Talk:Aryan/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Misleading map

The map is dominated by the centum:satem division, which has long been recognized to be of no diagnostic value for the genealogical subdivision of the Indo-European languages, of which the creator obviously is unaware. The map should be removed as soon as possible. If kept at all, it could be shifted to a chapter of tectals in Indo-European phonology. 195.4.79.246 (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Racism category is wrong with this article

racism category is wrong here, the "racism category" Is associated with Aryan race & Aryanization and others... not the aryan article. ♔ Koolak (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

messy

This article is a bit sloppy, I suggest, and could be improved by following a structure such this [2]. Onanoff (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Rajkris

I don't know why User:Rajkris is removing this para:-

"The term "Aryan" ultimately derives from Sanskrit आर्य (ā́rya, “noble" or "noble one”), from Proto-Indo-Iranian *arya-, possibly either from Proto-Indo-European *h₄eryós (“kind”) or *ar(y)- (“master”)."

Aryan#In_Indian.2FSanskrit_literature and Aryan#In_Iranian_literature covers up everything that had been added in this paragraph. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed this para because there is no proof of indo iranian languages as it was not a written language... Therefore, asserting that it is from a so called proto indo iranian arya is not at all correct !... It is just an hypothesis but there is no scholar agreement on it just because there is no proof... And refering to Proto Indo European is even more silly. Aryan article is a very sensible article, that's why one need to be very careful on writing it; only things on which there is total agreement must be written. This is not at all the case here. If this article tells the contrary, then it is misleading and therefore MUST NOT be mentionned (in this case at least).Rajkris (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently "Aryan" is a loanword. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Rajkris I don't know what you would consider as "proof", now that we have got signs, seals, and many more things to represents. Some people may still won't consider believing on these evidences. Usually whenever I attempt to research the origins of these noted figures, I happen to find some connection with the Eurasian continent, mostly south and western though. In fact I found that there a a metal plate depiction of Ganesha was found in Iran, in 1993, dating back to 1,200 BCE. It was examined by some good archaeologists. Would you consider it as proof? This article cannot be favorable to particular country or region or even language. You have to wonder that why there were no edit conflicts or edit war on this article for years. Also what you actually meant from scholar agreement, as long as it supports the neutral point of view, what is the issue? It will be easier if you propose your own para or even essay.(I shall rewrite and see if there are sources) Bladesmulti (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but the sourcesd provided does not support anything I have removed. I have been specialising in this topic for a few years so I know what I'm talking about. Your sources do not support what is written and fyi Dumezil claims are reconsidered by number of current scholars. Aryan notion is regularly updated throughout time... If you don't know this, you cannot edit this article in a proper way.Rajkris (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Provide some sources which state otherwise. Your claim of specialisation is irrelevant. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

What bother me most is the "from Proto Indo Iranian arya', as if it was a true,accepted fact by all. But this is not at all the case. I cannot check the refs provided for this part and even if they support precisely what you have written, they are old whereas the topic, definition, understanding of Aryan has changed ovetime. This part of the sentence is really misleading. It has either to be removed (this is my position) or replaced in its context properly. Regarding the other parts of the sentence, I don't mind.Rajkris (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Rajkis has been attempting to remove any text that supports the outrageous claim that the word Aryan has any relationship to Iranian for years. Some while ago there was a tedious edit war between him and an Iranian nationalist editor. Bladesmulti, a metal plate depicting Ganesha tells us nothing about the origin of the word Aryan. Ganesha is not a Vedic deity. Can we keep on topic? Paul B (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, if you think so, you have not understood my purpose. I'm just trying to keep & explain things under their context. It is me who added properly some refs regarding Iran.Rajkris (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Rajkris, I guess Talk:Aryan/Archive 4#ABOUT ARYA BY Rajkris is the relevant section you meant? You wrote "the topic, definition, understanding of Aryan has changed ovetime" Does that also mean that there are scholars who doubt, or deny, that the word "Aryan" comes from Proto-Indo-Iranian (Arya)? Anf if not so, then where does it come from? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the Vedic aristocracy did not practice Hinduism; they practiced Vedism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

What I am blaming is how can one claim that arya was written in this way in the hypothetical Indo Iranian language ??? Why not aria, ari, ary, etc. It is only an hypothesis and must be presented as such. By it presenting it as as fact, you are misleading people and entering in contradiction with Sanskrit Arya which is used only in Indian context. Rajkris (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess that western script was not very widespread in those days, so any "translation" is interpretation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You are answer does not reply to my question(s), you are just avoiding them... Let me repeat & summarize once again my concern regarding your edit on the so called Proto Indo Iranian *arya-: the refs you have provided are not reliable because they are either old ones (Dumezil& Oswald) or does not provide any justification for their assertion (Witzel). I don't have inside access to Laroche (Dumezil) & Oswald refs but in the chapter 'Possible derivation from Proto Indo European', these refs are mentionned and,based on them, it is written :'... 1957 theory by Laroche... Indo Iranian 'Ar-ya'... Proto Indo Iranian Arta...'. According to that, what you have written a few lines above is not correct. From my side I have provided refs (here : Talk:Aryan/Archive 4#ABOUT ARYA BY Rajkris) stating that Arya is a Sanskrit word. Just fyi (and Paul Barlow), I don't mind, I don't care that Arya is from an hypothetical Indo Iranian language (and actually, I believe in this !), my only concern is when one tells that in this language it was pronounced arya whereas we don't have any proof, it is just an assumption by one or more scholars.Rajkris (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

And that's exactly what counts: assumptions by one or more scholars! Not your personal iinterpretations or understanding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The pb is the asumption on Indo Iranian root changes from one scholar to another (see : [3] --> Indo Iranian *ara- ; [4] --> Indo Iranian *ar- ... I also found Indo Iranian *aryo-...

You are wrong to revert my last edit. In the Britannica, it is clearly mentionned that Aryan was formerly used to designate Indo Iranians, and now the word is limited to the word Indo Aryan languages. Now most shcolars use the terms Indo Iranian, Iranian & Indo Aryan languages... And in the same way, Aryan is no more used by proper shcolars to designate Indo Europeans. Rajkris (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No comment at the moment on the use of the word, but the Britannica is a tertiary source and should be avoided if at all possible. It's not a scholarly source and we should only be using scholarly sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It might be good to know that most current citizens of the new nation of India do not know Sankrit, even though in the last few decades almost all local vernaculars have been busy taking words and usages from Sanksrit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.243.241 (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Outdated usage

Rajkris added the note "Dated" two times at Aryan#Scholarly usage:

• "Dated: Indo-Iranian languages (Indo-Aryan or Indic, Nuristani, and Iranian languages)". References and notes given here say:
  • Encyclopædia Britannica;
  • The "Aryan" Language, Gherardo Gnoli, Instituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, Roma, 2002 [5];
  • Schmitt, "Aryans" in Encyclopædia Iranica: Excerpt: "The name "Aryan" (OInd. āˊrya-, Ir. *arya- [with short a-], in Old Pers. ariya-, Av. airiia-, etc.) is the self designation of the peoples of Ancient India and Ancient Iran who spoke Aryan languages, in contrast to the "non-Aryan" peoples of those "Aryan" countries (cf. OInd. an-āˊrya-, Av. an-airiia-, etc.), and lives on in ethnic names like Alan (Lat. Alani, NPers. Īrān, Oss. Ir and Iron.)[6] in May,2010]."

None of these sources say that the usage of the the Aryan for these languages is dated. EB and Schmitt also don't say that the term Aryan is being used for those languages. Gnoli speaks about the use of the term Aryan for Persians, Medes, Bactrians and Sogdians. The Wiki-article for [[Indo-Iranian languages]] does provide a source: Numeral Types and Changes Worldwide, by Jadranka (EDT) Gvozdanovic, Language Arts & Disciplines,1999, Page 221. Books.google.com. Retrieved 2013-01-02., which says: "Some languages of the Aryan family - that is, the Indo-Aryan (including the Dardic), Iranian and Nuristani". So, to use the term "Aryan" for "Indo-Iranian including Indo-Aryan" seems to be wrong anyway.

