Talk:Out of India theory/Archive 8

Parpola's Gandhara claim
Since you claim to have read Parpola's article, why don't you provide the page number where this particular claim is made. This claim was challenged around Dec 2006 (see above "Urheimat section: Gandhara comment"). Dab first provide Parpola 2005 as reference. I checked that and there is no mention of this. Then he suggested [Indo-Iranian], then he changed to Parpola (1999). I have asked for page number since that time, no response yet. I have waited since Dec for correct reference, I can wait couple of more days.Sbhushan 17:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's take this slowly, okay? First, Swat is in Gandhara.  Yes, I know, that's shocking, but it's true.  Nothing we can do about that, so let's move on.  Next, on the basis of what the word urheimat means, "Rigvedic Urheimat" means where the speakers of Proto-Rigvedic, i.e. the immediate precursor, were, when the Rgvedic language evolved.  Are you with us, so far?  Good.  Now, Parpola(1999) identifies the Swat Culture with Proto-Rigvedic.  From that, it should be clear to everyone, including my sainted grandmother, that in Parpola's reconstruction, the Rgvedic language emerged in Gandhara. Oh, you mean you were looking for Parpola to have said exactly "Gandhara is the Rigvedic Urheimat". otherwise you're going to slap an  tag right smack there?  Gee, go ahead.  rudra 19:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * your combination of saintly patience and hilarity cracks me up every time :) dab (𒁳) 20:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys amaze me. You just confirmed that Parpola has NOT said "Gandhara is the Rigvedic Urheimat" and then you try to sell a whole lot of original research. Take a look at WP:ATT, WP:NOR and WP:ENC. The key statement is Original research includes [...] any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position.

You have also confirmed that since Dec 2006 Dab tried to push his POV and now we have a new defender to follow in Dab's footstep. How do you propose to protect integrity of Wikipedia by publishing original research???Sbhushan 11:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Rudra after all your cliams to subject matter expertise and knowledge, is this Gandhara claim the best you can come up with? As requested last time [], can you demostrate your knowledge by adding good verifiable content on this and the related topic. Original reserach only shows your ignorance of topic.Sbhushan 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sbhushan, the paragraph summarizes exactly the gist of Parpola's suggestion (not "claim"). If you are unable to follow the argument, you can hardly blame that on us. Maybe you should find a topic more fitted to your cognitive faculties instead. We cannot be expected to dumb this down to simple: level just because one reader found it too difficult. Summarizing the content of a paper is not the same as misrepresenting it, which is what the policy you quote at us refers to. You should know all about misrepresentation, as Rudra points out with angelic patience above re your doctored "citations" of Bryant. The crucial difference between Rudra and you? Rudra is aware of the pertaining literature, and wants to reflect the content of that literature in the article, no self: good for Wikipedia. You have your opinion, which you picked up god knows where, probably on the internet, and you are scavenging the literature for anything that sounds as if it would support what you decided you want the article to say: bad for Wikipedia. Unless you wisen up and realize what Wikipedia is about, you will have little joy here. dab (𒁳) 15:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you make an accusation, be ready to back it up. The history of you providing multiple citation for this one comment are: parpola 2005, Indo-Iranian, Parpola 1999 and now Rudra confirming that Parpola has not made that statement in any of these documents. This is only one sentence here, I can provide a history of both of you doing same thing on multiple articles. BTW, Gandhara was part of RV geography, so Parpola's comment are actual supporting Out of India argument of no migration/homeland out side of known geography. The current international boundaries were not known to Rigvedic Aryans.Sbhushan 15:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * another violation of the very policy you just quoted: while the isolated fact "Parpola said Proto-Rigvedic was spoken in Gandhara" would neither contradict nor "support" the OIT, the paper of course derives Swat < Alakul-Fedorovo < Petrovka-Sintashta . You have either not even looked at the article, in which case you are idly wasting our time, or you have looked at it and chose to consciously misrepresent it, in which case you are trolling, or you have looked at it, but not understood a single word, in which case I repeat that you might better invest your energies elsewhere. dab (𒁳) 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarify your comments, are you now arguing that Gandhara was not known to Rigvedic Aryan. In "Memories of an Urheimat" OIT arguement is that Rigvedic Aryan's don't retain any memory of migration from region outside of geographic region known to them.Sbhushan 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * my comments are perfectly plain. You are once again trying to muddy the issue by non-sequiturs. This is not a debate. dab (𒁳) 15:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for verification of quote
Please see Michael Witzel, Rgvedic history: poets, chieftains and politics, in: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity. The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, ed. G. Erdosy, Berlin/New York (de Gruyter) 1995. []. The Hydronomy section starts at page 133. The 3 quotes are from page 133&mdash;134, 135 and 139. I have addressed your question, so please insert the text back in the article. Surprisingly, you did not question the quote from Krahe which is dated and incorrect, and is in conflict with Witzel (1995) and Theo Vennemann (1994). How about you remove that now?Sbhushan 23:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The pages you gave me do not contain the Witzel quotes in question. In fact, that chapter is not written by Witzel at all. JFD 02:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Try again, but look at the page numbers at the top of the page rather than the page number of the PDF file. On the PDF file, it's page number 49. If you go to page number 49 of the PDF file, you'll see the section that begins with Hydronomy, and the number 133 at the top, indicating the page number of the original text. The following page is numbered 134 at the top of the page and also says Michael Witzel at the top of that page, which is page number 50 of the PDF file. If you still can't find it, I'll copy and paste it here. Or you can use the search function in Adobe Acrobat and find the quotes that way. &#2384; Priyanath talk 03:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * PDF? I'm consulting an actual copy of the book. JFD 03:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm using the link that Sbhushan provided above, which is a digital copy of the book. I believe that also qualifies as an 'actual' copy in this day and age of the electronic encyclopedia (Wikipedia). You might like to click on that link and read it for yourself. That way you can compare the PDF (digital) copy and the 'actual' copy and see what the discrepancy is. Perhaps they are different editions. Considering that the link provided by Sbhushan to the digital copy of the book is on Witzel's own section of the Harvard University website, it surely is reliable. Once you look at the digital version, turn to page 104-106 in your version of the book. I think you might find that the 'digital' version is the same as the 'actual' version, except for the page numbering, which is common in different editions of books. &#2384; Priyanath talk 04:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the correct pages. I took the opportunity to read the chapter myself.

