policy requiring us to find a reliable source that something is offtopic. You have to explain how paleolithic migrations are ontopic. You have not. The only part of your edits that is possibly relevant is the information on Oppenheimer's view of MI7. Rudra has shown that Oppenheimer himself clearly states that he is expressing a personal view about a particular marker, one with which some other scholars disagree. Its relevance to AIT is minor at best. Paul B 10:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And that minor relevance consists of the observation that if Oppenheimer's side is correct about the origins of M17, then M17 can't be used to decide AIT one way or the other (i.e. it would not be a marker with any determinative value). Cosmos416, of course, is not thinking for himself. He's just parroting Rajaram's non-sequitur, from a ~~PPT~~ ~~oops PDF~~ blog. rudra 21:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proper context for cherry-picked soundbites

Regarding claims of who has or hasn't read Oppenheimer's book, here is the "direct quote" in its surrounding context, all from page 152, with omissions to be explained below.

“

a X, b Y and their colleagues see Central Asia, especially the Altai, as the most likely source of the European M17 line. This is a necessary argument for Y and co-workers since they see the whole Seth clan as coming separately out of North Africa into the Levant and proceeding directly to Central Asia.³³ (See Figure 1.3.)

For me and for c Z, South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a ‘male Aryan invasion’ of India. One age estimate for the origin of this line in India is as much as 51,000 years.

”

a X, b Y and c Z are first and last names of three geneticists. The last name Y also occurs by itself.
the "direct quote" portion still has a problem with the word "characterizes".

If Cosmos416 (talk · contribs) wants any further discussion, he will have to fully identify the three geneticists in correct order, and emend the "direct quote" portion to correspond to the passage in Oppenheimer's book. If he declines for any reason ("my dog ate the book", "my cat scratched the page to shreds", "my friend lost my book", etc.) the conclusion that he has not read the book can be taken as established beyond doubt. rudra 05:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, not sure about this 'test' for several reasons, for example whether this is really an appropriate use of a talk page. Also, I haven't read the book, however I know at least some of the answers, because they are contained in the Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia article. Addhoc 11:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that WP:AGF is a blank check, I disagree. If you're suggesting that Cosmos416 (talk · contribs) could guess the answers, there's really nothing to stop him from feeling lucky. rudra 21:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] split

this article was created to allow a sane discussion of actual scholarship at Indo-Aryan migration. In the meantime, evolved articles have formed at Out of India and Indigenous Aryans, which together with Racial groups in India (historical definitions) cover all the historical and political aspects treated here. dab (𒁳) 14:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similarities between IVC and VEDIC TIMES

Can someone add a new article on the similarities that exist between Indus valley civilization and the vedic period. I can list a few for starters. 1. The presence of swastika symbol. 2. Yogic postures 3. The evidence for decimal weights and measures in the Harappan civilization, and the later perfection of a decimal numeral system ...etc. Please, admins/users who are not favorable of this topic, please be polite. Do not abuse me by judging my mind/motivations but rather show your analytical/debating skills by objective arguments. Truth can be sweet or bitter, It will be accepted. But until proven, the argument remains challenged. I request any comments to be objective and impersonal. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Xyzisequation (talk • contribs)

You can create any article that you want. Of course it will also be rewitten by others and it may even be deleted or redirected if it considered to be non-notable or a POV fork. That would be a community decision. Just go ahead. Paul B 11:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources? Bias?

I am amused by the fact that the only point-of-view presented in this "unbiased encyclopaedia" entry is that of the detractors of the Aryan Invasion Theory. I am also amused by the fact that the aforementioned point-of-view is presented in a sophomoric, bullet-by-bullet fashion. I am further amused by the fact that not a single, solitary reference is cited for a single, solitary point. Absolutely ridiculous. Well done, Wikipedia. Tanukihat (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Just fun and games by some random IP. Happens all the time. rudra (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Michael Witzel

[edit] Dartmouth

[edit] M17

[edit] no Dravidians?

[edit] Ganging Up and Page Protectionism

[edit] Why this title?

[edit] Ganging Up and Page Protectionism (Continued)

[edit] Arguments/Claims, Citations/Sources

[edit] cosmos again

[edit] dab-rudra, Paul Barlow Connection

[edit] Proper context for cherry-picked soundbites

[edit] split

[edit] Similarities between IVC and VEDIC TIMES

[edit] Sources? Bias?

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search