Talk:Aryan/Archive 4

Rigvedic-Avestan word
In the original article: ....in colloquial English, and according to Nazi racial theory

'''Aryan is a Rigvedic-Avestan word for a Race nothing to do with Caucasian. Caucasian word does not exist in Rigveda or Avesta.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.14.67 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What a pity that "colloquial English" usage of the term Aryan is that of Nazi racial theory! No better evidence perhaps of the failure of the UK and US educational systems to teach people that Nazi racial theories were pseudo-science, pseudo-history and an abomination to human culture. Or perhaps the US and UK world view of the US and the UK are tacitly dependent on a similar view of mankind, which preaches the supremacy of one "race" above all others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.225.73 (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm...I think you've misunderstood the term 'colloquial'. You seem to be implying that this means most English speakers support the Nazi idea of an Aryan race. Colloquial simply means casual or informal useage. Essentially it means if an English speaker who is not a linguist or historian uses the term Aryan or Aryan race without clarifying you can assume they are refering to the Nazi ideas and possibly aren't even aware of any of the other definitions, just like colloquial useage of the word 'cool' is 'good' instead of 'not warm'. They don't have to support it any more than you have to be an ice hockey fan for people to guess that when you say hockey you mean ice hockey rather than field hockey. Danikat (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Aryan is an Arabianic Semitic word which means companion please change the article, folks often get named by their neighbors
Given the racist and anti-Semitic uses to which this name has been put,it is wonderfully ironic that the word “Aryan” has an Afroasiatic origin. According to Szemernyi It is a loan from Semitic into Indo-Iranian. In Ugaritic, the name >ary was used as a gentilic (name of a people), but the word >ary “companion” is clearly related to the Egyptian ˆrˆ with the same meaning.

Humanbyrace (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Aryan is a word that originates from the ancient Persians (Indo-Aryan people, as well as the Medes, etc.) It is not semitic. Indo-Europeans/Aryans came from the Ukraine region (Caucus Steppes), invaded Northern India, and spread throughout Europe and Iran. Where are you getting your false information? Oldest written evidence has been attributed to Darius the Great. The Iranian tribes, Germanic tribes, Celts, Greeks, Slavs, Northern Indians are all Indo-European and Aryan. Another revisionist. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

aryan is from the avestan old persian and sanskrit language the indo-iranian branch is the aryan one  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.66.142 (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious!?

Proto Indo-European as well proto Indo-Hittite urheimat is southern Anatolia-northern Syria due to demographical, empricial reasons as well sumerian-egyptian and semitic loanwords in Proto Indo-European.

Ukraine steppes at those times were poorly inhabitated and anyway were inhabitated from folk waves from Anatolia the homeland of neolithic revolution (discovery of agriculture) and consequent demographic explosion.

Indo-Europeanisation of Europe was only a language shift with few genetic input of Anatolian Indo-European (for example Indo-European component amongst French is about 15%)

Please read some books: Gimbutas, Renfrew, Mallory, Anthony, Gamkrelidze, Dolgopolsky etc...

If you want more informations as well as references you can visit some of the threads here below:

As for Aryan etymology, there is no Indo-European nor Indo-Aryan etymology for it but a Semitic one (since earliest Indo-Aryans such as Aryani and Mitanni were neighbors of Semitic peoples)

http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6022

http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?p=86523#post86523

Humanbyrace (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you are incorrect. Aryan comes from Iranians not Arabic culture. Scholars and historical documents support this. You seem to be a historical revisionist. This article will not be changed. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

why you all keep writing this Aryan a tribe..is there eny culture where the word is used it is a Indian word that just mean the nobel man.German first link it with Europe and white people the term indo-aryan before ww2 was indo-garman and after British took it where nazi left it.no other culture has the word arya expect india.comparing ariya or ara kind of word to Arya is like Roman with ram,--125.19.35.226 (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC) smith with sayam etc.

No! It is not true
As: 1) I'm searching for this wonderful clain in an Arabic Dictionary but ther is no word as Aryan ?!! 2) If this word is Arabic what's its family words and what'sradius (according Arabic)??? 3) The word has ~8000 years age in Avesta and 2500 years in Persepolis and etc ... but Arabic has 1400 years old; Now how could Arabs tern Iranian and Iran Aryan when there was no arab that time !!!! 4) The word of Iran (According West Indo-European Language, Ireland) means the land of Aryans, this term has an Indo-European's grammar and it can not be a Semetic or Arabic, for example if Aryan or Iran be Arabic it must be Mayren or anything like that

Greekogreeko (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

ABOUT ARYA BY Rajkris
The word Arya written & pronounced in this way is Sanskrit (see below: Encylcopaedia Britannica, refs 2 to 9). In the Persian/Iranian culture, literature there are a few refs to words such as 'Airya/Ari(i)ya/Ari(a)oi(n)/etc.'. Scholars agree that the Indian 'Arya' and the Persian 'Airya' must have a common root but their definition seems different: whereas the Persian definition may have an ethno-linguistic connotation (but there is no agreement among scholars on that, contrary to what is claimed here), the Indian Arya means Noble/Lord/etc. The most ancient reference to the word Arya occur in the (Rig) Vedas and there is no any ethnical, racial or national connotation... It was used to designate those who developed & adhered to the Vedic culture, religion, more specifically those who worshipped the Devas and especially Indra (see below: Encyclopaedia Britannica, ref2 to ref6) and, at later time, the Hindu religion/culture and more generally the Arya Dharma (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism). Those who belonged to this community were called Aryas (Noble/Civilised), those who did not, were called Anaryas (Non noble/Barbarians/Uncivilised). Inside this community, the high castes were considered as Aryas whereas the lower ones were Anaryas. Among the higher castes, the perfect Aryas were the Kshatriyas (Hindu aristocraty). The place where Hinduism was practiced in its most orthodox way was called Aryavarta (the abode, [sacred] land of the Arya(n)s), Aryadesha (see below ref9); the borders of Aryavarta may have changed throughout times but Iran, Afghanistan, Eastern Pakistan and other central asian areas have never, never been part of Aryavarta ... One more important precision: in the ancient Iranian/Persian culture, in the Avesta, the Devas used to be considered as devils!...

Even if it has a common root, the Persian/Iranian equivalent is written & pronounced differently: airya, ari(i)ya, arioi(n), etc., and this historical difference must respected so as not to make any confusion. Above all, there are few refs to this word in the whole persian literature; so telling that this word was significant in the Persian civilisation is not true. The best example are the Parsis from India: they are scions of the ancient persians in term of ethnicity and religion but they have never called themselves Erya (Airya); why ? Just because this word was neither significant nor a real self designator. Ethnically speaking, Parsis are much more related to the ancient Persians than nowadays inhabitants of Iran (thanks to, because of the caste system in India). Iran has never been a populous area and it has been invaded a lot by different nomadic tribes (Indo Europeans, Semite Arabs, Turks, Mongols).This word became significant in the persian world only recently (last century) by the will of Reza Shah Pahlavi and its supporters who were certainly influenced by the Nazis when they decided in 1935 to rename the country after the ancient Sassanide empire name Eran (see link 1); Only from this period the word Arya (written & pronounced in this way) started being used in a very significant way (iranian people started using arya as name, restaurants, garages started bearing arya name, arya cities, universities were created, etc.). The problem is only a minority of the people were attracted by this new mode.The Iranian people did not understand anything to this so called Aryan myth and pathetic shows such as:. This is one of the reason for the failure of this government: Shah of Iran and its government ultimate goal was to get rid off Islam but they did not realize that the Iranian people were very attached to this religion. These links, articles give a good description, explanation of the Iranian Aryan myth: link 2, link 3 & link 4.

Some Iranian (nationalists) prefer, nowadays, to use the sanskrit word Arya because (this is my opinion) it is more closed to the word Aryan (which derives from this sanskrit word) than Iranian Airya/Ariya. For that purpose, they are using refs from books written by (western)scholars who mix sanskrit arya with persian erya/ari(i)ya. The pb is since nearly 2 centuries, many (so called) scholars have written many wrong things concerning this word; these so called scholars have a clear responsibility in the development of the Aryan racial theories in Europe (see below ref1 and ref10) and consequently, they have a clear (moral) responsibility for the extermination of 6 million jews (Nazis killed them because of this one word)... This is clearly an history falsification, manipulation.

The other pb is that some people are trying to link arya with an ethnical connotation which is wrong:

1) The most ancient refs to the word Arya occur in the Rig Veda and contains no ethnical connotation, national connotation

2) Notions such as Ethnicity, Nationalism, Race are modern concepts which dates back to the 18th century. Applying them to describe the ancient world is very doubtful.