• Dated: Proto-Indo-Europeans" - no source provided

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There are currently 2 points of clashing between us :

- Root of Sanskrit Arya in Indo Iranian : it is only hypothesis and must be clearly presented as such; here are the different versions I have found during my research :

1. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture page 304 [7], "Our ability to reconstruct a Proto Indo-Iranian intermediate between Proto-Indo-European on the one hand and Proto-Indic and Proto-Iranian is also supported by the self-designation, *aryo-..."
   
2. Historical Linguistics, by Lisa Purse, Lyle Campbell, page 415 [8] , "*(h1)aryo- self-designation of the Indo-Iranians..."
   
3. Acta Iranica, by Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin, page 337 [9], "It thus seems that Ved. arya and Avest. airya are to be connected... with Indo-Iranian *ara-..."
   
   

- Current use of Aryan : it is nowadays used to designate Indic languages only. If you see most of (recent) books, authors talks about Indo Iranian (they just alude sometimes to the (ancient) connection between Aryan and Indo Iranian). And this (current) trend is fair because originally, Aryan is from Sanskrit Arya which means Noble/Lord/Aristocraty and was used to designate the worshippers of Vedic gods and especially Indra (the God of the nobility). Therefore, this automatically excludes the Iranians... To avoid any misunderstanding, it is important to use properly the terms Indo Iranian, Iranian, (Indo)-Aryan, as done nowadays by (proper) scholars.

Concerning the word Aryan, my big concern is throughout time scholars have misleaded people, and for me, they have a great responsibility for the 2nd WW consequences... I just want to avoid such things to repeat again..

Here are my refs:

1. An Introduction to the Indo-European Languages by Philip Baldi, page 51 [10]
   , "The term Aryan used alone is often used to designate the Indic branch..."
   
2. Celtic culture: a historical encyclopedia. Vol. 1-, Volume 2, by John T. Koch, page 961 [11]
   , "The Indo Iranian (formely called Aryan) languages..."
   

Concerning Dougweller comment on Britannica, I agree, but if I'm not mistaken, it is not against Wiki rules to use it in the last resort. Britannica is short and clear : it starts with "Aryan, former name given to Indo Iranian... Nowadays limited to the word Indo Aryan.". Britannica summarized the word Aryan very clearly (and it is very important to be very clear for such word !)... So if Wikipedia takes another direction, one of the 2 is wrong... But if you look at my above explanations and refs and also to my previous ones here : Talk:Aryan/Archive 4#ABOUT ARYA BY Rajkris, it comes to the same conclusion as Britannica.

Jonathan, if you do think that nowadays Aryan is still used to designate (Proto) Indo Europeans, sorry but you are either not having enough knowledge about this article or you are pro white... In both cases, you are not fit to edit this article...

Once again, I'm interested in Aryan word since a very long time, I read many books & articles on it and noticed lot of mistakes either unintentional or politicaly motivated !!... If we use all of them as ref, this article will be just a mess and mislead people (with all the consequences!).

My research can be summarized like that (I have provided and can provide all the refs needed) :

• Aryan from Sanskrit Arya Noble/Lord/Aristocarty,
• Iran from ancient name Eran, from Airyanam (land of Air(y)an(ian)s); in Mede, Persian, Avestan we find words like Air(i)ya / Ari(i)ya / Arioi / Ari(i)a / Are, etc., which are supposed to be national names (note: the real heir of the ancient Persians that is the Parsis, never (or very rarely) used those words to designate themselves...) These words and Sanskrit one may come from the same Indo-Iranian word *aryo- /*are-, etc.
• (ancient) Europeans (scholars) used the Persian words (and other quite similar ones found in Greek, Irish, etc., languages) as an argument to claim ownership on the Sanskrit word & used it to designate the whole Indo Europeans, more particularly Europeans and more specifically northern Europeans... This has been the core of Nazi ideology which lead to the extermination of more than 6 millions Jewish...
  

This is the real history of Aryan word and this wiki article must be presented like this... Rest is just (bad & dangerous) politics.

Rajkris (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Only two comments here:

• "Therefore, this automatically excludes the Iranians" - WP:OR
• "Jonathan, if you do think that nowadays Aryan is still used to designate (Proto) Indo Europeans, sorry but you are either not having enough knowledge about this article or you are pro white... In both cases, you are not fit to edit this article." - totally unacceptable accusation of racism. @Dougweller: am I correct here? Rajkris, you added "Dated" to "Proto-Indo-Europeans"; I asked for refs for both. If you think that that makes me a "pro white", you don't understand how Wikipedia works, or how to collaborate.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And here for some serious surce-reading:

"Fortson, IV: "The Sanskrit word ārya-, the source of the English word, was the self-designation of the Vedic Indic people and has a cognate in Iranian *arya, where it is also a self-desigantion. Both the Indic and Iranian terms descend from a form *ārya that wa sused by the Indo-Iranian tribes to refer to themselves. (It is also the source of the country-name Iran, from a phrase meaning 'kingdom of the Aryans'.)" (Fortson, IV (2011), "Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction", p.209)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In this case, what is written is wrong. Concerning Iran it is from Eran, 'Land of Erans' ([12]), rest is just pov and misreading from some (western) scholars...Rajkris (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Rajkris, if this is the level on which you want to "discuss", we're done here. Comment directed at comment by Rajkris, which has been removed by Rjensen. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

delete offensive attack on scholars--Wiki rules do not allow calling scholars Nazis. Rjensen (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Selective reading, Rajkris, as usual. Page 161 does not say that Iran is derived from Eran, it explains that Eran means "Iranians". See also p. 376: "Iranians (Eran)". Page 330 says: "The Aryan/Iranian lands". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Warned Rajkris. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If I have written this, it is because this is the kind of writing which lead to some fake & dangerous theories. This is the true reality, whether you like or not !... Regarding your last ref, I have refs which states clearly that in Avestan & Persian it was written Ari(i)ya/Airya... The so called Iranian arya (with short a) is a recent Iranian (natioanalist) invention because this word is more closed to Aryan... Iran is from Eran which originally mean land of Eran(ians)... The land of Aryan is just a modern shcolar invention... See when and how Persia has been renamed Iran and the connection between the rulers of this country and the Nazi Regime !(I have provided refs about that some time ago, check also here : [13]).

Since I started editing this article, I have provided so many refs !!!... You are just ignoring them and even threatening me !!... This is not acceptable !... My line is in peer with what is written in Britannica (a respectable Encylcopaedia which focus on Sanskrit root of Aryan and tells at the end that the word Aryan is now limited to Indo Aryan languages)... Choosing another direction will just ternish Wikipedia reputation which is already not good.Rajkris (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

All you have said is "I will add references tomorrow", I don't even wait anymore. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The true Ossetic descendant

Let me quote from this treatise:

Quotation 1:

(42.) Thus Ir "Ossete" and Iron "Ossetic" cannot continue *arya- "Aryan," *aryana- ([left arrow] gen. pl. *aryanam "of the Aryans"; cf. nn. 6, 15), as long believed (cf. Miller 1903:17 [[section]4.2], Bailey 1959: 97-98). Abaev (1949: 246, 1958: 546) connects Ir with various ethnic and place names in neighboring Caucasian languages, but also possible is Bielmeier's derivation from Pit. *wira- "man" (Av. vira-, Ved. vira-; Knobloch 1991: 35), which would have given POss. *ir (nn. 38 [end], 41; for loss of *w before *i, cf. D insoej [I ssoez] "twenty" < POss. *insaedy < PIr. *winsati) > *jyr (*[jir]) > I ir; this would account for the accentuation of lrrn, underlyingly /jyron/ (with initial I-preserved after Ir; on the regular loss of POss. *i- in Iron, e.g., in "twenty" cf. section 4.2, (7) and see Axvlediani 1963: 14-15 for examples).

