Talk:Indo-Aryan peoples

"Indo-Aryan" is a Wikipedia editor's Invention
Hi can someone help start a vote to convert all references an articles from "Indo-Aryan" to Indic? Indic is the long-standing, proper and academically-recognized linguistic and ethnic designation for this group of languages, and always has been.

Main reasons (there are more):
 * - "Indo-Aryan" causes confusion among both laymen and Academic circles, anthropologists and linguistics specialists, who have always designated this class of languages and ethnicities as Indic, not Indo-Aryan. Having two designations for the same language group is just a bad idea, not to mention "Indo-Aryan" as a language group or ethnicity group has no basis in fact.
 * - There is no such thing as an Aryan language, nor is Indic exclusively an "Aryan" ethnicity.

In addition to the Indo-Aryan languages articles, someone has also started a series of fictitious articles based on "Indo-Aryan people" which is equally ridiculous and an attempt to introduce baseless, poorly researched, Original Research into Wikipedia.

Looking forward to some cooperation among editors on fixing this major issue.Xoltron (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Quote: anthropologists and linguistics specialists, who have always designated this class of languages and ethnicities as Indic, not Indo-Aryan. Talking about linguistics, what are the following scholarly standard reference works then, chopped liver?
 * Masica, Colin (1991). The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge University Press.
 * Cardona, George; Jain, Dhanesh (eds.) (2003). The Indo-Aryan languages. London: Routledge.
 * Cardona, George; Luraghi, Silvia (2009). "Indo-Aryan Languages", in Comrie, B. (ed.), The World’s Major Languages. London: Routledge.
 * Munshi, S. (2009). "Indo-Aryan Languages", in Brown, K. & Ogilvie, S. (eds.), Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World. Oxford: Elsevier.
 * "Indo-Aryan", Ethnologue.
 * "Family: Indo-Aryan", Glottolog.
 * I could cite hundreds of linguistic works about comparative linguistics, typology, syntax, all of which use "Indo-Aryan" to denote this subbranch of IE. "Indic" is a valid alternative term which has gained some currency, but this doesn't render "Indo-Aryan languages" with no basis in fact. To say that specialists [...] have always designated this class of languages [...] as Indic betrays an unfamiliarity with the existing literature that shouldn't be the starting point for a "vote"
 * Btw, we don't have an article Indo-Aryan people. It's plural Indo-Aryan peoples, and much good work has gone into it (notably by @) to unbullshit earlier versions which indeed were full with OR. –Austronesier (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