3) Iran has always been a mixture of people of different origin even at the time of the Persian empire... How can some people try to associate an ethnical purity to this country especially nowadays, at a time when more & more scholars tell that the civilisation which has played the most important role in the development of Iran was the Elamite civilisation. Some Iranian are working on Wikipedia to give a fake image of Iran based on a fake ethnical identity...

The references given by Iranians to support their claim of an Iranian Arya are wrong:

-“…Iranian arya [with a short a]…” --> Arya, even with a short ‘a’, is a Sanskrit word (see: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Ref2, Ref4, Ref8); even if nowadays some Iranians prefer to use the word Arya (because more closer to Aryan) instead of their own words Airya/Ari(i)ya, the roots of Arya are Sanskrit.

-"ARYA an ethnic epithet in the Achaemenid inscriptions and in the Zoroastrian Avestan tradition” --> the problem here is that in the Achaemenedid inscriptions it is written ‘Ariya’ and in the Zend language ‘Airya’. It is the author himself who prefer to use the term Arya & therefore, it is author POV and does not correspond to historical reality. The other point is “’ariya: ariyaciça’…The phrase with ciça, “origin, descendance,” assures that it is an ethnic name” --> The translation “Noble from Noble lineage” would also fit (really curious that a king does not mention his noble origins; only 'peasant' background people can think that a king would be prefer to mention his so called ethnical identity instead of his noble, aristocratic origins...)…

Here are the main problems with this article:

- “Arya is an old Indic and Iranian…” --> very wrong: Arya (written & pronounced in this way) is clearly, without any doubt a Sanskrit, Old Indic but NOT (Old) Iranian word or so called Indo Iranian… In the Iranian/Persian history, literature we find similar words: Airya/Ari(i)ya/Ari(a)o(i) suggesting a common origin…

- "Significant to Zorastrians" --> not true (see Parsis who never called themselves Airya/Ari(i)ya)

-"In its oldest recorded forms, Indo-Iranian arya is a national name, i.e. the name of the ethnic group of Indians and Iranians themselves" --> very wrong; the most ancient refs to the word Arya occur in the (Rig) Veda and there is no any etchnical, national, racial connotation!... Were considered as Aryas those who developed, adhered to the Vedic culture, religion. None of the given refs support this sentence.

Some sentences, parts, writes in this article does not correspond to proper academical sources and above all to historical reality, that is: Arya is Sanskrit, Airya/Ari(i)ya Iranian & Aryan is an English (loan) word derived from Sanskrit Arya meaning ‘Noble’.” Iranian Arya” is a POV made by some scholars and does not correspond to historical  reality.

Concerning the Iranian chapter, its presence is useful but some corrections need to be done; ex: “Iran means ‘Land of Arya” is not correct, a correct translation would be ‘Land of Airya’ because Iran comes from Eran --> Airan --> Airyan --> Airyanam… As user Fullstop (who has rejected articles from Encyclopaedia Iranica shown by some users) already mentioned, some Iranian editors do not correctly translate their sources; for ex, on Gerardo Gnoli articles, the author uses the historical Iranian terms Airya or Ariya whereas in the wiki articles it is written “(Iranian) Arya”. I have also the strong feeling that ‘Encyclopaedia Iranica’ (at least some articles) gives a biased image of Iran based on a fake ethnical purity… I think this it is financed by some Iranians based abroad and who are close to the Shah of Iran ideology…

As a conclusion: Arya is a Sanskrit, old Indic self designator meaning ‘Noble’ (see Encycopaedia Britannica, refs 2 to 8). The term is significant to Hindus, Buddhists & Jains. In the Iranian literature, there are a few refs to similar words: Airya/Ari(i)ya, suggesting a common origin.

In its oldest recorded forms, Sanskrit Arya was used to designate those who developed, adhered to the Vedic culture.

Some sentences of this article must be rewritten in concordance with proper academic sources and above all historical reality.

Thank you for your attention; i will also add my comments & arguments on the Aryan wiki page asap.

Rajkris (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

REFERENCES

Encylopaedia Britannica

(This article is a summary of what is said about the word Aryan by nowadays proper scholars)

Former name given to a people who were said to speak an archaic Indo-European language and who were thought to have settled in prehistoric times in ancient Iran and the northern Indian subcontinent. The theory of an “Aryan race” appeared in the mid-19th century and remained prevalent until the mid-20th century. According to the hypothesis, these probably light-skinned Aryans were the group who invaded and conquered ancient India from the north and whose literature, religion, and modes of social organization subsequently shaped the course of Indian culture, particularly the Vedic religion that informed and was eventually superseded by Hinduism.

However, since the late 20th century, a growing number of scholars have rejected both the Aryan invasion hypothesis and the use of the term Aryan as a racial designation, suggesting that the Sanskrit term arya (“noble” or “distinguished”), the linguistic root of the word, was actually a social rather than an ethnic epithet. Rather, the term is used strictly in a linguistic sense, in recognition of the influence that the language of the ancient northern migrants had on the development of the Indo-European languages of South Asia. In the 19th century the term was used as a synonym for “Indo-European” and also, more restrictively, to refer to the Indo-Iranian languages. It is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages, a branch of the larger Indo-European language family.

In Europe the notion of white racial superiority emerged in the 1850s, propagated most assiduously by the comte de Gobineau and later by his disciple Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who first used the term “Aryan” for the white race. Members of this so-called race spoke Indo-European languages, were credited with all the progress that benefited humanity, and were purported to be superior to “Semites,” “yellows,” and “blacks.” Believers in Aryanism came to regard the Nordic and Germanic peoples as the purest members of the “race.” This notion, which had been repudiated by anthropologists by the second quarter of the 20th century, was seized upon by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and was made the basis of the German government policy of exterminating Jews, Roma (Gypsies), and other “non-Aryans.”

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, many white supremacist groups adopted the name Aryan as a label for their ideology. Because of this usage and its association with Nazism, the term has acquired a pejorative meaning.

Ref 2: Aryans and British India By Thomas R. Trautmann

"Aryan is from Arya a sanskrit word..."

“… by a name taken from Sanskrit Arya or Aryan” page 2

"Although the word arya is a sanskrit one," page 6

“…name of the race that immigrated from Central Asia into Aryavarta, opposed to an-arya, Dasyu, Dasa (although here we would have to say that the use of the word race and the reference to Central Asia comes from European ideas and not from Sanskrit texts)” page 12

"The Aryan concept is the central idea of the twentieth-century fascims, and the fact that it was developed by scholars raises the question of the role shcolars have played in preparing the way for these appropriations..." pages 14/15

Ref 3: Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions By Wendy Doniger,Merriam-Webster, Inc page 79

“Aryan (from Sanskrit Arya, ‘Noble’)”

"... In Vedic literature the term arya is used to distinguish privileged members of society from others"

Ref 4: Imperial encounters: religion and modernity in India and Britain By Peter van der Veer

"The sanskrit term arya which means 'honorable man'" page 138

Ref 5: The Indo-Aryan controversy: evidence and inference in Indian history By Edwin Bryant,Laurie L. Patton

"Here, perhaps, it needs to be clarified that in the Vedic texts the word "Arya" was not used in any racial sense..." page 52

Ref 6: A survey of Hinduism By Klaus K. Klostermaier

"... Making the self-designation arya (noble) a racial attribute of the putative invaders,..." page 18

Ref 7: Encyclopaedic dictionary of Vedic terms, Volume 1 By Parmeshwaranand (Swami.) page 120 to 128

"The Rgvedic passages reffering to the Aryas (...) conquering Dasas or Dasyus with the help of their gods, relate to that stratum of Aryan history when two groups of people seem to have settled on the land of (...). The two groups of people might have difference in colour, but the colour was not the main cause of difference between the two cultures. The only and sole factor responsible for the difference was the instituiton of sacrifice, which one believed while the other did not. One group, which believed, in Yajna and practically performed it, constituted the Aryan, the noble class and the other which did not believe in yajna constituted the Dasa or Dasyu class..."

"The Rgvedic passage showing the Aryans as being conquered by the gods along with the Dasas or Dasyus relate to that stratum of Aryan history when Aryan people were subdivided into many clans, and a king of one clan was fighting against the other, sometimes alone, and sometimes with the help of Dasas or Dasyus."