Quotation 2:

3) *ri > *li, *ry > *1

See (2a) above on r-stem pl. *pitarah [right arrow] *fidari-ta > *fidali-ta > POss. *fidaeltae > I fydoeltoe "fathers" [D fiddoeltoe]; sim. I madoeltoe "mothers" oervadoeltoe "relatives, brothers" [D maddoeltoe, oervaddoeltoe]. That this change had taken place already by early medieval times is confirmed by the name of the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'Alans' < *aryan- (Bielmeier 1989a: 241), which survives in the Ossetic etynonym allon, attested in the epic of the Narts (Abaev 1949: 245-46, 1958: 47-48, 545-46). (42) The shift of *r > *1 before *i, and presumably also *ry > *1, must have preceded the syncope of unstressed *i (6); the absence of umlaut in allon indicates that *y was lost in the cluster *ry before *a > *ai / -- Cy (see [4] below; for other examples of non-"epenthesis," cf. Abaev 1949: 245

I first learnt of this from Johnny Cheung's Studies in the historical development of the Ossetic vocalism, who appears to have discovered this fact.

Moreover, on here, borrowings of Alanic *allan into Nakh languages (with the meaning "prince") are mentioned.

Thus it turns out that the true descendant of Proto-Iranian *aryānām in Ossetic is not iron, despite the tantalising resemblance to Modern Persian Iran, but the relatively obscure word allon (from Alanic *allan).

This has an additional consequence: The traditional etymological derivation of iron from *aryānām is the main reason that scholars have assumed that Ossetic descends from a different Scythian dialect than Sarmatian-Alanic. However, it turns out that Scythian, Sarmatian, Alanic and Ossetic all share the development Iranian *ry > l(l), along with several others. This means that Ossetic is a straight descendant of Alanic, Sarmatian and Scythian and there is no real basis for the reconstruction of old dialect differences within Scythian (at least in Eastern Europe; if the relatively well-attested Saka language is reckoned as part of Scythian, it is clearly different, but this assignment is doubtful), as far as I can see. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! All it is right, only I doubt that it can mean "man, husband", from "vir". No, of course. Even it isn't necessary to give this point of view. Academician Abayev absolutely truly came long ago to a conclusion that the ethnonym "ir" is related to the Caucasian languages. He wrote that this ethnonym has to have some relation to the Caucasian territory under "Ereti's" name. In my opinion here it is necessary to argue. In the Caucasian languages - Chechen, Ingush "iru/Ira" is meant by "peak, an edge". This word is available and in Avarian, but with "b-"indicator of classes, objects, neutral gender: b-e'er (b-eγär) "sharp, sharply ground, clever" (and the separate word 'Er in Avarian means "a pole,a spear" (=probably it is common with Celt.-Germ. "ger/γer",Lat. "veru" etc. "spear"?). Moreover, this root with the same value can be found in the Mongolian languages, "ir" the "edge, peak", and irgen "the citizen means, the people", etc. It all from a one subject. And the most important - a medieval kingdom of Sarir in Dagestan:"Sar" in the Iranian languages means "the head,top,a cover". And the second component has obviously whether the Caucasian or Mongolian origin "ir" - "peak". I will remind that during earlier era the territory Sarir in the Iranian sources carries the name "Agran". This term in the Indo-Iranian languages matters "extreme, sharp", etc.--37.139.52.40 (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

'Simple' is not a synonym of 'simplistic'

While I understand that some individuals love translating arya as "noble", the following claims being made in the first two sentences of the article do not follow:

"Aryan" (/ˈɛəriən, ˈɛərjən, ˈær-/)[1] is an English language loanword derived from the Sanskrit ārya ('noble').[2][3][4]
In present-day academia, the term "Aryan" has been replaced in most cases by the terms "Indo-Iranian" and "Indo-European", and "Aryan" is now mostly limited to its appearance in the term of the "Indo-Aryan languages" in South Asia.[3]

The implication that academia chose a loanword 'for noble' as an identifier of an ethnic/language group is quite silly, and the false citation of the Encyclopedia Brittanica does not make it better. What the Encyclopedia Brittanica explicitly says in the very first sentence is that Müller insisted it was an ethnonym. Indeed, it was arya as an ethnonym that prompted Müller to promote Aryan as the name of an an ethnic/language group. He did the same with "Turanian", "Celtic" and "Semitic". Semitic is older, and is from the pre-enlightenment use of "Semitic", "Hamitic", "Japhetic" as ethnic/language groups. For "Turanian", "Celtic" and "Aryan", Müller just followed the old treatment of language as a property of ethnicity.

The "noble" stuff has another (related) "linguistic" origin: the identification of the Indo-European language group is originally based on William Jones' comments in his translation of a judicial Indian text known as the Laws of Manu (Manusmriti). This is a profoundly racialist work, and in its justification for the caste system, it depicts the "noble" aryas in conflict with the "slave-like" "enemy" dasa. So, yes, in one sense English "aryan" does come from a Sanskrit word used as "noble". But that is not the end of the story.

When Jones made his translation, he imagined that the three sons of Mani were co-eval with the three sons of Noah. Just as three sons of Noah (Ham, Shem, Japheth -> Hamitic, Semitic, Japhetic) were in conflict, so too were the three sons of Manu. The Manusmriti's "noble"-arya-versus-"slave-like"-enemy-dasa dichotomy, compared by Jones with the Semitic-versus-Japhetic conflict, is the origin of Semitic-versus-Aryan dichotomy. The contradistiction with Semitic is the only context in which one may legitimately claim that "Aryan ... is an English language loanword derived from the Sanskrit ārya ('noble')".

But the article doesn't do that. I understand the need to keep things simple, but 'simple' is not a synonym of 'simplistic'. -- 77.183.157.162 (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, what are remarkably garbled argument. The use of "noble" as a translation of Arya[n] has nothing to do with Jones. It's simply the standard nearest-equvalent term in English for one of the principal uses of the term. Yes, Jones connected the ancient migrations of Biblical characters to the Manu myth. As a matter of fact Jones's model was to some extent at least based on that of his friend Jacob Bryant, who believed Europeans were in part Hamitic rather than Japhetic. I know of no passage in Jones where he compares Arya-versus-Dasa to Semitic-versus-Japhetic. Indeed the Semites and Japhetites were not typically set in opposition at this date, since that's entirely inconsistent with Biblical-based models. While Muller was certainly strongly linked to promoting the terms Turanian and Aryan, he had next to nothing to do with promoting the terms Celtic and Semitic. I've no idea where you get that idea from. Renan is far more important as a theorist of those concepts. The article does not say that academia "chose" "a loanword 'for noble' as an identifier of an ethnic/language group". It's simply that that "Aryan" as used in modern English comes immediately from Sanskrit, though one could make a case that the earliest rare (pre-18th-century) usages come from Persian. Paul B (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Take it easy, please. I realize that this subject tends to raise hackles, but that is not my intent.

The use of "noble" as a translation of Arya[n] has nothing to do with Jones.

Is it not Jones' translation that first led to the word appearing in English with that meaning of Arya[n]?

Under those circumstances, isn't it a bit simplistic to suppose "it has nothing to do with Jones"?

(etc) Besides the point, so not going there.

The article does not say that academia "chose" "a loanword 'for noble' as an identifier of an ethnic/language group"

My point was, and is, that the article does say is "Aryan" (/ˈɛəriən, ˈɛərjən, ˈær-/)[1] is an English language loanword derived from the Sanskrit ārya ('noble').[2][3]"

English is not so poor that it needs a loan word from another language to express "noble". Nor does the English language use "Aryan" as a synonym of "noble" (perhaps skinhead jargon excepted, I wouldn't know). The implication that "noble" is what the word was loaned for is false. The implication that English uses it and borrowed it for anything but an ethnic/racist/liguistic denominator is bizarre. It does not follow.