Two points:

1. It is Talageri, not Witzel, who uses hydronomy in support of the Out of India theory, and it is both misleading and inaccurate to attribute those inferences to Witzel, especially given that the two of them draw such radically different conclusions.

2. Citations must be accurate.

A vague description like "Published volume (1995) of the papers presented during a conference on Archaeological and Linguistic Approaches to Ethnicity in Ancient South Asia, held in Toronto on 4th-6th October 1991" is, as a citation, useless and unacceptable. At the very least, a citation ought to contain the title.

Talageri draws not on "Rgvedic history: poets, chieftains and politics," as Sbhushan states above, but "Early Indian history: Linguistic and textual parametres," which brings us to my next point: a citation ought to contain the correct title.

Lastly, a word of advice. I have had the good fortune to receive advance review copies of books from time to time. These are uncorrected galleys sent to book reviewers ahead of the official publication date so that book reviews can be written in time to appear in newspapers and magazines at the same time that a book comes out. Advance copies of non-fiction books typically contain a warning that they are not to be cited academically. For one thing, corrections are sometimes made between the printing of an uncorrected galley and the official publication date. For another, changes in layout often render page number references inaccurate.

So I would hesitate before assuming that a digital copy of "2 uncorrected files" (as the PDF says at the top of the very first page) qualifies as an "actual copy".