Ref 8: The British quarterly review, Volume 36

"Airya which is the equivalent in the Zend language for the Sanskrit arya,..." page 23

"This word ârya, with long a, is derived from arya with a short a, and this name arya is applied in later sanskrit... " page 24

"If it was 'originally a national name', of which, however, there is no proof, we confess we cannot well understand how,..." page 24

Ref 9: Essays on ancient India By Raj Kumar

"I-tsing refers to India generally as the West, but he tells us that it was known as Aryadesha (...), the noble region" page 172

Ref 10: Performativity and belonging By Vikki Bell

"It is difficult to deny the complex imppact that some ideas in Vedic Hinduism did have in the reformation of some versions of German and French nationalism." page 74

"There is considerable debate about whether or not the Vedas and subsequent literature contained concepts that led directly to ideas of phenotypical 'race'" page 75

"One can accept that the word arya in the Rig-Veda (airya in the Avestan literature), referred to a quality that is usually translated as 'noble', rather than an ethnology, and certainly not an 'Aryan race'." page 75

LINKS

Link 1:

"The suggestion for the change is said to have come from the Iranian ambassador to Germany, who came under the influence of the Nazis."

Link 2:

“However, all attempts by the Pahlavis in engendering the Aryan myth, Persianization of Iran and the Farsi language (…), were attempts from the top, lacking any real popular foundations. Except for a group of upper middle-class and descendants of a cluster of feudal families, Pahlavism was a joke, especially the theater of spectacle that the Shah put on to celebrate the 2500th anniversary of Achamenid dynasty.”

Link 3:

“The false equation of language and race was widespread in the west between around 1850-1950, and some Iranians influenced by Western racist thinkers, took pride in being Indo-Europeans, or "Aryans"”

Link 4:

“It surprises us when we realize that just barely over half of all Iranians are actually ethnic Persians”; “We, who pride ourselves for being so closely related to the Hansels and Gretels of Europe, after all look too suspiciously similar to our Arab conquerors and brothers and cousins to the south, dark hair, dark eyes, big noses and all.”

Rajkris (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

please respect WP:TALK. Article talkpages are not for posting counter-articles. --dab (𒁳) 13:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not at all a counter article. This is discussion on what is wrong on the actual article. I want to change some sentences of this article, that's why i have posted my comments and refs before changing. [[User:Ra


 * fine, I have restored your text. But I hope you don't expect anyone to read it.
 * if you want to point out a problem with the article, why don't you that instead of posting a giant essay. It isn't clear what you want, it isn't clear why you quote random Persian nationalist websites, it isn't clear whether you want to address etymology or modern racialism, and you aren't helping an already confused issue. --dab (𒁳) 07:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree it is long but i wanted to be as clear and give as much refs as possible in order to do the necessary changes on this article. If people like you do not read what i wrote, my work is useless. Some parts may not be interesting but some others really are. The references I have found are really good. Please just take 5min to read it.


 * I want to address etymology, the original meaning of the word Arya. Here are the changes I want to bring in this article (see above for my explanations, arguments & refs): In concordance with (proper) academical sources, this article must distinguish Sanskrit Arya from Iranian Airya/Ari(i)ya; (part) sentences like 'Iranian Arya', 'Indo Iranian Arya' are not correct. Sentences such as "In its oldest recorded forms, Indo-Iranian arya is an ethnonym, i.e. the name of the ethnic group of Indians and Iranians themselves..." are wrong. I will give the necessary refs for all the changes I'm going to do (with links to check). Rajkris (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That was simply random websites, selective scholarship possible (I think anyone knows we don't use random websites with non-expert authors in Wikipedia), WP:OR,WP:Synthesis combined with I don't like it.. One can do the same with google books. Here is Wieshofer a major historian:"Iran" was derived from the Sassanian concept of Eranshahr ('Empire of the Aryans').  Someone else can for example get 1000 references from google books and make up their own story. All of it simply WP:OR. Websites are not WP:RS sources not are simple Britannica (which actually defines it as a group of people)/Merriam webster. It has no effect on Wikipedia. Please do not confuse the German Nazi concept with the etymological roots in Iranian literature of Arya. Also Encyclopedia Iranica is well recognized source unlike the random websites, merriam webster dictionary, Britannica and etc. which are considered teriatary sources. Please find some scholars of ancient history that are living in the modera era and are at recognized universities who claim what you claim. Here is a modern article WP:RS by Gnoli. The "Aryan" Language, Gherardo Gnoli, Instituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, Roma, 2002.". See page 86 of that article and also the many other books/references by Gnoli.  I do however agree with you that the term "Arya" was not used in the ethno-linguistic sense in the Indian literature.  That is exactly what Gnoli states as well: "There can be no doubt about the ethnic value of Old Iran. arya (Benveniste, 1969, I, pp. 369 f.; Szemerényi; Kellens).". The Indic term Arya probably had a different different connotation and lacked an ethnic connotation all together. So that is why the Iranian Arya should be separated (even have its own article), then the Indic arya should have its own article and also the Nazi/Germani racialist concept it own article.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Read Britannica. Arya is Sanskrit, Airya/Ari(i)ya is Iranian. My refs are clear, please do not use Wikipedia rules to threaten me simply because you are not able to counter me. If you want you can create

Airya wiki article. Rajkris (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Britannica is now like Wikipedia where anyone can edit. It is a teriatary source which lacks value  WP:RS. For example its authors are not even known. Gheraldo Gnoli, Mallory, etc. are well known Professors of Academic universities. Actually, we go with what is the English usage. When Airya/Ari/Er..are interchangeable with Aryan in English scholarly usage. Britannica (which looks like the article has had many edits and revisions, none of whose authors are scholars) also states:"former name given to a people who were said to speak an archaic Indo-European language and who were thought to have settled in prehistoric times in ancient Iran and the northern Indian subcontinent." Random website sources or outdated sources are not really WP:RS. For example look here: "As an ethnic designation, however, it is properly limited to Indo-Iranians (most justly to the latter) "

Anyhow, you need some serious scholars like Gnoli, Witzel, Mallory and etc. to state your position. Gnoli, Beneviste..etc. partially agree with your position that Arya/Aryan (however you want to write it and pronounce it) is not an ethnic term in Indic literature. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Britannica is the most reliable sources in English language. Stop your POV on Britannica. in you have provided above, it clearly tells Iranian ariya and Sanskrit Arya. Why do you prefer to use Arya instead of your own words Airya/Ariya (even Gnoli uses Ariya) ??. The refs I have given are from serious scholars no pb.Rajkris (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The usage of Arya is because that is the common term used in English. See Harold Walter Bailey and his article on the subject here:  "ARYA, an ethnic epithet in the Achaemenid inscriptions and in the Zoroastrian Avestan tradition". Gnoli also uses Arya "There can be no doubt about the ethnic value of Old Iran. arya (Benveniste, 1969, I, pp. 369 f.; Szemerényi; Kellens).". Gnoli uses it in his books two: 

In the Old Persian it is "ariyâ", Av. "airya", Greek "Arioi", "áreion", Bactrian "ariao", .. given the various spellings, Gnoli states: "All this evidence shows that the name arya “Iranian” was a collective definition, denoting peoples " So the common spelling for all these terms s "Arya" in English language. I believe you know the credentials of Harold Walter Bailey and Gheraldo Gnoli. Britannica is hardly a reliable source. It has no author, and it is teriatary source (with no author). With the new features that anyone can edit it, it has also become less reliable. However, I do not see where it conradicts Gnoli/Bailey (which if it did, it would not be used since Gnoli, Bailey.. are well known scholars and secondary sources by Wikipedia definitions). It is the only source that you mentioned that has some wiki value (youtube, random websites do not..). But it is hardly on par with Gnoli, Bailey, Mallory, Witzel and the rest of the scholars. Britannica in has no author for its articles. Wikipedia should use scholars in the field.

I do agree however, that the sanskrit/indic term lacks an ethnic meaning (this is the opinion of Gnoli/Beneviste..). Gnoli states:"Emile Benveniste is thus quite right to assert that, unlike the various terms connected with the Aryan arya- in Old Indian, the Old Iranian arya- is documented solely as an ethnic term.." --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC) So I think what the article fails to address is the difference context these words are used in Indic and Iranic literature. My main point is that you cannot delete the section that has such well known authors as Bailey, Gnoli, Mackenzie. As per the etymology online, it is correct but as you see, the English term is Arya/Aryan for the "ariyâ", Av. "airya", Greek "Arioi", "áreion", Bactrian "ariao", .. So one must use the English term. However my idea is this: 1) Separate article for the Indian context of the word Arya (Indic literature) 2) Separate article for the Iranian context  Arya (Iranian term) 3) Separate article for Arya/Aryan in the Nazi/Racialist literature Aryan (racialist misusage). I believe this will solve a lot of problems and divorce the political abuse and even some psuedo-scholarly abuse (giving an ethnic meaning to the Indic literature).  What do you think?  If DAB and others agree, it would  be a good way to proceed.  Then we can make a DAB page.