Whether it means "noble" in Sanskrit is moot. That meaning cannot be the basis of "an English language loanword" used in English as a ethnic/racist/liguistic denominator. Especially not given that the person who promoted it (i.e. Müller) insisted that it was a ethnic/liguistic denominator.

Am I clearer now? -- 77.183.157.162 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where this discussion is coming from. The use of 'noble' in brackets didn't convey anything significant to me. But, I presume you would be satisfied if it is replaced with something like: "a presumed self-designation of the Vedic people"? Kautilya3 (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That would at least be plausible. Support from a reliable source on English (loan)words would be an improvement too. (like the OED perhaps? Which Wikipedia says "traces the historical development of the language, providing a comprehensive resource to scholars and academic researchers"?) -- 77.183.157.162 (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

"Is it not Jones' translation that first led to the word appearing in English with that meaning of Arya[n]?" Not that I'm aware of. The word Arya does not have a significant role in Jones' writings. I can't recall passages in which he uses it. Even if he was the frist person to translate it into English, I fail to see how that is relevant. He was the first person to translate any Sanskrit words into English. Later scholars did not rely on him. They made their own studies based on their own research. So, no, the "noble" translation has nothing especially to do with Jones.

The article does not say that English needed to borrow a word to mean "noble". Obviously that would be absurd. Since we already have the word noble, and many others. The point of the opening sentence is to emphasise that the word Aryan exists in English, so that it does not become an ownership debate about what it really should mean in Sanskrit, Avestan or whatever. The opening sentence could be improved, sure. It's been rather held hostage due to ideological issues with Indian and, to a lesser extent, Iranian editors.

Re Muller: There is no single "person who promoted it"; Muller was one of many writers who used it. Yes, he used it, or took it to be, an ethnic/liguistic denominator. I think that usage should be in the lead section. Paul B (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

While others, after Jones, made their own translations, it is still Jones' translation that the OED quotes for the earliest example that supports "loanword from Sanskrit". The OED quotes Jones (and Müller) for "from Sanskrit", not the others. It may be that the OED entry is mistaken, or incomplete, but that is a different proposition altogether.

It's been rather held hostage due to ideological issues with Indian and, to a lesser extent, Iranian editors.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure that taking Occam's razor hostage is a better solution than hostage by ideologues. I also can't see (I'm probably missing something) why Indian ideologues would abhor "self-designation of the Vedic people" (as Kautilya3 reasonably suggested). An insistence on a non-sequitur would expose them as absurd or illiterate, and I doubt that they would want to be seen that way.

As far as the Iranian ideologues are concerned, and assuming that there is an interest in granting their point, they could presumably be mollified by extending Kautilya3's suggestion to include them too. Perhaps something like this:

... is an English language loanword initially adopted from a Sanskrit self-designator of the Vedic people and their language. The loanword was subsequently extended to include a related Iranian self-designator of the Iranian peoples and their languages.

Either way, the emphasis is retained, the ideologues appeased, and absurd suggestions avoided.

Muller was one of many writers who used it

The OED (and pretty much everyone else) doesn't quote Müller just for laughs. Yes, Müller neither invented it, nor did he use it exclusively. But he actively argued for it (and contra the alternatives), and his lecture series addressed to non-academic audiences popularized it. "Müller ... cemented the centrality or prominance of 'Aryan' in European ethnology and imperial culture" (Ballantyne, Tony (2002). Orientalism and Race: Aryanism in the British Empire. Cambridge Imperial and Post-Colonial Studies. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan. p. 44. For Müller's key role, see also pp. 5-6 in Thapar, Romila (1996). "The Theory of Aryan Race and India: History and Politics". Social Scientist. Vol. 24, Issue 1, pp. 3-29. Available online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3520116 ).

-- 77.183.178.112 (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

German/Germanic word "Ehre" and missing of Balto-Slavic cognates

Why there is no mention of Balto-Slavic languages? They were the closes language family to Indo-Iranian family in ancient times. I assure you that you can find similar cognates in Lithuanian and Slavic languages. If Germanic word "Ehre" has a position in this article, why you ignored the Satem branch Balto-Slavic? Lithuanian has many similar words to Avestan and Sanskrit. I don't know why editors always ignore Lithuanian in related WP articles. Is it because of low population of Lithuanian-speaking people? Or the only important languages in the history were Germanic ones, Latin and Greek?! --188.158.112.105 (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources for other cognates, please feel free to add them. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Aryan was the Identity of ancient Indo-Iranians: Good sources for this article

• Aryans: Self designation of the peoples of Ancient India and Ancient Iran who spoke Aryan languages (Indic and Iranic peoples).
• Source

Bibliography

1. K. Jettmar, “Zur Wanderungsgeschichte der Iranier,” Die Wiener Schule der Völkerkunde/The Vienna School of Ethnology, Horn-Wien, 1956, pp. 327-48.
2. T. Cuyler Young, Jr., “The Iranian Migration into the Zagros,” Iran 5, 1967, pp. 11-34.
3. D. Stronach, “Achaemenid Village I at Susa and the Persian Migration to Fars,” Iraq 36, 1974, pp. 239-48.
4. R. Ghirshman, L’Iran et la migration des Indo-aryens et des Iraniens, Leiden, 1977.
5. I. V. P’yankov, “K voprosu o putyakh proniknoveniya iranoyazychnykh plemyon v Perednyuyu Aziyu (On the problem of the ways of penetration of Iranian tribes into western Asia),” Peredneaziĭskiĭ sbornik III, Moscow, 1979, pp. 193-207.
6. Ètnicheskiye problemy istorii Tsentral’noĭ Azii v drevnosti (II tysyacheletiye do n.è.)/Ethnic Problems of the History of Central Asia in the Early Period (Second Millennium B.C.), Moscow, 1981 (contains a number of important relev ant articles by linguists and archeologists, inter al. by M. S. Asimov, B. G. Gafurov, V. I. Abaev, E. E. Kuz’mina, B. A. Litvinskiĭ, È. A. Grantovskiĭ, B. and F. R. Allchin). For systematic, though outdated, treatment of the culture and homeland of the Proto-Aryans see F. Spiegel, Die arische Periode und ihre Zustände, Leipzig, 1887.
7. Also still useful are W. Geiger, Ostiranische Kultur im Altertum, Erlangen, 1882, and O. Schrader, “Aryan Religion,” in J. Hastings, ed., Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics II, 1909, pp. 11-57.

By: R. Schmitt --123.198.50.115 (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Who are Mitannian Aryans?

Sorry.On your map that the East of Turkey is occupied by Armenians, but actually it was initially occupied by Urarteans (a dialect or branch of Hurrian language), whose language had no relationship with Armenian. Armenians appeared later, they moved in Anatoly from Balkans. Therefore the Armenian language should be specified on the Balkans. Besides at you neither on the map, nor in article isn't present words about the Mitannian-Aryan language. Carriers of this Indo-Aryan adverb lived in the territory of the most part of modern Syria and partially Iraq. They lived in one state with a non-indoeuropean Hurrians. It is about a so-called Mesopotamic-Aryan language of the Mitannannian empire of Hurrians/Hurrites. Hurrian (or Mitannian) Aryans are mentioned even in the British encyclopaedia, but you about them don't have anything. Therefore I suggest to bring the Armenian language from East Anatoly to the Balkans (or at least to specify that Armenians migrated from the Balkans). And it is obligatory to show Mitannians kingdom as the territory of distribution of the Indo-Aryan language. Thanks!--37.139.52.40 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are really wondering who Mitannian Aryans are, see the articles Indo-Aryan people and Indo-Aryan migrations. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Why would I want somewhere to go and somewhere to watch? The "Aryans" it's common term for Indo-Iranians (Indo-Éranians). And in this case we are talking about the Hurrian-Aryan kingdom of Mitanni. Therefore Mitannian Aryans must be specified absolutely everywhere, which refer to "Aryans", and not only in the article "Indo-Aryans". And Mitannian Aryans were not only the so-called "Indo-Aryans", but also specific Iranians. It is not clear why Mitannian Aryans (hurritized Iranians and Indo-Aryans) to hide in an article about the only Indo-Aryans.--37.139.52.40 (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It is far from clear what you want, partly because you language is confusing. You refer to a 'map'. If you are talking about an image you need to clarify which one you mean. Paul B (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"Indigenous Aryans"

The naming of the article Indigenous Aryans is under discussion, see Talk:Indigenous Aryans -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Greater Iran

The following:

In present-day academia, the term "Aryan" has been replaced in most cases by the terms "Indo-Iranian" and "Indo-European", and "Aryan" is now mostly limited to its appearance in the term of the "Indo-Aryan languages" in South Asia.