JFD 13:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The first line in linguistic section states OIT proponents have used the arguments presented by linguistic scholars to show that either the linguistic evidence is inconclusive or supports OIT hypothesis. To give you brief history of why it was presented this way, an objection was raised earlier that Elst, Talageri, Kazanas are not linguistic scholars.  They have never claimed to be linguistic scholars; they have provided arguments presented by linguistic scholars to show that the mainstream scholars contradict themselves.  Nothing wrong with that approach, Witzel quotes Hock, Parpola etc. all the time.  Witzel is most vocal AMT proponent and it is funny how many times he contradicts himself.  Witzel reviewed Talageri's book  and did not object to him quoting Witzel.  Witzel has been quoted by Bryant, Elst, Kazanas etc.  Are you saying that these quotes are incorrect and Witzel never said this?  Witzel's same paper has been published in number of publications under different names.  So page number depends on which document/revision you are looking at.  It is a fact that river names are Indo-Aryan and a fact that the area in question was heavily populated.  Witzel agrees that the change in river name in spite of the well-known conservatism of river names is especially surprising (page 139 as above).  Witzel assumed that river names changed because of his bias; there is no evidence to show that river names changed.  Are you OK with putting the quotes back?


 * If you are intellectually honest, look at discussion above regarding Parpola's Gandhara comment and edit warring that Rudra engaged in. Parpola did not make that statement, but Dab/Rudra are edit warring to keep it in.  Would you like to remove that?  I can provide you with lots more examples in this page of Dab's original research; would you help to remove those to improve quality of the project?Sbhushan 14:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So, you finally cast your eyeballs on something other than Bryant? Wonders never cease.  If you actually comprehended something, we can only hope that you work out to read Parpola before babbling about "edit warring" and whatnot. rudra 04:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for changes. Do you have any objection to quoting "Indo-Aryan languages are the oldest source of place and river names in northern India - which can be seen as an argument in favor of seeing Indo-Aryan as the oldest documented population of that area." after Talageri's statement.  This clearly states the argument.  Also, any objection to quoting Witzel's words?  It makes it easy to know what part is being cited.Sbhushan 14:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * the river names are certainly a good point, but your conclusion depends on what you consider "documented". I mean, Homo erectus is "documented", as are Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures. The pre-Indo-European population has also left its imprint linguistically, as a substrate. All we can say is that we are mildly surprised that they should not also have left more of an impression on hydronymy. That's a point, but a point weak enough that with your cavalier attitude to preconceived bias you would sweep it away with a shrug if it did not happen to fit your agenda. dab (𒁳) 08:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Witzel is not mildly surprised; his exact words are:"This is especially surprising in the area once occupied by the Indus Civilization where one would have expected the survival of older names, as has been the case in Europe and the Near East." River names are considered very conservative (also Witzel's words).  Changing river name with a gradual trickling of immigrant is unknown.  There is not a single example of this happening in history anywhere.Sbhushan 12:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Biased presentation of material on Hinduism and India on Wikipedia

 * The concern I have is that the academic content is not presented properly; a theory is presented as a proven fact. As an example, in academic literature, Indo-Aryan migration is called a Theory, but Dab threatens edit warring if theory is added to the name to reflect academic literature. .  Also when it says “mainstream scholars” it fails to mention that it is mostly “linguistic” scholars.  Most archaeologists dealing with South East Asia can not find any evidence of Indo-Aryan Migration – Jim Shaffer is the most vocal.  But this is not reflected in the article when we use “mainstream scholars”.  This  weasel wording needs to be fixed.Sbhushan 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So cite those archaeologists instead of crackpots like Kazanas for whom peer review has to be waived. JFD 21:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * JFD, it appears you misunderstood my point. When it says mainstream scholars it should say mainstream linguistic scholars .  Are you conceding that the name of Indo-Aryan migration should be changed to include Theory?  For name used in mainstream publications check Witzel, Bryant etc.Sbhushan 12:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If in support of your POV you can cite mainstream scholarship—no matter the field, linguistics or not—then by all means do so.
 * But don't try to pass something off as peer-reviewed when it's not.
 * JFD 16:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The following two Reliable Sources are not crackpots, JFD. One is the leading Indus Valley Civilisation archaeologist, the other is the conclusion of the most recent peer-reviewed genetic study. Clearly, the Indo-Aryan Migration Theory is only possibly supported by linguistics and definitely not by archeology or genetics. That barely qualifies it even as a theory, and is a sad remnant of people, "present" and past, who's POV includes promoting the superiority of the Aryan race. &#2384; Priyanath talk 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)