the brahmin ethnic group are indo aryan
the brahmin ethnic group all around india are speakers and bearers of the indo aryan language sanskrit since their very first migration from the banks of the river saraswati in modern day kashmir and haryana. they deserve a mention in this article as well. Temporary 1010 (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Labelling wusun just as CAUCASIAN is misleading
as per sources, wusun are suggested to be what is now obselete caucasian race/caucasoid which is different from the modern usage of term 'caucasion' exclusively used for white population by many countries and should not be used in the context of this article. EXTREMELY misleading. Caucasoid has been used as an umbrella term for phenotypically similar groups from different regions, with a focus on skeletal anatomy, and especially cranial morphology, without regard to skin tone. read the wusun page as well. someone cleverly put this term here for pov pushing. This obsession of white ethno nationalists/supremacists to relate with anything aryan is extremely dangerous. user@Manticore reverted the edit claiming it to be a rant when ITS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN SOURCES AS WELL AS PAGE of wusun.one has to be either brain dead or full of propaganda to disregard this misleading representation. The difference between caucasian race/caucasoid and modern usage of caucasian term is also clearly mentioned in Caucasian race page. As 'caucasian' term is still used exclusively for a specific population based on skin color it SHOULD not be used here. It should be changed to CAUCASOID or EUROPID. altough the question is why would anyone classify wusun as an obselete racial classification anyway? and if it is necessary why wud someone deliberately use a term that is still used to denote a certain population based on skin color in contrast to that obselete racial classification which was not based on skin color? hoping for rational admins to take a look into this. but i do feel the page is hijacked by aryan obsessed neo nazis who would do anything(including misleading information and misrepresentation) to satisfy their false ego and pseudo pride. Observer1989 (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * one more reference for wusun described as caucasoid :
 * Maenchen-Helfen 1973, pp. 369–375 Observer1989 (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Sock puppet edits
@Capitals00 how is this forking? Also the fact you called a now confirmed sock puppet as blocked for "unrelated reasons" is suspicious in itself. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * He was not blocked over this page, neither he was alone with reverting your POVFORKING back in the day. I had reverted for the same reasons. That's why your resumption of edit war looks disruptive.
 * This article is specifically about what is Indo-Aryan. You have admitted yourself in edit summaries that you copied the content from various other articles. You don't have to turn this article into a POVFORK. Capitals00 (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no Wikipedia policy stating that content at one article cannot be copied into another, as long as attribution is provided. This is simply as a start to expand it. Neither it is a violation to which I have "admitted". Nor the article has GA status, to which any major edits cannot be made. This history section is short for the topic, for parallel, see Iranian people.
 * Also you need to explain how is it a ""POV forking". (emphasis on POV) What POV you think I want to add here?
 * So far, I feel like you are wrongfully defending a sock here. If you're not still convinced, I can ask for a third opinion over this. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLOCKEVASION is very clear about it: you can revert any edit without further reason only if it was made in violation of an exisiting block. This is apparently not the case here. Also, note the first objection came from someone else. So the WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus why we need to massively duplicate content from other articles here, instead of briefly summarizing what is already discussed in detail somewhere else. –Austronesier (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Austronesier. To be clear, I don't want to duplicate whatever content exists on Wikipedia; it's only that I feel the present history section is too short for the topic, and does need expansion. It does not even covers all of its aspect. The article, as a whole, is not in a very good shape.
 * Also, previous edits were made around 10 months ago, when I was still a new editor, and found the best way for expansion to use content that already existed. Now, I feel that I can modify and add to reflect the topic. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * plus, the content added was essentially a summary; I didn't even add whole paras. And I did plan to rewrite the section. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC).
 * Its not a summary but duplication of article. That will do nothing but reduce the accuracy of this article. This is why I am opposed to this POVFORKING.Capitals00 (talk) 08:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you still need to explain how is this a "POV" forking. What POV you think I am intending to add here? Sutyarashi (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you understand from "duplicating" the content into an otherwise subject-based article? That is POVFORKING and it cannot be done without consensus. Capitals00 (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not WP:POV forking, which means creating a new article just for the sake of promoting a POV. That is definitely not the case here.
 * The minimum you could do was to at least cite a correct project link before reverting others. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Content forking is not necessarily POV-forking. It could also be simply redundant. For a better text flow, it is perfectly fine to have some redundancies, but one should always aim at a main/summary hierarchy of articles. A general issue with redundancies is the sychronization problem. E.g things are changed here but not in the main article and vice versa. This might indeed result in POV-forks if not constantly monitored. –Austronesier (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You're right. However, how should then I expand present history section? By making no use of references and content on the related articles? Sutyarashi (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have taken a look at both versions side-by-side. I think that for the Sintashta and Andronovo cultures and the BMAC, the old short version condensed into a single paragraph is more readable and doesn't give too much detail to what is pre-pre-Indo-Aryan prehistory (although of course with sufficient detail in order not to give even a straw to Indigenous Aryanism). Being a bit more eloborate about the Vedic period is fine, especially since this is the only period where "Indo-Aryan" was a meaningful marker for more than just linguistic affiliation. But not beyond that period. To paint subsequent South Asian history in a "Indo-Aryan" vs "Dravidan" dichotomy (why else would we speak of the Maratha Empire as an "Indo-Aryan" one?) is not quite the approach of modern mainstream scholarship. With the Sankritzation of the south and east, all kingdoms and empires had their share in the Indo-Aryan heritage. –Austronesier (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)