Should be changed to:

In present-day academia, the term "Aryan" has been replaced in most cases by the terms "Indo-Iranian" and "Indo-European", and "Aryan" is now mostly limited to its appearance in the term of the "Indo-Aryan languages" in Greater Iran and South Asia.

As evident of:

See under Iran Etymology. Under Aryan Etymology. Check reference in Airyanem Vaejah see p. 164 in: P.O. Skjaervo, The Avesta as source for the early history of the Iranians. In: G. Erdosy (ed.), The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia. (Indian Philology and South Asian Studies, A. Wezler and M. Witzel, eds.), vol. 1, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter 1995, pp.155-176.Darmesteter, James. Sacred Books of the East (1898). Peterson, Joseph H., Avesta - Zoroastrian Archives: VENDIDAD (English): Fargard 1. [14]. Indo-Aryan languages is listed under Indo-Iranian languages on its own page. The areas listed within are best summarized as Greater Iran and South Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The sentence refers to the current use of the word "Aryan". No-one disputes that the term also applies to the history of Iran, since the very word Iran attests to that. But the exact English language form "Aryan" is now only used to refer to the I-A languages, which are currently confined to South Asia. In fact the phrase Indo-Aryan was invented to contrast with Irano-Aryan, both being sub-divisions of "Aryan". It's just that the latter term is no longer used and "Aryan" is now called Indo-Iranian. Paul B (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

From the point of Iran Etymology and the references I had previously given, it seems contradicting to say Indo-Aryan as meaning "not Iranian", according to the Etymology section of this page, under Origins, which states Aryan means Iranian, and not just the reverse. Indo-Aryan seems redundant to Indo-Iranian, if anything. Not contrary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've already said that. You did not understand my reply. In current linguistics the only technical use of the word "Aryan" is as part of Indo-Aryan, which is a left-over from the old usage in which "Aryan" = "Indo-Iranian", and the two sub-branches are labelled as such. Paul B (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

So, you are essentially explaining that it cannot be changed, as the term is not based on its own definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 16:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what "the term is not based on its own definition" means. This is a long article, in which it is clearly explained that the term has also been used as a synonym of "Iranian", indeed that was the point I was making above. This one sentence refers to current technical usage in lingusitics. Paul B (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

But if Aryan *means* Iranian, as the Etymology - Origins of this page states, then anything with the word Aryan should contain Iranian content as well. As there is no term for 'Irano-Aryan' as it is redundant. So, therefore, Greater Iran at least *should* qualify under Indo-Aryan, as Aryan means Iranian, that means Indo-Aryan is just another way to say Indo-Iranian. I see that they are *regarded* as separate. However, they logically shouldn't be (once more, based on the the original use, as stated in Etymology - Origins). Roughly... I am beginning to understand that you mean to say, 'What is factual is not as official as what is popular'. Is this the rough summary of what you mean to tell me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 17:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no point in continuing a conversation with someone who simply does not understand what has already been explained. It does not matter whether or not the word "Indo-Aryan" should include Iran. It doesn't. That's not what it means. It's a quirk of history; like so many words, a left-over of the evolution of terms. It's nothing to do with "popularity", apart from the fact that words mean what they are used to mean. Paul B (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow. What a fancy way to say, "Yes. If people prefer to say it, it's unimportant what it originally means." Again, this page's Etymology - Origins states Aryan *means* Iranian. We understand each other. At least there is that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pahlavan Qahremani: You appear to be a new user. So, why don't you take it slow and try to understand how things are done here? You want to change the existing sentence to: In present-day academia, the term "Aryan" has been replaced in most cases by the terms "Indo-Iranian" and "Indo-European", and "Aryan" is now mostly limited to its appearance in the term of the "Indo-Aryan languages" in Greater Iran and South Asia, i.e., add "Greater Iran" to the list. In order to do so, you need to specify which Indo-Aryan language is spoken in Greater Iran, and provide a reliable source for it. Can you do that please? (And, please use indentation to add your messages so that we can see the thread clearly.) Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pahlavan Qahremani: I understand that you don't understand. Yes, it's unimportant what a word originally meant. See etymological fallacy. What matters is what Indo-Aryan languages means, not what you think it should mean. Read the freaking article. Paul B (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The Pillars of Wikipedia state that all editors must have a neutral view, and also says we must respect one another. But not only has my ability to understand been, on multiple occasions, doubted verbally, but I also sincerely doubt Paul B would even allow himself to make a change on my behalf even after seeing the evidence 100 times. Even if the evidence has long been on another Wikipedia page (See under Iran Etymology. Check reference in Airyanem Vaejah. Note that Indo-Aryan languages is listed under Indo-Iranian languages).

I have come to understand we are both correct to an extent. But the issue I take is that this is due to something made 'official' thanks more to old, public opinion than original facts. However if this is why the term means what it does, then let it be at that. I cannot expect Paul B to change the official understanding of the term Indo-Aryan, even if the official understanding does contradict itself, as the earlist reference to arya does not signify anything but Iranian. He is, after all, just a Wikipedia Editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid you are going off on tangents again. Let me repeat the question: where is the source that says that Indo-Aryan languages are spoken in Greater Iran? Kautilya3 (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as the official meaning of Indo-Aryan, none of Greater Iran. But the issue I took was that, as Aryan means Iranian:

The earliest epigraphically-attested reference to the word arya occurs in the 6th-century B.C. Behistun inscription, which describes itself to have been composed "in arya [language or script]" (§ 70). As is also the case for all other Old Iranian language usage, the arya of the inscription does not signify anything but "Iranian". cf. Gershevitch, Ilya (1968). "Old Iranian Literature". Handbuch der Orientalistik, Literatur I. Leiden: Brill. pp. 1–31., p. 2.

Indo-Aryan being exclusive from Indo-Iranian is illogical, at that point, simply calling it North Indian would be more appropriate. Though, I must concede to the extent that while the 'official' understanding of a word is contradicting itself, it still remains the 'official' understanding of the word, all the same. I have come to accept that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 01:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you appear to have retracted the wording change that you have originally proposed. Moving on, the first comment you make above (regarding Behustun inscription) is perfectly fine. But I am not sure how it affects the content of our article. The second comment, about something being "illogical", is no good, because that is what the scholars say. So, you might want to first go and read some of these scholars that have been cited and see what they are saying. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If my statement did not make sense to you after all that has been said, I have said enough. Please do not reply further. I am content with the conversation being over.

Olehal09

What exactly are you trying to argue Olehal09? That Nazism and "white supremacy" are not the same? Well of course they are not. They would be labeled separately if they were. That "Aryan = Caucasian"? Well, that just one of the many ways it is identified with another concept. Rosenberg used to like "Aryan-Nordic". There's a lot of evidence that White supremacist groups, especially in America, use "Aryan" to mean of "northern European descent". Paul B (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we indicate that the word "Aryan" was used by the Iranian peoples..."in the Avesta" in the lead?