As per the references you gave, I am sorry, but random websites/youtube are not references. The other scholars you mentioned are not experts of ancient history in Western universities (Gnoli, Mallory, Witzel, Bailey, etc). However, Gnoli as I showed you agrees with your concept in the Indic literature (lack of ethnic meaning for Arya). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop telling that the scholars i mentionned are not experts... This is your POV. Trautmaan and others have as much reputation as Gnoli and other scholars you have mentionned. Whether you like it or not, historically Arya is Sanskrit, Airya/Ariya Iranian (this is what most scholars tell), Aryan an English word. I agree with 3 separate articles but do not think the use of Arya for Iran is good. I need a 3rd neutral opinion and why not an expert opinion on that. One question: why Parsis who 'ethnically' are more closed to the ancient Persians, never called themselves Airya/Ariya ??Rajkris (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * BtW, see also OED: "Aryan from Sansrit Arya 'Noble'"... Arya is a Sanskrit word whether you like it or not and therefore should not be used for Iran. Please use your own words Airya/Ariya, even Gnoli uses mostly Ariya.Rajkris (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Gnoli uses Arya/Aryan and various other formulations of the same word. There is also Sanskrit "ārya", "ā́rya" but one does not go on to make an article with the diacritic signs. One uses the most common spelling in English (and that is why the Encylopaedia Iranica has it that way as well). So that is why one cannot use Sanskrit ā́rya,ārya for a title as well as one cannot use Old Persian ariyâ as a title for an article. Wikipedia works by using the term as the way it has entered the English language and how the English speakers use it. As per the author you noted (Trautmaan), he can be said to have the same level of expertise as Gnoli (but the random websites, youtube and etc. you have quoted do not). However you did not quote him on page 13: "What made "Aryan" seem appropriate was it was not only the name Sanskrit speakers gave themselves, but it was also used by the speakers of Old Persian; indeed the name Iran is derived from a genitive plural of the word, meaning: "(land) of the Aryas".

So he is stating it was used concurrently and in parallel in Old Persian and Sanskrit. However, whereas one can firmly state that Old Persian is 2500 years, one cannot state how old is Rig Veda (oldest Sanskrits) simply because it was transmitted by oral transmission, and its oldest written testament is later than 2500 years ago. However, based on linguist grounds some scholar date it to 1700-1100 BC (per the wikipedia article), however that is about the same age that some scholars date the Old Avesta. My main problem with this argument (which does not mean I can change the Wikipedia article since it would be Original Research) is that German and English are both from the same family, however if German was a dead language, one would think it was spoken 1500 years, since English would be a more modern form of it. Same with Pashtu and Persian, where Pashtu has basically conserved many grammatical rules of Old Iranian, making it a much more difficult language to acquire than modern Persian.

As per Parsis, in their own literature, the word Iran/Iranian is used which is a continuation of "Er/Ir"...ultimately leading to Arya... Also Avesta is part of Parsi literature. However, since you mentioned this point. The concept of Sanskrit "Arya".. was rediscovered by Western orientalists actually. Indians themselves never used it until the British came. According to some modern Western scholars even, it does not have an ethnic meaning. However the words "Iran", "Iranian".. have been used continously as a reference to Iranians for themselves (and also distinguished in classical Persian literature from Turks, Arabs, Indians, Romans..etc. as an ethnic group). Now Iran has also a geophrapical designation as well, so one can be an Arab of Iran or Iranian Arab. But its meaning as an ethnic term like Iranian peoples has been used through the centuries. In terms of nationality it would be a citizen of Iran (a later concept than the ethnic term Iranian). Be that it may, I think we need three articles really (bearing in mind that Wikipedia uses the common English terms not say the Old Persian or Sanskrit term ā́rya):


 * Aryan (Iranian Literature)


 * Aryan (Indian Literature)


 * Aryan (20th century Racialst Theory).. Equating it with Indo-Europeans, the Nazi concept..

My main point is that these three things are distinct, and even the Sanskrit Arya ā́rya according to Beneviste, Gnoli does not have an ethnic meaning, whereas in the Iranian literature, it has solely an ethnic meaning. Then the page Arya/Aryan can be made into a disambiguous page. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

the same thing has been discussed many times here. It is frustrating to see how this article makes no progress whatsoever beacause people insist on going in circles. --dab (𒁳) 08:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not able to understand the discussions (1, 2) by the user Rajkris. I just want to stress that 1. there is no point of making selective and random use of stuff in the internet (for example: in the "link 3" a sentence of this has been abused. There it is written clearly that "[Iranians were called Aryan]... until Hitler discredited the term by putting racial theory into horrible practice.") This and our wiki articles make it clear that "Arya" depending on its place and time of use does have completely different meanings. Why ignoring this over and over gain? 2. If the hindus want to say that they are "real aryans", let them say so and if they can source that, they can add it to any article they want. 3. On dividing the article into "Iranian usage" and "Indian usage" and "European usage" I am afraid we have to do wp:or. after all there is a point why the term "indo-iranian"/"indo-europeans" exist. We do not know if the "Iranian Arya" and "Indian Arya" were born after Iranians and Indians got separated. This seems to be what the user wants. (I, personally, think that "Arya" was born before separation). By the way, I would like to point out that the Iranian Arya was written and we have it today (both in purely linguistic-religious meaning that Darius used in his OP language and also religious and ethnic & linguistic meaning used in Avesta -- apparently this Avesta like texts in Sanskrit was only later written up) but Old indic Arya was not written until many many centuries later.... I think having an article exclusively about the etymology of pre-19th century Arya is a good thing... Xashaiar (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * to user Xashaiar: The full sentence is "... some Iranians, influenced by Western racist thinkers, took pride in being Indo-Europens, or "Aryans" as they were also called until Hitler discredited the term by putting racial theory into horrible practice."But as Britannica states, nowadays the word Aryan is used only in the sense of Indo-Aryan languages; you can check that in one of the ref mentionned by user Khodabandeh14:


 * to user Khodabandeh14: I repeat once again, 'Iranian Arya' is not historically correct... By telling this you are misleading people... Historically, whether you like it or not, we find Sanskrit Arya & Iranian Airya/Ariya. Your argument, reason "In the Old Persian it is "ariyâ", Av. "airya", Greek "Arioi", "áreion", Bactrian "ariao", .. given the various spellings, Gnoli states: "All this evidence shows that the name arya “Iranian” was a collective definition, denoting peoples "[30] So the common spelling for all these terms s "Arya" in English language", in this case you should mention this before writing sentences such as 'Iranian Arya' else you are lying to people who read this article. I'm not breaking any Wikipedia rules, my refs are from serious, respected, competent scholars (Trautmann, etc.), & sources (Britannica, OED). The web links I have provided are just here for information, I had no intention to use them as refs. Your opinion on Encycopeadia Britannica is pure POV. Check what is told about Britannica Online in the wiki article on Britannica ("Contributions from non-academic users will sit in a separate section from the expert-generated Britannica content (...) Official Britannica material would carry a 'Britannica Checked' stamp, to distinguish it from user-generated content.", Aryan article carries the 'EBchecked' stamp!)... It is not because it does not tell what you want, you have to rejec it. Britannica along with OED is the most respected academical source in the English/Western world.


 * Concerning your statement "As per Parsis, in their own literature, the word Iran/Iranian is used which is a continuation of "Er/Ir"...ultimately leading to Arya..", The ref you gave does not tell this, please provide sources concerning Parsis else please do not assert such things. The fact that Parsis did not call themselves Airya or Ariya raises serious doubts on your claim that this word was a national, etchnical name...


 * Concerning your statement "The concept of Sanskrit "Arya".. was rediscovered by Western orientalists actually. Indians themselves never used it until the British came", I don't know where did you find it but this is pure POV. From the earliest history till now, the word Arya has been used in a very significant way (see Aryavarta, AryaDesha, AryaPura , Aryabhata, Bhaskaracharya, Mahaviracharya, Arya Samaj, etc.). There are hundreds (maybe thousand) of refs to Arya (written & pronounced in this way) in the Indian literature; on the contrary in the Iranian literature, there are no more than 10 refs (max a few dozens) to Ariya/Airya and its derivative...