Priyanath, Here's what Vijendra Kashyap, one of the authors of "A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes," had to say to National Geographic in an interview about the paper:Priyanath, I would be wary of assuming that those who question "the Indo-Aryan migration" necessarily support "Out of India". Best, JFD 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My point exactly &mdash; it "may be because" of contact with migrants - which makes it a theory, and only a linguistic theory at that. To be accurate, the article should be titled Indo-Aryan Language Migration Theory. As far as Out of India, I don't for a second assume that those archaeologists and geneticists who have dismissed the Aryan Migration therefore support Out of India. There's not enough evidence to conclusively prove either one&mdash;which makes them both theories. Cheers, &#2384; Priyanath talk 21:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Archeologist POV - Bryant(2001:231)-The vast majority of the professional archaeologists I interviewed in India insisted that there was no convincing archaeological evidence whatsoever to support any claims of external Indo-Aryan origins. This is part of a wider trend: archaeologists working outside of South Asia are voicing similar views. He quotes Shaffer(1995:139) "Archaeological data indicates that a shift by Indus Valley cultural groups is the only archaeologically documented west-to-east movement of human populations in South Asia before the first half of the first millennium B.C."
 * 2)Would you ask Pope/Church to publish in peer-reviewed litrature before their intrepretation of Bible can be published on Wiki? e.g. Check Bible -   Christian theology, none of material is peer-reviewed.  It is from a website Believers web.  I believe that is the point  Hulagu is making. Sbhushan 17:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Sbhushan, I'll tell you what I told Priyanath: just because someone questions "the Indo-Aryan migration" doesn't necessarily mean they support "Out of India". In the interview I direct Priyanath to above, Vijendra Kashyap, one of the authors of "A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes," argues that the people of the Indian subcontinent are indigenous to South Asia, but that Indo-European languages aren't. So by all means cite the peer-reviewed work of bona fide archaeologists who question "the Indo-Aryan migration". But don't claim that peer-reviewed scholarship supports the Out of India theory unless it does so explicitly.
 * 2) Theological interpretation is a separate issue from the dating of the composition of the various books of the Bible. And, with regards to the latter, Yes, I would insist on peer-reviewed sources.
 * Best, JFD 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Priyanath response above to same -- these are linguistic theories and should be presented as theories and not proven fact. Re 2 please see response to Dab at end of this section.Sbhushan 19:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Priyanath & Sbhushan, Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in the relevant academic community. Does "the Indo-Aryan migration" have bona fide academic critics? Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that, in the relevant academic community, "the Indo-Aryan migration"—though by no means the only point of view—is the predominant one, support for "Out of India" is negligible, and Wikipedia must reflect that. JFD 19:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not the point I'm trying to make &mdash; which is that the IAM is a theory per mainstream views. It also is a linguistic theory, based on the fact that mainstream archaeologists and the most recent genetic studies find no credible evidence of invasion or migration. These are credible, mainstream, and reliable sources which are not given due weight in the article, but are deprecated to the point of being buried, due entirely to POV and not current academic views. Cheers, &#2384; Priyanath talk 21:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I respect WP:UNDUE. Indo Ayan migration is based on only linguistic arguement, but when it says in the article mainstream scholars it implies Archeologist also support it.  This is not correct statement.  And most of linguistic arguments don't belong on religious articles.  Linguistic are minority when religious articles are being discussed.Sbhushan 22:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "a theory is just a ... 'theory' " (paraphrasing), because the non-technical everyday meaning of the term and its use in sciences (again, both physical and social) are quite distinct; in particular in latter use the term does not mean guess or speculation as has been incorrectly stated earlier in this section;
 * No theory is every "proven" (see, Karl Popper's writings) although they can be falsified (as Baka also mentioned above). So saying "X is not proven" is not really as strong an argument against X, as a lay person would think. Rather the standard by which both academia and wikipedia work are current mainstream acceptance of an idea by qualified experts in the area, as reflected in peer-reviewed literature.
 * I realize that my recent comments are going somewhat off-topc, but I am speaking up only because I noticed some well-known and widely rejected straw-man arguments being raised repeatedly in this section by well-meaning editors. Regards. Abecedare 03:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I should have been more clear with 'a theory is just a theory'. I'm assuming others here are using the scientific definition of the term. It's not a loaded term for me, meaning 'nonsensical', etc. It just means 'theory'. Speaking scientifically and encyclopedically, AIM is a theory, and the title should say that.&#2384; Priyanath talk 15:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