Can we indicate that the word "Aryan" was used by the Iranian peoples..."in the Avesta" in the lead here?Mojobadshah (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I added it. I had to restructure a bit to make the sentences work, but now it mentions the Avesta.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

On postulated misinterpreted references in the RigVeda

It says in the opening that Drawing on misinterpreted references in the Rig Veda by Western Scholars in the 19th century, the term "Aryan" was adopted as a racial category; I am not sure there were any misinterpretations of the RigVeda though. Wasn't it just that after the term was extended to refer to all Indo-Europeans, people like Gobineau decided that there Germans must be the only racially pure Aryans, all others having been polluted with ‘degenerate blood’? Or does the passage mean that the RigVeda didn't consider race when using it as an ethnonym, and that "race" is the misinterpretation? I would like to correct it to in the 19th century, the term "Aryan" was adopted as a racial category unless anyone objects. --130.225.121.195 (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aryan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5v8FoPHBg?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vanguardnewsnetwork.com%2F%3Fpage_id%3D4 to http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?page_id=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The mainstream definition of Aryan.

Kautilya3, I'm puzzled why you removed my post and called it "unconstructive." I'm presenting the mainstream academic view of Aryan, the semi-nomadic people who migrated into Iran and Indian Subcontinent. You may not share the same view, but my post is completely relevant to the topic. It provides reader a better understanding of the subject, rather than a one-sided Hindu nationalist view.

D4iNa4, why do you remove my post and called it "nationalist theories"? What I presented was mainstream academic view of Aryan. On the contrary, the notion of the indigenous Aryan was a Hindu nationalist theory.

I didn't think it was an improvement [15]. By the way you need to explain your edits (and justify them) in edit summaries.

Somebody added a new lead on top of the original lead. It reads nicely, but it is not an accurate summary of the article. It is going to get deleted sooner or later. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

just a reference : http://www.iranchamber.com/people/articles/aryan_people_origins.phpXerxes2500 (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Oldest reference to Aryan race

here is one if others have any please add here http://www.iranchamber.com/people/articles/aryan_people_origins.php Xerxes2500 (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

Under header etymology it says:

The English word "Aryan" is borrowed from the Sanskrit word ārya,[8] आर्य, meaning "noble" or "noble one".[5][7][14] It was reintroduced into English with the new spelling by William Jones in the 18th century.

Under the header (or heading? Proto Indo-Iranian, it says:

The Sanskrit term comes from proto-Indo-Iranian *arya-[8][note 1] [18][19] or *aryo-,[20][note 2] the name used by the Indo-Iranians to designate themselves.[21][8][note 3][20] The Zend airya 'venerable' and Old Persian ariya are also derivates of *aryo-,[20] and are also self-designations

In the first header, it derives from the Indian language. In the second, it derives from both (proto-Indo-Iranian = Indian and Iranian languages?). Perhaps mention the English word derives from the Sanskrit and Iranian languages then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.88.67 (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

New text contributed by Mojobadshah

no doubt the aryans are a race. The truth of the matter is the first reference of this great race is found in Rigveda and Avesta two very similar epics. the Rigveda was complied in the north-western part of the Indian subcontinent while the Avesta in neighboring Afghanistan-Tajikistan. thus the Indians and afghan-tajiks are the first Aryans. this is referred to as a race in Indian Avestan epics and and later also by Darius. The aryans went West from india and Afghanistan-Tajikestan. I am Darius, the great king, the king of kings The king of many countries and many people The king of this expansive land, The son of Wishtaspa of Achaemenid, Persian, the son of a Persian, 'Aryan', from the Aryan race "From the Darius the Great's Inscription in Naqshe-e-Rostam" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.237.144 (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

In Sanskrit Un-Arya means non Aryan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.203 (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Mojobadshah changed the lead with a lot of detail about the Iranian connections, which I found quite incoherent. I am copying it here so that it may be discussed to see what parts of it may be salvaged (if any). Mojobadshah, please explain what you are trying to do. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Article text

"Aryan" (/ˈɛəriən, ˈɛərjən, ˈær-/) designated the people, speakers, and coreligionists who hailed from the ancient Irano-Afghan nation recorded in the Gathic or Old Avestan form Airyana Vaejah, first entered into Western use as a loanword designating the eastern region of the Persian kingdom (rendered in Latin as Ariāna, -ē Ariānī, -ēnī its inhabitants) in Philmon Holland's 1601 translation of Pliny's Natural History in the verbatim form Arian, and in the form Arya first came into use in the West in 1794 in The Works of Sir William Jones as a translation of the Sanskrit āryas (Vedic āria) "an allusion to the Vedic rishi or poet-praiser's injunction to pronounce correctly the prescribed ritual words lest the ritual itself is vitiated as with the əreshi (MPer. Arashi) or poet-praiser in Avestan tradition," and applied earlier as a national name" such as with the Avestan Airyana, whence modern Iran. (the glide or semi-vowel *i is sometimes also written as *y as in English and initial and internal Avestan y corresponds to initial and internal Sanskrit y) The term ārya was used as an ethnic self-designation by the Indo-Iranian speaking tribes in the ancient times. It was believed in the 19th century that it was also a self-designation used by all Proto-Indo-Europeans, a theory that has now been abandoned. (the second element varta in Āryāvarta rendered as varsha in modern day Indic languages has since died out as an indication of "birthland" where varsha semantically conveys "rain," whereas in the Pashto language defined as a New East Iranian language varta lives on in the form warsha and means "[Aryan] grazing grounds") References

Can you explain to me what parts you saw were inconsistent Kautilya3? All my edits were cited. Mojobadshah (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I've cut out the references and a couple of other bits, to get "Aryan" designated the people, speakers, and coreligionists who hailed from the ancient Irano-Afghan nation recorded in the Gathic or Old Avestan form Airyana Vaejah, first entered into Western use as a loanword designating the eastern region of the Persian kingdom (rendered in Latin as Ariana, -e Ariani, -eni its inhabitants) in Philmon Holland's 1601 translation of Pliny's Natural History in the verbatim form Arian, and in the form Arya first came into use in the West in 1794 in The Works of Sir William Jones as a translation of the Sanskrit aryas (Vedic aria) "an allusion to the Vedic rishi or poet-praiser's injunction to pronounce correctly the prescribed ritual words lest the ritual itself is vitiated as with the ?reshi (MPer. Arashi) or poet-praiser in Avestan tradition," and applied earlier as a national name" such as with the Avestan Airyana, whence modern Iran. (the glide or semi-vowel *i is sometimes also written as *y as in English and initial and internal Avestan y corresponds to initial and internal Sanskrit y)" That's not an English sentence. That's why it was called 'incoherent', not 'inconsistent'. It doesn't make a lot of sense - it's a jumble of ideas strung together. The current first paragraph is far, far better. Doug Weller (talk) 11:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This basically seems to be an effort to fuse the two words Arian used in the Iranian context and Aryan used in the Indic context, and to make the additional claim that the former has priority. The two words are clearly cognates. But I think it is a poor idea to fuse them, because the two words have different historical developments and different meanings in the present day. I would suggest to Mojobadshah to use other places to add his material, e.g., Ariana or perhaps some new article for Arian if there is enough material. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 what is posted in the introduction right now states: the word "Aryan" is a loanword from Sanskrit Arya. What I stated was that the glide or semi-vowel *i is also represented as *y in English. This glide in particular in Avestan corresponds to the glide in Sanskrit represented either *i or *y. The form Arian with glide represented *i in Philomon Holland's 1601 translation of Pliny's Natural History is when the loan "Aryan" entered into in West regardless of how the glide is represented. The earliest usage of Sanskrit Arya was in 1794 as a reference to the loan "Aryan" was in The Works of Sir William Jones. Unless I'm wrong about -y- and -i- being a glide that represents the same phoneme in the forms Arya and Arian and unless you can find a source that refers to the "Aryans" in a source that was published earlier than Philmon Holland's 1601 translation of Pliny's Natural History then you need to provide further explanation as to why the loan "Aryan" was derived from Sanskrit "Arya" and not, ultimately Avestan Airyana via Latin Ariana > Arian. The wikipedia article regards the expression "Aryan" not the form Aryan regardless of whether *i or *y is used. Moreover the form Arian with *i is used to identify the Indo-Europeans as a whole from 1841 to 1857. The entire wikipedia article details the usage of the form and expression "Aryan" in reference to not just the Indo-Iranians, but the Indo-Europeans likewise, and the expression in sources in addition to Iranian and Indic sources. As far as the sentence structure that can be addressed, but the original paragraph is not better. It gives the impression that the expression "Aryan" entered into the West as a loan from Sanskrit when that is clearly not the case. You have my permission to tidy up any grammatical errors that you see, but as far as the facts, those should not change, unless you come up with ample reason as to why the loan "Aryan" came from Sanskrit and not Avestan. And what do the references have to do with the sentence structure? If you cut out the references you cut out the evidence supporting the facts!!Mojobadshah (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