 * Concerning: "However you did not quote him on page 13: "What made "Aryan" seem appropriate was it was not only the name Sanskrit speakers gave themselves, but it was also used by the speakers of Old Persian; indeed the name Iran is derived from a genitive plural of the word, meaning: "(land) of the Aryas"", even it is written by a scholar, 'Iran, land of the Aryas' is not correct because Iran is from Eran which must be from Airyanam, so a correct meaning, translation would be 'Iran means land of the Airyas'.


 * Concerning your ref : in this article written in 2002, Gnoli talks about Aryan languages and not ethnicity, by mixing these 2 things you are doing the same mistake as 19th/early 20th centuries scholars...


 * Concerning your ref, have you noticed what the author tells ? "... it is worth recalling that the word 'Aryan' has meaning only as a linguistic term...".


 * Please try to understand why so many serious sources such as Britannica, OED mnetion this: "Aryan from Sanskrit Arya 'Noble'"... You are pushing a Persian vision in English Wikipedia whereas I'm using the 2 most respected refs of the English world (OED & Britannica) to support my writtings. Thank you.Rajkris (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

To user Rajkris. Please avoid making such edits; for example this: "nowadays mostly restricted to Indo-Aryan languages". You claim to source it from [Encyclopaedia Britannica] (which is not a good source here). Even that source states " It is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages, a branch of the larger Indo-European language family." May I ask you how you got the idea that this sentence means "..scholarly usage..[of the term Aryan is] nowadays mostly restricted to [Indo-Aryan languages|Indo-Aryan]]" (this is what you have "actually" added). This is unacceptable (wp:synth, wp:nor, ..). Xashaiar (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed this content for the moment... But whether you like or not, nowadays it is mostly restricted to Indo Aryan languages (see my comment to you above). It is not because the source do not tell what you want you must consider it as bad one. If you want, we can ask for a third neutral opinion on that matter.Rajkris (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI: "As an adaptation of the Latin Arianus, referring to eastern part of ancient Persia, 'Arian'..." --> This is what is written in OED.Rajkris (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rajkrit as you know all Indo-European language has the same root so similarity in words are not so strange.mother and father words are similar in all Indo-European languages,but no one can say that they are derived from another language.the word aryan might be one of the proto-Indo-European words that is used by several languages of this language family also no one can dictate how another tribe should or shouldnt use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.145.224.4 (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead
I am concerned about this edit. It does violate wp:nor, wp:npov and many more. There was also an agreement about the lead. I propose reverting back to the older version and discuss the changes before making them. Xashaiar (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are the modifications I have done:


 * I have mentionned that "Aryan is from Sanskrit arya" according to OED, Britannica and other good sources.


 * I have replaced "Indo Iranian arya" (which was not sourced) by "Sanskrit arya" (by providing sources).


 * I have replaced "As an adaptation of the latin 'Arianus', referring to Iran, 'Aryan' has long been in English language use" by "As an adaptation of the latin 'Arianus', referring to eastern part of ancient Persia, 'Arian' has long been in English language use", because this is the sentence found in OED ! (the initial sentence was a clear maniputlation of OED source !).


 * I'm not violating Wikipedia rules, it is you on the contrary who is violating it by continuously removing sourced sentences. Rajkris (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Aryan is originally a Sanskrit word which got adopted as a loan word in the Persian language. Sanskrit language is much older than the Persian language (3,500 yrs vs 2,500 yrs). The fact that this word was adopted in to Latin / Greek through the Persian language doesn't mean that the original source (Sanskrit) is to be ignored. Anyway... with the addition of refs, this should not be a difficult issue to resolve. Axxn (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

original meaning of 'arya'
I read the following explanation by a Swami, can't remember his name or the title of his book (which was about Hinduism in general): original meaning of arya was 'to plough', it came to mean 'people of the plough', people of the plough led a settled existence and had the leisure time to develop a higher culture (in particular, exploring the nature of reality through their own consciousness), arya then came to mean cultured or noble and applied to any such group, regardless of ethnicity. From Sanskrit arya, to plough, we get Latin 'arare', to plough, and from this English 'arable'. Sorry I can't cite the source, Any comments? ashramgeezer 6 Oct2010--Ashramgeezer (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I also remember reading this, there is a book of poems that has an unknown author and its estimated time of writing is said to be between 1200BC and 500AD,the funny thing is i cant remember the name of it but i remember a statement that a 'noble one' is 'the plowman who lives off the crop that he works with his own hand.

would like to mention some already fixed in accordance fact contained in the text and there is historical evidence. 1 - The translation to indicate the root of the word, arya. 2 - The oldest attend founde in Behistun ( which accualy should be Bi Stun, Bi= With out AND Stun=Pillar),which is KrudStan. (Kurd Stan, or Kurd Stan (Stan the swidish Means Town))

3 - Kurdish as well as Persian is an Indo-European language.

4- Ary means in both Persian and kurdish (so long as I know): Free

So it's not a race but a way of being. If to be free from all the involuntary is precious so I can go with it to consider Ary as noble people. The lies in man's desire to be noble or free, or that you want to be, namely a Ary.

LyssnaLäs fonetiskt

Ordbok - Visa detaljerad ordbok Översätt över 50 språkescargotsπαραλίαआज मेरा जन्मदिन हैं.La voiturehaydi gidelimnazdar!mijn vriendWie heißen Sie?sư tử국수Es ist sehr interessant!Wie bitte?Wie spät ist es?hello¿Cómo estás?أحب كرة القدمHjelp!rougemiracolosoשמחПроститеVær så snillPardon ??Je parle un petit peu français.กาแฟhoje está ensolaradoมีสีสันχρησμόςdětiIch bin vierzig Jahre altJe ne sais pas !Wie gehts?Buongiorno Principessa! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.121.68.1 (talk) 07:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

kurds aryan
i wonder are the kurds descendents of the aryans who migraded too iranian plateu tell me why and how thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.66.142 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The talk page of an article is only meant for discussion relating to the improvement of the article. General questions about the subject can be asked at the reference desk, thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

unnecessary
Was it really necessary to write a whole article about one word. The bottom line is that it is a sanskrit word that was later adopted into the persian language and used by the Nazis. Theres no need to fuel iranian and western nationalist sentiments any more than they already have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.246.215 (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The iranians reffered themselfs as aryan due common origins as the Indo-aryans, are you saying that we Should ignore the iranian branch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.208.13.100 (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense comment. The name is an Indo-European word (specifically it's from Indo-Iranian branch), so all provided texts on this article are necessary and important. Also, this word/name is 100% related to Iranian peoples and their homelands (both ancient and modern), From ancient Medes, Parthians, Persians and the others to Modern Persians, Kurds, Tajiks, Pashtons and etc. Study about them. --Zyma (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

What a mess!
I came to this article for a quick check on the derivation and original meaning of this term only to be smothered under a horribly awkward first paragraph and messy enumeration of terms. Incidentally, although the racist connotations are distateful, in my view it would be better to address them at the start with a sentence along the lines of, erroneously adopted by white supremacists and Nazis who failed to understand the meaning of the term. As most people would expect to see this at the start (sadly), isn't it better to do so but be dismissive at the same time? Blitterbug (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The best solution to this and other problems already discussed in this talk page is in my opinion: make a Disambiguation and write something like
 * Arya, thus adjective and noun aryan, may refer to
 * Arya in Indian linguistic and other contexts (cf. Arya (Indian context))
 * Arya in Iranian linguistic context (cf. Arya (Iranian context))
 * Arya in European racial context (cf. Aryan (Nazi racial context))
 * The article has already all of these but one good editor should make the split. Xashaiar (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Nazis didn't adopt the word Aryan at all. The common translation of Aryan from English to German is Arier.  Also, although parts of Nazi occultism contains nonfactual information, many Nazis did not believe the claims it made.  Many things remain unclear: he Etymology of the word Aryan or Arier, how Indo-European language moved to Europe, and the exact origin and nature of the original speakers of the proto language.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.93.37 (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Aryan is a sanskrit word, not greek and it was referred to the ancient indo iranians
aryan is undoubtedly a sanskrit word, it is not a greek word and it was not referred to ariana, it was referred to the ancient indo iranians, some one has secretley changed and vandalized the page without the awareness of the admins or without concesus, please correct it, arian is sanskrit meaning noble and originally referred to the ancient indo iranians.thanks--Tabande (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody is telling the contrary. Aryan has it is root with Sanskrit Arya. But according to OED, the word Arian (with i) comes from Latin Arianus refering to Ariana.Rajkris (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

How can Aryan be a Sanskrit word when it was the Indo-Iranians that used it for themselves (even today)? --Diyairaniyanim (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Etyomology
I belive that the name "Aryan" has derived from the fire worshippers or the fire cult of the Indo-Iranians. These cults are still active today, for example the Kurdish Ezidis, or the Parsian in Northern India that practises Zoroastrism.