AIM/OIT
Indo-Aryan Migration should be titled Indo-Aryan Migration Theory. So far I have not understood what is objection to adding "theory" to the name.Sbhushan 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The related theories are named as Kurgan hypothesis, Anatolian hypothesis, Out of India Theory and Armenian hypothesis. In mainstream scholarship, e.g. Witzel, Bryant, it is also called Indo-Aryan Migration Theory. As per naming convention, name should include Theory.Sbhushan 17:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See evolution theory.Hornplease 07:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (a) the term is capitalized because it is in common use in this form. (b) it is not "a theory", it is a field, comprising various theories. dab (𒁳) 09:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

For Hornplease: Evolution example is not comparable; evolution is supported by lots of physical evidence. AMT is only linguistic theory NOT supported by other specialties like archeology. The first line of article is Indo-Aryan migration is a hypothesis, based on linguistic evidence.....

For dab, please address the question instead of creating confusion. I have not objected to capitalization. And what is the point of field; if it is various theories, name it Indo-Aryan Migration Theories.

I will repeat my question: What is objection to adding theory to the name of article?Sbhushan 12:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

mainstream scholars
This should be mainstream linguistic scholars. Evidence provided above that archeologist/genetics don't agree with linguistic. To imply all mainstream agree with AIM is misrepresentation.Sbhushan 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is discussed in Harappans and Aryans: Old and New Perspectives of Ancient Indian History The History Teacher - Vol. 32, No. 1. (Nov., 1998), pp. 17-32. There has been criticism of linguistic "evidence". And dont give me this Witzelesque bullshit about qualifications. Manian has a PhD in history. Baka man  20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You haven't even read that article, have you? It's completely tangential to your claim. Hornplease 21:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we jumping to conclusions? Yourself, dbachmann, and others have tried to assert Frawley, Rajaram, et al. have not been discussed (or have been unanimously rejected) in academic journals. However, this paper does not reject R,R,Kak but notes that they are in sync with views held by Basham and others. In fact it is almost a vindication of many views espoused by Hindu nationalists. Baka man  14:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an analysis of a 'discourse', not of the scholarship itself. Please stay on-topic. Hornplease 19:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Claiming I had not read the paper, is also off-topic. If it was simply an analysis, isn't mainstream Indology supposed to regard the Kak, Frawley, Rajaram as lunatics? The paper does discuss that Rajaran (and Basham in some areas) do not agree with "mainstream" scholarship. Baka man  01:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant, as is the paper you quoted. Move on. Hornplease 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What's really irrelevant are your useless quips in this section. The paper discusses the contradictions of many views, I would suggest you actually read it. Baka man  22:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't bicker like this. I don't see the point of your mentioning the paper, which is published in a journal on pedagogy, and not history, and which in any case discusses outdated textbooks which use the word 'Invasion', rather than 'migration'. Please take this elsewhere. Hornplease 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. Mainstream Archeologist/Genetic don't agree with migration theory. And I am not implying that they agree with OIT either. So mainstream scholar should be refered as mainstream linguitic scholars .Sbhushan 15:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is the consensus among archaeologists, cite a review article in a prominent journal stating as much and take it to the appropriate page. Otherwise this is pointless. Hornplease 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Bryant 2001 page 231-232, preface by Erdosy in Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity. The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, ed. G. Erdosy, Berlin/New York (de Gruyter) 1995, Witzel's and Shaffer's papers published in same Erdosy 1995. Do you have any mainstream publication for your POV? The archeology point has been accepted by Dab/Rudra on Indo-Aryan Migration page. Even staunch supporters of AMT don't argue about archeology anymore. Using "mainstream scholar" is using weasel words to misrepresent. And we are discussing it here because this issue is common to lots of pages. Sbhushan 17:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My reading of the Erdosy preface is different. Can you provide a quote, please? And I fail to see which pages this affects other than Indo-Aryan migration. Hornplease 07:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I provided you with 4 publications. It says most clearly in Bryant (2001:231)

"The vast majority of the professional archaeologists I interviewed in India insisted that there was no convincing archaeological evidence whatsoever to support any claims of external Indo-Aryan origins. This is part of a wider trend: archaeologists working outside of South Asia are voicing similar views."