refs cut ' here for to make it easier to read. Doug Weller (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Everything you say appears to be WP:OR. Several dictionaries have been cited that state that the English "Aryan" comes from Sanskrit "Arya". None of them have made any connection with Pliny's Natural History. The Sanskrit word is spelt "Arya", not "Aria". The latter would be grammatically ill-formed in Sanskrit. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Avestan and Sanskrit are sister languages, speakers of both used the term Arya about themselves. The Avestan connection definitely needs to be included, and can be sourced to plenty of reliale sources - for example Anthony's "The Horse, Wheel and Language" where he discusses the history of the term at length in the introduction. The spelling is irrelevant since none of them were originally spelled in Latin letters. I am not supporting the wholesale Mojobadash's edits, but some kind of compromise supported by RS seems required.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus, there is plenty of discussion in the Etymology section. Did you see it? Mojobadshah wants it in the lead. I do not want Sanskrit Arya and the Iranian Aria fused, because Arya lost its ethnic/racial connotation a long time ago (even before the Vedic times ended), whereas the Iranian sense is still ethnic. They may have been the same word a long time ago. But they are not the same word now. Arya is by no means a dead word in India. Plenty of people still have names of Arya or its derivatives such as -ayya, aiah, iyer etc. So, its precise meaning needs to be explained. The Iranian connection only obfuscates. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, the contemporary importance of this term is not its current use in India but its historical usage within Indo-European linguistics and in certain well-known racial ideologies - hence the Iranian connection is crucial to explain. The Sanskrit use is a minor aspect of the general topic of "Aryan" and "Arya" and it should not be considered the main topic. Hence this is ont about fusing two separate topics, but rather about the fact that it is not possible to separate the Avestan and Sanskrit topics since they are in fact both minor aspects of a wider issue that this article needs to describe.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think those aspects are already amply covered in various pages:

• Indo-Iranians
• Indo-Iranian languages
• Indo-Iranian religion
• Indo-Aryan peoples
• Indo-Aryan languages
• Indo-Aryan migration theory

Still I defer to your judgement. If you are happy to work on the article, please do. The current state of it with Mojobadshah's addition is quite inedible. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Each of those articles cover a distinct topic, the topic "Aryan" is another distinct topic with its own literature.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3First of all whoever is threatening me with vandalism needs to cut it out. I've explained my reasons behind a new introduction in the lead because the introduction that is there right now is obsolete. You say that representing Arya as Aria would be grammatically inconsistent, but first of all that's not even the point. The wikipedia article is in regards to the word "Aryan" as a loan not the form Aryan represented with a -y- over an -i-. Nevertheless both Avestan semi-vowel and Sanskrit semi-vowel which are allophones in both Av. Air-y-a and Skr. Ar-y-a correspond to each other. Technically anyone could be using either i with IPA or English y to represent the word that is being discussed here in both Avestan and Sanskrit. If representing Sanskrit with an -i- is not grammatically correct for a Sanskrit transliteration then respectively it would not be grammatically correct to represent an Avestan source with an -i-. My source by J.P. Mallory contradicts your etymological sources, and J.P. Mallory's source is more descriptive and even provides an explanation as to why the word "Aryan" is a loan from Avestan and not Sanskrit. On top of this every source in reference to the word "Aryan" discussing the Iranians, Indians, and Indo-Europeans in publications over the course of history uses the verbatim form Arian not Arya or Aryan in reference to these people. At that point in the chronology the exact form Aryan itself the word could only have been derived from a reconstruction of both Avestan, Sanskrit and this means that the verbatim form Aryan is not a loan from Sanskrit, but based on a reconstruction of both Avestan and Sanskrit or *aryaor it was merely a conscience choice to represent the form Arian that linguists had been using to designate all three of these people Iranian, Indian, and Indo-European with a -y- instead of an -i- up until at least 1870. As far as I can see it was only after the form aryan was used in reference to all the Indo-Europeans that it was used to designate the Indians as Indo-Aryans. Either way it makes no sense to say that the word "Aryan" is a loan from Sanskrit when it originated as a national designation for the Iranians and our earliest representation of the national designation is the Avestan Airyana Vaeja (the national designation Aryavarta did not appear until long after the Vedas were composed which as you know were as ancient as the Avesta) which is reinforced by J.P. Mallory the Indo-Europeanist's determination, not the determination of an English etymology dictionary. The way I see it - it's whoever wants to claim Sanskrit as the source of the loan "Aryan" and omit the Iranian people as the source for the loan "Aryan" in order to not only evade the whole world from this point, but also mislead the whole world into thinking that the Sanskrit form Arya did not develop out of the Iranian zone Airyana Vaeja modern day Irano-Afghanistan the national designation India being an Iranian loan itself. And "Aryan" does not live on as a national designation in India in the same right that it is a cognate of the nation of Iran, probably Afghanistan, and probably Azerbaijan too which are all Iranian speaking nations descending from the "Aryan" homeland where the word ULTIMATELY "Aryan" derivesMojobadshah (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Mallory is indeed the authoritative source for indo-european etymologies here. However you still need to get a consensus among other editors before your edit can be added to the article, and the process of building this consensus is likely to require compromise of different kinds and certainly cannot be achieved by edit warring. The question of whether the word is delivered from a sanskrit or avestan source I think is quite irrelevant since we know that it was used by the Indo-Iranian community about themselves and hence predates the split between Avestan and Sanskrit, and since the word has been preserved in both branches.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually no we can only assume based on hypothesis that the source for "Aryan" was the common ancestors of both the Indians and Iranians the so-called Proto-Indo-Iranians. The only hard and the earliest evidence we have of the form "Aryan" being used in the national sense which the Sanskrit form arya itself derives is an Iranian source the Avesta in Airyana Vaeja. Moreover it is non-Iranian bias that is promoting the Proto-Indo-Iranian theory. For all we know, and this is also supported by comparative mythological evidence in the fact that it was the monotheistic religion of the Irano-Afghans Zoroastrianism or Proto-Zoroastrianism and settled society which preceded the digression of Irano-Afghan monotheism which developed into the Vedic polytheism - the Vedas themselves showing evidence of this development from monotheism to polytheism with Asura Varuna "the Asura over all the Asuras," the counterpart of the Avestan Ahura Mazda, hence there were no Proto-Indo-Iranians and the Vedas were composed after the Avesta was composed in Hepta Hend, what is now the Punjab, Hepta Hend being included as one of the 16 provinces of Airyana Vaejah and the source of the loan India via Old Persian Hindustan (not Sanskrit Septa-Sind of the Vedas, merely an archaism of language which does not point to antiquity or "ancientness"). So yes, kindly invite other editors to contend with me so we can finally settle this linguistic dispute because I grow weary of all the evasive and misleading tactics of politicians and academia apart from the few honorable scholars out there who actually care about exposing parties with an interest in the Aryan phenomenon to the truth regarding the matter. Mojobadshah (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You said: "it is non-Iranian bias that is promoting the Proto-Indo-Iranian theory".This statement is absurd, and throws serious doubt on the rest of your argumentation since it suggests that you are promoting a political fringe viewpoint. I think we shall have to ignore you untill you support your claims with reliable sources here on the talkpage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mojobadshah: Your posts are long and unfocused. Please discuss one issue at a time so that we can make progress. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Mallory