What's the name for "fire" in Indo-Iranian languages? In Kurdish it's "Agir" or "Ar". Thus, "Arî" would indicate someone who is a fire worshipper. The name has got noting to do with Europeans, that's just Nazi bullshit. And Aryans have never been associated with Blondes until the Romanticperiod (literature) of Europe, claiming tall and blonde Vikings conquered the entire world from Scandinavia and brought upon them their language. The Kurgan theory is based on this kind of bullshit. Has nothing to do with science, cause they're not looking at the subject neutrally. The oldest IndoEuropean people are found in the Middle East, and I think they came from these areas.

One more thing about Blondes. There are many fairhaired Kurds/Persians/Afghans. This doesn't automatically connect with Europeans. Why? Answer is simple, look at their facial features. A fairhaired Kurd doesn't have anything genetic in common with a fairhaired Swede, except for the hair colour. I have seen many of these. Many Mountainers among these people have these light features. Let us also not forget that in Europe, the people with most Blondes are Swedes and Russians, because of their cold climate. And up in the mountains, the climate is cold.

The gene for Blonde hair was developed in areas with cold climate making it easier for the skin to "grab" Vitamin D from the sun.

It's more logic to accept a theory were the IndoEuropeans either originated in Iran or Kurdistan, and then moved out to Europe (and of course northern India, who is just at the corner and have been a part of Median/Persian empires) because these cultures are much older and richer than the Europeans.

--Diyairaniyanim (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

WOW, so the Elamite rats think they are Aryans, and that's why they call themeselves Iranians ??? Thank God we have R1a1 to finally prove that these filthy rats were only "conquered" and "ruled" by Aryans, but they were never Aryans themelves !!! The whole history that these Elamite rats have fabricated will fall apart very soon, thanks to genetic testing! The Sassanid kings meant these are the lands of the Aryans in a medieval sense, as a property, not in a modern nationalistic sense, meaning that the rats are Aryans !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.3.65 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What the...? Did your entire world collapse now? Being Aryan is like mentioned above, not anything that suggests blondism! Aryan is something that we, the people of Kurdistan to India have called ourselves for thousands of years. It has nothing to do with your race/identity problems! Call yourself blonde/northernEuropean/whity or whatever you want, but the name Aryan suggests a fire cult, which some of our people still belong to today! Once again Aryan has nothing to do with looks! But you use our own name, to build up your identity, what a false person!

In the Middle East, we look down on people who deny their origins like you. Shit that don't even want to recognize his own father! You "northern Europeans" have NEVER called yourself Aryans, it has never been a tradition of that word in Europe, but in the romantic period of litterature (19th century), some of you cunts discovered the connection between our languages, and thought yourselves as conquerors.

Nothing good has come ouf of northern Europeans before the discovery of America. When you discovered America, (btw, Columbus was of the Mediterrean Race, not northern European), and when you got rid of the church and christianity, that's when good things started to come out of Europe in matters of science and culture. Before that you were just a bunch of retarded apes! Science, agriculture, all these have been developed in the Middle East and later spread to the Greeks (who also are Mediterrean) who developed it even more.

Let's call northern Europeans "whitys" from now on. Whitys claim themself to be of a strong warrior race. When did a white guy ever had the guts to challange someone to a fight? We live in your countries now, and we now know that most of you are pussys and cowards. What strong race? You're all skinny and weak, full of allergies and illnes.

Tell your Nazi friends, if there is ANY "Superior race" on this planet, then it must be the Jews! They have a very high frequency of succesful scientists and businesmen, many among these are among the elite of the world! Einstein, Bohr, the list is very long.

And now you call us "rats"? I wish for the moment, when we meet face to face, and where you will call me a rat, you will see what happens! --Diyairaniyanim (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Lede Needs Correction: Aryan is a Hindi word derived from Sanskrit
The lede section states that the english loanword Aryan is derived from Sanskrit. This is factually incorrect. While the word Arya is mentioned in sanskrit several times, the popular & documented use of Aryan is Hindi. So the english loanword is actually a pick-up from hindi & not directly from sanskrit. While the root for the word is surely sanskrit, the lede needs to be corrected as "Aryan is an english loanword from Hindi, whose roots are in the Sanskrit word Arya". That would make it more factual, or not ? -Ambar wiki (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Arianism and Arius
Arianism and Arius are both critical terms to include in the usage of "Aryan" etymology. The "nazi" related symbolism refers to Adolph Hitler in most cases, who was in fact a former soldier of Ottoman ambitions (WWI). In which section should this be added? Twillisjr (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What makes them critical terms? The Arianism article states that it's a teaching attributed to Arius (ca. AD 250–336).  This is where the "Ari" part of Arianism comes from, so the word has nothing to do with the etymology of Aryan.  They are just homophones.  The article goes through a lot of history but nothing mentioned happened after the 18th century.  There is nothing about Nazi symbolism or Adolph Hitler.  --76.119.93.37 (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Arya in Buddhism
I've create a separate article Arya (Buddhism) and in this context I have:
 * Added a link to the new article from the corresponding section on this page
 * Moved most of the information from this section into the new article, as is common in this cases. (That is, if there is a separate article for a topic, leave an overview for the topic on the main page (i.e. Aryan) and then do most of the development of the topic within the new article.)

This term is used frequently within Buddhism and it has a specific meaning within that context, so it will be very helpful to have a separate page to link to from other articles on Buddhism. I also plan to develop the new article further. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * p.s. Is there a source for the translation of arya as "exalted" within a Buddhist context. It makes sense to me, but it would help to have a specific source. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Restructuring the article and some things to consider here.
There are some issues that people seem to be ignoring here. Some of the controversy here could be avoided if people looked at these issues separately.

People are debating over what language the word "Aryan" is in. If you look on http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Aryan, you can look at translations of the English word Aryan into different languages. It appears that "Aryan" is only an English word. Arya is a Sanskrit word, and the popular view is that Aryan derives from it or some closely related ancient language. When pronunciations and meanings change, words change. A lot of languages have translations of the word Aryan, but they are *different* words. Aryan only means something in English. The translation of Aryan to other languages don't necessarily preserve the exact meaning, and it doesn't make sense to talk about what "Aryan" means in a language other than English. I think that any discussions about meanings of words in other language should not mention the word Aryan and state the word we are talking about. There should at least always be the translation.

Since Etymology is the study of the history of words and changes in their meaning, there should not be a separate History section. If there is also to be a separate section about usage, I think it should probably only contain information about contemporary usage of the word Aryan or contemporary use of its translations in other languages. --76.119.93.37 (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Aryan is not of dated usage in white countries
The categorization is wrong. User:Rajkris reverted an edit, where I gave the example of Aryan Brotherhood. I probably could give many more examples of the Neo-nazi scene.--Dravidianhero (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry but it is about scholary & general usage and in this case it is dated... The fact the that a minority group call themselves aryan is not relevant and by adding them, you give to them an importance they don't have.Rajkris (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * fyi, in the past the notion of White = Aryan was widely supported among european societies (not only among nationalists or extremists). This is not at all the case now.Rajkris (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nowadays, European nationalist parties do not use the term Aryan to designate themselves, only a very little minority (less than 1% of the european society... Neo Nazis..) still uses that but they do not represent at all the white/european society.Rajkris (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since when have minorities become unnotable? The Aryan brotherhood has an own wikipedia article. Who are you to determine which content is relevant and which not?--Dravidianhero (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * and which political parties used Aryan in the past??--Dravidianhero (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * More orgs: White Aryan Resistance, Aryan Nations, Aryan Republican Army--Dravidianhero (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You are right but no need to add extrmists groups links in this article, I think but as you wish.Rajkris (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

RV 8.8.9
Thus it is possible, according to Talageri, that at one point Arya did refer to a specific tribe. "Brahma of glory is he to whom both the Aryans and the Dasas belong" (RV 8.8.9).[37]

There is a big problem with the quote here. RV 8.8.9 says nothing about the Aryans or the Dasas. This is what RV 8.8.9 does say: "The holy singer with his hymns hath called you, Aśvins, hither-ward; Best Vṛtra-slayers, free from stain, as such bring us felicity." - Trans. Griffith

This quote needs to either be deleted or the correct reference should be supplied along with the quote.