Erdosy (1995) "Placed against Witzel’s contribution, the paper by J.Shaffer and D. Lichtenstein will illustrate the gulf still separating archaeology and linguistics p.xiii.......Given the debates raging on these issues within as well as between the two disciplines, a guide to the range of contemporary opinion should be particularly valuable for anyone wishing to bridge the disciplinary divide p.xi"

How about you provide some references for your POV?Sbhushan 12:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hang on, doesn't Bryant mean to imply that archaeologists now believe that they cannot answer these questions? In which case, why is it relevant? Hornplease 10:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Which part of Bryant's quote  no convincing archaeological evidence whatsoever to support any claims of external Indo-Aryan origins  was unclear? So far you have not provided a single reference for your POV. Unless you can provide reference, discussion is pointless. Please read some peer reviewed literature related to this topic.Sbhushan 18:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

mainstream scholars

 * Sbhushan and Priyanath,


 * Proponents of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory (who are academics in relevant fields) reject the idea that the dissemination of Indo-European languages is the result of migrations by Indo-European speaking peoples.


 * However, they argue that there is no evidence for the migration of Indo-European speakers into Europe.


 * Proponents of Paleolithic Continuity cite the following:
 * Lack of archaelogical evidence:


 * Lack of genetic evidence:


 * The antiquity of Indo-European place names in Europe


 * Racism


 * These passages are excerpts from the work of Mario Alinei, who was professor of linguistics at the University of Utrecht from 1959 to 1987.
 * The passage about Iberia is Alinei excerpting and translating Francisco Villar Liébana, professor of Indo-European linguistics at the University of Salamanca.
 * And, though he clearly disagrees with it, Alinei acknowledges that the mainstream point of view is the Kurgan hypothesis, whose original proponent Marija Gimbutas and current champion J.P. Mallory were both trained as archaeologists, rather than in the field of linguistics you object so strongly to.
 * And, though he clearly disagrees with it, Alinei acknowledges that the mainstream point of view is the Kurgan hypothesis, whose original proponent Marija Gimbutas and current champion J.P. Mallory were both trained as archaeologists, rather than in the field of linguistics you object so strongly to.


 * Whatever its flaws, at least the "Indo-Aryan migration" article acknowledges archaeologists' and geneticists' objections.
 * Archaeologists and geneticists can't find any evidence for "Out of India" either, but this isn't reflected in the article. This needs to be fixed.


 * It is both misleading and intellectually dishonest to say that archaeology and genetics cast doubt on "Indo-Aryan migration" without acknowledging that they cast as much doubt on "Out of India," if not more, considering that scholarship supporting PCT has been published in peer-reviewed journals.
 * And to argue, as Talageri does, that the evidence supports "Out of India" demonstrates either his ignorance, his laziness, or his agenda of chauvinist propaganda. JFD 09:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * JFD, I've never argued for Out of India. There is not enough evidence to conclusively support either Out of India or IAM, just as you point out. I agree with you that it's intellectually dishonest to say that archaeology and genetics cast doubt on only one and not the other - but that cuts both ways, and exposes intellectual dishonesty by many editors. The IAM article should much more clearly state this&mdash;it doesn't. The lack of archaeolgy and genetic evidence should be in the second sentence, rather than buried in a long lead paragraph. 'Lack of evidence' is utterly buried in the respective sections (archaeology and genetics), which waffle back and forth. It's a very effective technique, but then there are some skilled editors protecting that article. &#2384; Priyanath talk 13:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Indo-Aryan migration" article at least acknowledges the doubts raised by archaeology and genetics, even if you believe it should be given greater weight.
 * The "Out of India" article does not. At all. JFD 16:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * At all? From Out of India, third sentence: "This theory is deprecated by academic scholars." And the first sentence of the language subsection: "A concern raised by mainstream linguistic scholars is that the Indic PIE languages show extensive influence from contact with Dravidian languages, a claim best developed by Emeneau (1956, 1969,1974)." There's lots more in the article, including extensive cites from Witzel. In fact, there are more cites in Out of India disputing the idea, than in AIM disputing that idea. Both articles could use clearer writing showing that they are hypotheses. &#2384; Priyanath talk 16:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Out of India" article does not explicitly acknowledge the doubts raised by archaeology and genetics.
 * In fact, it implies that the only objections to "Out of India" are linguistic. JFD 16:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never edited Out of India (except for one typo in a footnote), and won't be doing serious editing for some time still. I think both articles should be treated equally, but I don't see the IAM folks willing to compromise - so I guess in that regard there is some equality. Cheers, &#2384; Priyanath talk 17:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that "Indo-Aryan migration" explicitly acknowledges the questions raised by archaeology and genetics whereas "Out of India" does not.
 * JFD 17:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

