User talk:Indoscope

Map
To help you a little bit. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This Map shared by User:Joshua Jonathan map suggests that the Iranians and Vedic people came from Andronovo culture. Kazanas disagrees with this view. He states "The Avesta is post-rigvedic and the Avestan language full of losses, attritions and mutations.The relative earliest possible date for the Gathic Avesta is the period of the composition of the late books of the RV as many sensible scholars have pointed out (Hopkins 1896, Tovadia 1950, Humbach 1991, etc)."

"Finally, not only was there no Invasion or Immigration into Saptasindhu but, on the contrary, after the Vedic expansion to the West including Gandhara and Bactria, the Indoaryans moved even farther west in small numbers of wise men (5.10.6, 10.65.11) to spread the Aryan laws; or larger numbers of “heretics” distanced themselves from their “orthodox” brethren; or others left to explore and seek new opportunities. This northwestward migration would have progressed from Bactria rather than Saptasindhu proper. The date for these westward movements would be much older than is thought and naturally after the melting of the ices." Indoscope (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Fringe
See Fringe theories/Noticeboard:
 * "There is a clear consensus among knowledgeable editors who are familiar with the literature that Indo-Aryan migration is the overwhelmingly predominant view among reliable sources in the field, that any alternatives – aside from religiously and nationally motivated ideologies – are indeed WP:FRINGE, and that the Indo-Aryan migration should therefore be presented as an established historical fact (subject, of course, just to the standard proviso that historical models, as a matter of principle, can hardly ever reach the same amount of certainty as natural laws in the physical sciences; the objection that an historical model isn't "testable" and therefore "not scientific" is an obviou red herring.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)"

Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

By not inviting me for this discussion User:Joshua Jonathan has engaged in a highly objectionable behaviour and along with like minded editors engaged in WP:GANG in order to gate keep a WP:POV in Vedic Period article, the neutrality of which was disputed by me.Indoscope (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of request for email
Interesting. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   15:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes certainly removed from my talk page. But that is of no significance. I have not shared my email for personal contact with anyone. Anyone who wishes to contact me can do so on my talk page. Please stay on issues of facts rather than make issues out of nothing. Indoscope (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your post on ANI looked more like a reply to Joshua Jonathan as he recently replied to your post. Just use the section that you had started in this case. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No Bladesmulti I was making a larger point about what is 'fringe'. Was Galileo 'fringe'. I will rephrase my comments appropriately.Indoscope (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your post in the section that has to be only about me, looked actually irrelevant. Post in the section that you had started and don't disturb the other sections by copying same thing in 2 different sections. Keep it to one section until you have sorted out in a single section. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bladesmulti it is not irrelevant because it is about editors being targeted for trying to being balance to this question. It was not about you alone if you feel it was about you alone then I can move it to the generic section but I would not give up my duty and right to participate in the debate.Indoscope (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan or Kautilya3 are not rebelling against me, so posting about them in my section is irrelevant, yes you can remove your post. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * A tip, don't make very long replies at once, wait and see what others are thinking. It is not necessary to reply every time either except when you are actually discussing the content and there is some progress. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC
I've opened an RfC at Talk:Indigenous Aryans. Let's keep it civilised. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   16:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks you for the info. I am already aware I have already raised and ANI for such a disruptive editing by some editors:-Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentsIndoscope (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Indoscope, I would advise you not to brush off this notice. Please do click on the links given there and familiarize yourself with the requirements. In particular, you are required to follow all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There are many such policies and it takes time to read and understand them. But you need to do it. The ANI issue that you have opened does not actually follow the Wikipedia policies, because you haven't demonstrated any tendentious behaviour by either Joshua Jonathan or me. (In fact, it was meaningless to include me because I was never involved in the Vedic period page and, despite my pointing it out to you, you went on claiming that I was at fault.) It is precisely behaviour like this that will invite sanctions under wp:ARBIPA.
 * At the moment, you exhibit serious lack of understanding of wp:RS -- reliable sources -- and wp:FRINGE -- fringe theories. Since you are editing pages where these concerns are paramount, it is essential that you read these guidelines in full and understand them. Please take your time to understand policies and settle into a productive editing career.
 * As examples of your violations, please note that you have been citing sources that are not classified as reliable sources. Unpublished papers, blog posts and what not. You are claiming that there is "no scholarly consensus" about the Indo-Aryan migrations without a good understanding of what the term means. One author Gurinder Singh saying "we don't know" does not mean that there is no consensus. To say there is no consensus, you need to demonstrate that a significant number of scholars in the discipline disagree. Secondly, the discipline in question here is that of Indo-European Studies. You need to consult the standard journals in the discipline or the standard text books, monographs, encyclopedias, to determine whether a consensus exists or not. Gurinder Singh is not a scholar of Indo-European Studies. What she says about the matter makes no difference to the scholarly consensus.
 * Unless you follow the relevant Wikipedia policies, you would be wasting a lot of our time, and, sooner or later, somebody will take you to WP:ARBIPA for sanctions. I hope you won't let that happen. All the best! Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Kautilya3, I can understand your frustration because you are one of the persons against whom I have made the allegation. Some editors are continuing to call the sources they don't agree with as 'fringe' in spite of them being referred by multiple scholars including the ones they sometimes quote out of context. I allege that some editors are are ganging up with other like minded editors to keep work from many scholars out because they wish to maintain a particular POV in the articles in question. That is not the job of Wikipedia editors. Our job is to maintain WP:BALANCE in the articles we edit and build a neutral content. The author is question was historian Upinder Singh not Gurinder Singh who was quoted out of context by Joshua Jonathan himself on the the Vedic_Period page, edit is here. I have only quoted the full context. This is another demonstration of how some editors are keeping scholarly work differing with the POV they are trying to maintain out of the pages in question.  Hence I have raised this ANI for WP:TENDENTIOUS editing under "One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources.". The question of taking me to WP:ARBIPA does not arise because I have not engaged in any disruptive editing I am only pointing out the disruptive editing by others.Indoscope (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Lost River
There was clear agreement to merge because with two reliable citations, many pages about many books can be made. I think that you should forget about that page now because it is now merged. You can email me for information that how it went. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Bladesmulti I don't think here were only two reliable citations I had cited many book reviews including from Current Science. Also even if there were only two reliable citations and many pages about books can be make in Wikipedia there is nothing in notability guidelines that say that The_Lost_River page should not exist. There wasn't a proper merge process followed ant not enough time given for discussion of merger. This merger is a clear attempt to make an otherwise notable book seem frivolous by editors who wish to keep a certain POV dominant in wikipedia articles. What would be called bad faith Tendentious_editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indoscope (talk • contribs)
 * It would be a waste of time to open a new merger and wait until a week as everyone would be supporting merger. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)