First appearance of the word Aryan verbatim in the west
As an adaptation of Latin Arianus referring to Ariana, 'Arian' has "long been in English language use".[35] Its history as a loan word began in the late 18th century, when the word was borrowed from Sanskrit ārya[1] to refer to speakers of North Indian languages.[35]

Are you sure that Arian was a word borrowed from Sanskrit arya? Could you provide a quote from your source? To the best of my knowledge the form Aryan first appeared in the west as Arian in M. De Sacy's decipherment of the Parthian VryVn in Sassanian Imperial inscriptions, published in his Memoire sr les Inscriptions de Nakschi-Roustan pg. 76 in 1791. Later to distinguish from Ariu's religious sect the -i- in Arian was replaced with a -y-. Unless someone could show the form Arian or Aryan appearing in a text before this time I think we should note this fact. The earliest attestation of usage Arya in the west I could find was in The Works of Sir William Jones pg. 243. It was in reference to the Indic speakers and this was in 1807.


 * This fact is already mentionned (check Latin chapter). But the ref does not tell exactly what you mentionned.Rajkris (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well then tell me exactly what the source you cited says because my source is a primary source and it dates to 1791 and there is no indication that Arian was a borrowing from Sanskrit Arya. In the source I mentioned Arian was a translation of Parthian -ry-n.


 * Yes it is a sanskrit, this is what sources and most distinguished ones (OED & Britannica) say. This topic has already been discussed (see above). No need to discuss again.Rajkris (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No its not sanskrit. If anything its derived from reconstruction of both Avestan airya and Sanskrit arya which is the reconstructed Indo-Iranian *arya. And as I have shown Arian was being used in reference to the Iranians in 1791 while Arya was still being used in reference to the Indics 1807.


 * See references above, all tell that Aryan is from Sanskrit Arya. Please provide proper refs telling that Arian was used to designate Iranians.20:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * And fyi, we don't use primary sources in wikipedia.Rajkris (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said the source is M. De Sacy's Memoire sr les Inscriptions de Nakschi-Roustan pg. 76 1791. He uses the term Arian as a translation of Parthian -ry-n. There is no -n form in Sanskrit. Provide a quote from your source Oxford University Press pg. 672 that shows that the word Arian was derived from Sanskrit and that this happened before 1791 or else I'm going to edit what you have written to show that the form Arian first appeared in 1791 in reference to the Iranians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojobadshah (talk • contribs) 20:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

OED and Britanica are dictionaries and Encyclopedias. They are not extensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojobadshah (talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Rajkris, you are wrong about this and your silly nationalistic attitude has been holding this article hostage for far too long. There really shouldn't be any argument about whether it is Iranian or Sanskrit, since it is clearly both. Trying to claim priority is really rather, well, childish. We are supposed to be informing the reader. There's no doubt that "Arian" was used to mean Iranian. The fact that it is spelled with an I is irrelevant, since there was no established spelling at that time. We should give the full range of sources. Paul B (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have never told that Arian is from Sanskrit. I am going to provide what is writtne is OED.Rajkris (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Rajkris, you repeat this mantra about the OED over and over. The detailed discussion higher up this page by User:Khodabandeh14 explains the position of scholarship well, but your response is just to repeat the same statements in circles. We need to give a full picture. Paul B (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Paul, it is you who initially shew me the OED ref first!... You did so to prevent me to edit this page 2 or 3 years ago!... I then checked OED & here is what i found:


 * "Aryan: Etymology: Sanskrit ārya, in the later language ‘noble, of good family,’ but apparently in earlier use a national name ‘comprising the worshippers of the gods of the Brahmans’ (Max Müller); compare Avestan airya ‘venerable,’ also a national name, and Old Persian (Achaemenian) ariya national name (applied to himself by Darius Hystaspes); whence probably Greek Ἀρεία, Ἀρία , Latin Arīa , Aria , and Ariāna , the eastern part of ancient Persia, and Pehlevi and modern Persian Irân ‘Persia.’ As a translation of Latin Ariānus ‘of Aria or Ariana,’ Arian has long been in English use: Aryan is of recent introduction in Comparative Philology, and is also by many written Arian , on the ground that āria was the original word, as shown by the Vedic language, ārya being only the later Sanskrit form; the spelling Aryan has the advantage of distinguishing the word Arian < Arian n.2 and adj.2 in Church Hist..Rajkris (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No one is denying that it comes from Sanskrit. But is also comes from Avestan, and that's what the OED itself seems to say. We should give both sources rather that try to "claim" ownership of the work. The OED lists Sanskrit first but also gives Avestan. Paul B (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Fyi, I am not an Indian Aryan nationalist (I'm from South India). I am just trying to keep this article freem from western, iranian & indian extremists. This user wants to add things without proper refs and you are defending him !... This is unbelievable!... This user is refering to a world which has collapsed more than 1500 years ago, he wants to promote a vision which does not correspond to historical realities, these are inventions from 20th century nationalistics ideology. Iran is a muslim country for more than 1500 years and do not recognise themselves in such things (that's why the Shah of Iran has been fired: he was trying to promote this idiology & the iranians did not understand him). Only less than 0,1% of Iranians wish to promote this fake, invented ideolofy.Rajkris (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It's my understanding that Arya in reference to both the Avestan and Vedic people was derived from its reconstructed form *arya. Arian certainly came into use among the French in in 1791 reference to the Iranians as a translation of Parthian and Sassanian inscriptions. The Greeks and Romans used forms very similar to Arian. "Arian has long been in English use" is vague, but my guess is that it appeared after M. De Sacy's work was published. I've scanned google books and I can't find evidence of Arian before this time. On the Aryan page it specifically says that the form Arian is derived from the Sanskrit arya, but that is simply not the case. I'm inclined to think that Arian and Arya coexisted as designations of the Iranians and the Indians, respectively. In 1844 James Cowlse Prichard's Researches Into the Physical History of Mankid Arya is used to designate the Hindu caste and Arian to designate the Iranians. In 1847 in Karl Otfried Muller’s Ancient art and its remains the form Arian is used to designate the Iranians. By 1857 in Edward Henry Nolan's The illustrated history of the British empire in India and the East Arian is finally used to designate all three Iranians, Indics, and Indo-Europeans. By WWII the form Aryan as a designation of the pure or “Master Race” of Indo-Europeans first appeared in an English translation of Mein Kampf in The Times. 24.193.41.39 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We are not asking for 'Your understanding' or 'Your guess' but for proper refs, see what is written about Arian in OED in 2013 (by proper scholars). You mentionned French but here it is about the English word Aryan (& see the multiple refs I have provided above about the root of this word). The word Arian is clearly mentioned in this article based on the infos provided by OED.Rajkris (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Its only logical that the common ancestors of both the Avestan airya and the Vedic arya were the Proto-Indo-Iranian *arya is it not? Mojobadshah24.193.41.39 (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You are telling that Arian was used to designate Iranians. You are basing your claim on a book written by a French guy in 1791. Please provide a proper ref to that article (link). I really have doubts on that. Fyi, a few years ago, it was written in this article that 'Arian has long been used in English language to refer to Iran or Iranians...' and the ref for this sentence was OED (it was one of thoses edits which were defended by Paul B. & some others against me & my wish to do some changes to that article... One of their argument was these could not be changed because they were referenced by OED, the English ref by definition...). I then checked OED (bought a lincence for that) & found it was wrong !... According to OED, 'Arian was used to designate Ariana, the eastern part of ancient Persia (that is Souht East Afghanistan). I need a very clear link, mentioning exactly 'Arian was used to designate the Iranian people'.Rajkris (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming the form was Aryan, but more probably Arian because M. De Sacy translated the Parthian -ry-n in 1791 and it is only after this time that the form Arian came to designate the Iranians exclusively whereas the Indians are still being called Arya. See "ÊRÂN & ÊRÂSHAHR" Iran the Land of Aryans" for the Parthian inscriptions that were deciphered. Mojobadshah24.193.41.39 (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This edit is clearly WP:OR as it is a general claim sourced with a primary source. As such it is not acceptable according to Wikipedia policy of verifiability. Please find some reliable secondary sources that supports such a claim, then we can discuss the relevance of the edit. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. This is a secondary source. It discusses the Sassanian Inscriptions. This source is no different than any of the other sources on wikipedia. It is totally appropriate for wikipedia. It involves the decipherment and findings of M. De Sacy. It was written by M. De Sacy in regards to the Sassanian imperial inscriptions. If you can't find a source that refers to the Arian in reference to the Indians before this time, I suggest that we make a note of the introduction of this terminology to the west. The OED you cited is limited. This source shows that the form Arian was first used as a translation of the Parthian -ry-n in Sassanian Royal Inscriptions. In this case it was not derived from the root Arya. The book is posted on the internet. You can read it yourself. The point is that the form Arian appeared in the west in reference to the Iranians in 1791. OED doesn't cite its sources. It's not extensive. For all we know the English is derived from the French. If you can show that the form Arian appears in reference to the Indians before M. De Sacy I would be glad to see it. Otherwise this is a pivotal fact. Moreover even if the English Arian was derived from Arya as I have previously shown it is used exclusively to designate the Iranians up until 1857. Mojobadshah24.193.41.39 (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That particular source is from 1793. For general statements like that we need good contemporary academic sources, especially because a lot has happened in that field in the last 200 years. So that particular source does unfortunately not qualify as a valid citation for such a claim. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Please give us facts, proper recent refs and avoid pov such as "The OED you cited is limited" (who are you to tell that ???), "You can read it yourself" (it is you who want to do changes and for that you must provide proper refs because I have a proper ref which is in contradiction with your claim), "For all we know the English is derived from French" (yes partly only and much before 1791 !)... Learn wiki rules else leave. Thank you.Rajkris (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That's very nice that OED can say Aryan is this and Aryan is that, but without proper references why should I or anyone else trust the source. I've shown to you that the Naqsh-i-Rustam inscriptions were translated by M. De Sacy in 1791 and these included the Parthian inscriptions which include the word Aryan and Anarayn verbatim. It is only after this point that the term Arian is used exclusively for the Iranians. I've listed my sources, and there is nothing wrong with them. Now I've asked you SEVERAL times now to show me a source other than the infallible OED and Brittanica that shows that ANYONE called the Indians Arians before 1791-1857. To be nice I will cite my sources again:

1791 M. De Sacy deciphered the Naqsh-i-Rustam inscriptions which include the Parthian Aryan and Anaryan "ÊRÂN & ÊRÂSHAHR" Iran the Land of Aryans"

1807 Sir William Jones, The works of Sir William Jones pg. 243 uses Arya in reference to the Indic speakers

1844 James Cowles Prichard, Researches Into the Physical History of Mankid, Vol. 4 pg. 33 uses Arya in reference to the Hindus and Arian in reference to the Iranians

1847 Karl Otfried Müller Trans. John Leitch, Ancient art and its remains: or a manual of the archaeology of art pg. 219 uses Arian in reference to the Iranians

1850 Professor F. Bopp Trans. Lieutenant Eastwick, M.R.A.S., A comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German, and Sclavonic Languages pg. 1215 uses Arian in reference to the Iranians

1857 Edward Henry Nolan, The illustrated history of the British empire in India and the East pg. 64 uses Arian in reference the the Iranians, Indics, and Indo-Euroepans Mojobadshah24.193.41.39 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Listen, everything is clear from my side & user Saddhiyama. What we have you told you is very clear. OED is very clear about Aryan, Arian, etc. Just read it carefully and also refs I have given above (3 years ago). OED is written by proper modern scholars with proper refs. Accept or leave. You can always edit your pov but I will revert it & you will be banned from editing. You are warned.Rajkris (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I would just like you to consider that maybe OED is not extensive enough and that it is possible Arian is actually derived from root other than Skr. Arya. All I'm asking is to show me a source other than OED that says that the Indians were called Arians before 1841. I actually have a correction to make. James Cowles Prichard in 1844 uses Arian to refer to both the Indians and the Iranians, but I found an even earlier sources that seems to indicate that Arian is derived from Ariana. The source is Horace Hayman Wilson and Chalres Masson's Ariana Antiqua 1841. He uses Arian as a noun for a few place-names and here Arian looks to be derived from Ariana not Skr. Aria/Arya. And subsequently Karl Otfried Muller (1847) and Professor F. Bopp Trans. Lieutenant Eastwick (1850) only use Arian in reference to the Iranians. Can you at least provide a source other than OED that shows the form Arian was used in reference to the Indians prior to 1841? Mojobadshah 24.193.41.39 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Arian is derivided from Ariana, this what OED say: As a translation of Latin Ariānus ‘of Aria or Ariana (the eastern part of ancient Persia),’ Arian has long been in English use: Aryan is of recent introduction in Comparative Philology, and is also by many written Arian, on the ground that āria was the original word, as shown by the Vedic language, ārya being only the later Sanskrit form; the spelling Aryan has the advantage of distinguishing the word Arian (see Arius). I will add this in the Etymology section.Rajkris (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This OED etymology dictionary may help also:

Aryan, Arian Indo-European; also (restrictedly) Indo-Iranian. XIX (Max Muller). f. Skr. aryas (Vedic aria) noble, applied earlier as a national name Cf L. Ariana, -e eastern region of the Persian kingdom (Ariani, eni its inhabitants), Gr. A'rioi Medes (Herodotus, Ariane (Strabo), Arianoi; cf. Av. Airyana, whence mod. Iran. Cf. F. arien, G. arisch, sb. pl. Arier. See -AN

Arian must be a translation of Ariani. OK so we're in agreement Arian is derived from Ariana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.41.39 (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Its history as a loan word began in the late 18th century, when the word was borrowed from Sanskrit ārya[1] to refer to speakers of North Indian languages.[36]

I have issues with this statement. Based on my research the form Arian was first used in 1601 in Holland's translation of Pliny's Natural History. There Arian was a stand-in for Ariana. And James Cowles Prichard appears to be the one who first used the term Arian thereafter. According to Prichard (1844) both the Brahmans and Iranians called themselves Aria. It's apparent that the Iranians never called themselves Aria however. He must have been confusing Aria (Herat) with Ariana (Airyana). According to the statement above: the form Arian as a loan word began in the late 18th century to refer to the speakers of North India, but as far as the sources can show only the form Arya was used exclusively to designate the Indians. Kindly provide a source other than the OED that shows the the form Arian and not Arya was used in reference to the North Indian languages in the late 18th century or remove this line. Mojobadshah24.193.41.39 (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is Aryan which began as loanword... Anyway, this sentence is not mentionned in OED, so I don't mind... But I too have issues with your modification: "The history of the form Arian as a loan word began in 1601 when Philemon Holland substituted the phrase "region of the Arians" for Ariana the Latin rendering for the land mainly east of ancient Persia...". Because, in OED, P. Holland is mentionned as ref & here is the exact sentence of his translation !:" The region of the Arianes, all scorched and senged with the parching heate of the Sunne." Rajkris (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This chapter is not accurate: it does not cite the Holland ref properly as I mentioned above. I will rewrite.Rajkris (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

detailed discussion of the term 'aryan'
I am publishing my sixth research paper directly online as it is an extension of my previous papers. Kindly read pages 4 to 18 as it contains a detailed discussion of the term ‘Aryan’. This paper explains why the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus theories are not tenable. http://www.scribd.com/doc/136268397/The-demise-of-the-Dravidian-Vedic-and-Paramunda-Indus-myths Methods to reconstruct the languages of the Harappans were presented in the present and previous papers. The older papers were written taking the 19th century school of Indology as a base and working backwards. These may appear to be outdated now (at the end of our very long journey). However, the fundamentals are still correct Part one http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One Part Two very,very important! http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two the first 5 papers were published in peer-reviewed journals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.72.239.115 (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Sujay Rao Mandavilli sujayrao2012@gmail.com — 182.72.239.115 (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Etymology
Hi!

Currently there is no doubt about the etymology. The word derives from the root meaning "fitting", "honest" and reflected in many other words, such as artist, army, harmony, rite and aristocracy.--Anixx1 (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Aryan derived from Sanskrit AND/OR Avestan
Why is it listed that Aryan is derived from just Sanskrit? It should say it was derived from Sanskrit AND/OR Avestan, both are sister languages, both come from a common proto indo iranian language.

From Avestan it was Airya, from Sanskrit Arya

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/

Airya has been used in Avestan Texts over 30 times http://www.zoroastrian.org/articles/Iran_Turan_in_Avesta.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airyanem_Vaejah

More reading http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iranian-identity-ii-pre-islamic-period

Can someone please edit this on the main page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.30.23 (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)