First point, this sub-section is about the point that IAM and related theories are only linguistic theories and should be presented as such. Based on above discussion, it appears that you agree with this statement. So it should be clearly mentioned that these are linguistic theories and it is "mainstream linguistic scholars". Please confirm that in your own words.

Second point, nowhere in OIT article it makes any claim that archeologist or any mainstream scholars support OIT. If you can find any peer reviewed publication that says archeologists don’t support OIT, please go ahead and add that with proper citations. I have not found any publication yet. Criticism has to follow same WP rules; it has to be from published acceptable sources. Your personal views are irrelevant. The problem is that most of the archeological studies have focused on tracing Indo-Aryans from Central Asia to India during a particular time period. OIT would be about 2000 years earlier in opposite direction, so no work done yet. Archeologists don’t care much for the linguistic constructs and are not as interested in solving this PIE homeland puzzle. My personal view is that this whole PIE homeland quest is a waste of time.

Third point, Gimbutas was an archeologist and her Kurgan hypothesis is supported by Linguistic Paleontology (I don’t recall the name of linguistic scholar). Linguistic Paleontology has lost its luster and Kurgan hypothesis is not in favor so much anymore. Mallory (1989) is quoted frequently to show Kurgan is favorite; that is already dated. But this does not account for all the criticism heaped on Kurgan after that point. A significant number of mainstream linguistic scholars have rejected Kurgan based on linguistic evidence. Bryant 2001 has some section about that.

Fourth point, each fundamental argument raised by linguistic scholars to support AMT, has been countered by mainstream linguistic scholars themselves. Such shaky theories should not have been used to re-write history. Talageri’s book and Kazanas article in JIES are acceptable as per WP:RS and Out of India theory is acceptable by WP:Fringe. So I am not sure what is the point of your argument. Are you saying that Out of India Theory should not be on WP at all?Sbhushan 18:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * nowhere in OIT article it makes any claim that archeologist or any mainstream scholars support OIT.
 * As illustrated by this excerpt, the OIT article implies—misleadingly—the support of mainstream scholars even if it does not claim it explicitly.


 * The problem is that most of the archeological studies have focused on tracing Indo-Aryans from Central Asia to India during a particular time period. OIT would be about 2000 years earlier in opposite direction, so no work done yet.


 * There's been plenty of archaelogical work done all over Europe and Asia and no mainstream archaeologist argues that the IE homeland is India.


 * Archeologists don’t care much for the linguistic constructs and are not as interested in solving this PIE homeland puzzle.


 * Both the Kurgan and Anatolian hypotheses were originally proposed and subsequently championed by archaeologists.


 * Sbhushan, if you're just going to make stuff up that contradicts the known facts, please don't bother. It just wastes both our time.


 * A significant number of mainstream linguistic scholars have rejected Kurgan based on linguistic evidence. Bryant 2001 has some section about that.


 * Bryant 2001 fails to address the Anatolian hypothesis or other models of IE origins, such as PCT.
 * Many of the objections to IAM found in Bryant 2001 depend on the 2nd millennium BCE dating of IAM in the Kurgan model.
 * In other words, the argument "not Kurgan, therefore OIT" is not a valid one.


 * Are you saying that Out of India Theory should not be on WP at all?


 * What I'm saying is that the OIT article shouldn't misrepresent sources.
 * It shouldn't, for example, imply that Kennedy supports OIT when he doesn't.
 * Nor should it cite archaeological and genetic evidence against IAM without acknowledging that the same evidence counters OIT.
 * JFD 05:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You are misquoting/misrepresenting author’s positions. You also agreed to quote appropriate scholar in the field and now you are quoting a discredited linguist for archeological evidence. Do you have any idea why mainstream linguist reject Alinei arguments? His theory is in fringe of fringe theories and you are quoting him as authority. You have removed properly referenced verifiable content. On top of that, you take my comments out of context and accuse me. As I said to you during arbitration, it didn't seem that you were acting in good faith or making any effort to resolve conflict and you latest actions prove that. It is going to be hard to assume good faith after all this. I am quite busy for about 10 days, after that we will go through your edits line by line and fix them. So go ahead and have your fun, we will sort this out in few days.Sbhushan 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Gandhara as homeland
This dispute is about an original research in Memories of an Urheimat section. The statement is: "Many memories, and indeed historiographical records, of Iron Age migrations are preserved, and the Rigveda is no exception, presenting evidence, primarily based on hydronomy, of a gradual expansion from Gandhara, identified as the Proto-Rigvedic homeland (Asko Parpola (1999)[69] locates Proto-Rigvedic and Proto-Dardic in the Swat culture) to the Gangetic plain."18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute


 * This statement should be removed for these reasons:
 * 1) It is not  verifiable.   As per Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l insist on sources", it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources.  Parpola has not identified Gandhara/SWAT as homeland in the reference provided.
 * 2) This is original research- an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.
 * 3) This analysis, even if acceptable, doesn’t address the OIT argument. OIT argument is that RigVedic Aryans preserve no memories of migration or identify any Urheimat outside of area know to them.  Gandhara is an area mentioned in Rigveda.  Migration from Gandhara is not a migration from Central Asia.
 * 4) This argument was presented in JIES, where it was subject to “nine highly critical reviews by referees” as per Dab. He should use that review instead of creating his own arguments.
 * 5) Dab has changed reference for this statement about 4 times. Previous discussion here and here.   Rudra confirmed earlier that Parpola has not explicitily made this claim in the article. []
 * 6) RigVeda is pre-iron age.Sbhushan 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * §9. Remembrance of immigration in discusses precisely this; opening


 * (page 15 in preprint(?) linked to, citations removed)
 * Michael Witzel, "Linguistic Evidence for Cultural Exchange in Prehistoric Western Central Asia," Sino-Platonic Papers, 129 (December, 2003) talks about proto(?)-Rigvedic speakers in Swat


 * ( Page 11). Doldrums 13:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to quoting Witzel's exact words and referencing it to Witzel instead of Parpola. A point to note is that in the first quote Witzel makes a general statement that there are quite a few vague reminiscences of former habitats, but fails to provide any specific section of RV.Sbhushan 12:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * the quoted statement is the opening of a section, titled Remembrance of immigration, which has all the gory details. Doldrums 12:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I read the gory details. He mentions river names and mountain passes.  But he doesn't say that RV records that river names were named due to old memories.  If names are common to Iran and India, it could be that names were transfered from West to East and it could also be other way around.  Witzel is very vague on details.  Only textual example of migration he provides is:


 * "BSS 18.44: 397.9 sqq. It plays on the etymologies of ay/i 'to go' and amAvas 'to stay at home', and actually seems to speak, once we apply BrAhmaÍa style logic and(etymological) argumentation style, of a migration from the Afghani borderland of Gandhra and Parãu (mod. Pashto) to Haryana/Uttar Pradesh and Bihar:"


 * This particular section has been proven to be incorrect translation.Sbhushan 13:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

-- I would like to point out somethings:

The author here says Panjab is Sapta Sindhu... this is incorrect. Panjab refers to the land of FIVE rivers... as Chenab refers six. Panch = Five and Chhe = Six. Sapta means SEVEN not Five and so Sapta Sindhu means Seven Rivers. So why would Sapta Sindhu be Panjab or Punjab? Is it a popular belief... if so, does it make it automatically correct? Besides this, was Iron in India first not used in South India (Trichonopilly) and a place in West Bengal? -- NOVO