Mojobadshah, You have said that Mallory provides an explanation as to why the word "Aryan" is a loan from Avestan and not Sanskrit. Please provide the citation for this claim. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I cited Mallory in my version of an introduction for the loanword "Aryan." Here it is again: J.P. Mallory|2001|p=125 "As an ethnic designation, the word [Aryan] is most properly limited to the Indo-Iranians, and most justly to the latter where it still gives its name to the country Iran (from the Avestan genitive plural airyanam through later Iranian eran to iran." As you can see he is of the contention that we are more so indebted to the Iranians or Irano-Afghans for the term than the Indians so it makes no sense not to mention the term in direct connection with the Iranians in the intro. Even the etymology dictionaries make a point of connecting the Sanskrit usage of Arya, which is not even really an ethnic usage of the term, to the national place-name Airyana. "noble" as a definition for Skr. Arya is to vague and not even precise. A more accurate or fitting definition for the Sanskrit Arya is the one I provided where it was merely used as an allusion to any individual who performed the Vedic rites according to the rule of correct utterance. Skr. Arya didn't even describe a language just formula. If a poet-praiser or Rishi performed the Vedic rites the way he was supposed to he was hailed as an Arya "Aryan" - a pious, true, or expert Rishi. If not then the poet-praiser or Rishi was considered an Aravan -an infidel or fake. Anyone coming out of Airyana, ancient Iran, however was considered a born Airya "Aryan," regardless of how an individual from this locality performed the Avestan rites or not, although correct utterance was also part of the rule of poet-praisers or Ereshis from Airyana. An incorrect utterance of the rites didn't make the Airya any less Airya, but it did mean that they weren't worthy of being included among the priestly-clan or caste - the Airyamna or Maga. The Avestan designation for "priestly clan or caste" Airyamna precedes the national designation Airyamna whereas in Sanskrit the national designation had already been rendered an allusion to the rite of correct utterance in the Vedas because by then the hunter-gatherer Vedic Rishis had long been disconnected from their settled homeland which Airyana designates. Whereas the Avestan people catered to Ahuramazda of the settled society the Vedic people catered to the Devas such as Indra who represented the hunter-gatherers of the unsettled society. - Mojobadshah (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please keep your posts focused and concise as per WP:TPYES.

I do not see Mallory talking about a "loanword". - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

To state my personal opinion, the ancient people were wise. They realized that "Aryan" as an ethnic designation was a foolish (and perhaps dangerous) idea. The Iranians then used it only to name the country. The Indians decided to use the term for any person who was cultured and noble. However, there is an unfortunate tendency now to return to the same foolish ideas that the ancients discarded. We can write about it, if that is what you want covered. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The quote from Mallory is clearly relevant and should be included.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't find the exact work from Mallory that you are quoting. Could you provide the title please?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

References

inserted text by myself [16] comes from relevent paragarph of Malory- earlier partial quotation (u reverted) is misleading+POV.Prashantbhukamp (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will check the source. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Edits

I have added mention of the Avestan and Persian usage of the term which was conspicuously missing - both in the lead and in the body. I have also added mention of the racial ideology that uses the term in the lead. I have provided sources for my edits. Except I can't find which work by Mallory the quote supplied by Mojobadshah comes from, and I am not 100% that I supplied the right work for the citation "Tickell 2005" (I added his article about Aryavarta).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It is in In search of Indo-Europeans. I will add the reference. However, note that the statement attributed to Mallory is now out-of-date. In the reference I gave below, you find: In spite of many attempts to force ariya into Aryanist assumptions, recent scholarship -- in particular the work of Gherardo Gnoli -- has shown that ariya was not quite a racial category. According to Gnoli, in Achaemenid times, ariya was a cultural and religious term to evoke the kings' origin, like a title of particular nobility. In its very restricted, exclusivist nature, that is quite different from a racial category. In the end, I don't think the Iranian usage and the Indic usage of the term are all that different. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

That is an odd argument since Mallory clearly does not say that it was a racial category, but an ethnic one. Mallory clearly is not "trying to force ariya into Aryanist assumptions" and claiming that he is is either disingenuous or malicious. Mallory and the other sources provided by me are making the exact argument that you attribute for some reason to Gnoli, but which is the standard view. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, "racial" has lots of meanings here. I am not talking about "blond and blue-eyed." But, the idea we have these days, including even Mallory's writings, is that the Indo-Iranian people, who migrated to new lands, called themselves Aryans and thereby distinguished themselves from the natives. That is not borne out by the studies. In the Rig Veda itself we have plenty of people that we might regard as natives who are being counted as Aryans. Arya and Dasa are called varnas (characters?). There is no mention of descent or ethnicity.

It appeared as if the situation was different in Iran. But Gnoli is saying no. He defines the Younger Avestan term airya as people who identified themselves with the reformist teachings of Zarathustra and who spoke one of the Indo-Iranian languages. Once again, there is no idea of descent here. In fact, it is exactly the same kind of idea as in the Rig Veda.

In the light of Rig Veda and Gnoli, the idea of "ethnic self-designation of Indo-Iranian tribes" doesn't make sense. It was perhaps a cultural self-designation. If any natives took to that culture and excelled, they were equally aryas. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you dont understand what "ethnic means" in this context - it doesnt mean race, descent or ancestry, it means "a selfidentified groups sharing language, culture, religion, origin narrative or other distinguishing features". Ethnicity IS a cultural selfdesignation. I very much do not believe that your claim (that Arya was not partly an ethnic designator) is a mainstream view in any of the relevant disciplines - it is totally clear from the linguistic data that the proto-Indic speakers and the proto-iranian speakers referred to their elites as Arya. Whether they distinguished them selves on religious grounds as well as linguistic and cultural is irrelevant + religion is also an ethnic symbol. I dont think you are correctly interpreting Gnoli, and even if you were I have seen no evidence that Gnoli has caused a major shift in this, in my view basically everybody (including both Mallory and Gnoli ) agrees that there is both a linguistic, cultural and religious aspect to the way the term was used by the Iranians. Your quote from Gnoli is almost verbatim the same as the one given by Kuzmina and Mallory and by Briant. And it is what "ethnic selfdesignation" means in an academic context. In anycase I think the current description is fine, and I acknolwedge that due to the American propensity to use "ethnic" as a euphemism for "racial" it may be better to avoid the term and substitute it with "cultural, linguistic and religious" as you have done.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

References

If I may, allow me to clear something up for you my friends... I have noticed based on statistical correlations of my own that the concept of race and ethnicity is as it turns out a extremely confusing one for most people. The fact is that ethnicity entails several categories INCLUDING the concept of race along with a host of cultural self-designations including national ancestry, language, religion, etc..... So national ancestry, language, religion, and race are the main ethnic classifications. A national self-designation is not a racial designation unless it specifically implies that nation that is distinguished by a racial designation itself eg. white, black, brown, yellow, red, blue, green, whatever... they're not even classifications that I want to be getting into or any academic or even politician should or would be using unless its in the pejorative sense. It's extremely politically incorrect and misleading. What it does is promote a sense of "racial privilege" like people are even related based on the connection to skin color, and where does one draw the line? If I am a little bit whiter than another white person or a little bit blacker than another black person does that mean I'm affiliated with a different race than either/or? Or if my brother is born with a darker complexion on the basis of skin does that mean that we are different races? Only a completely uninformed and ignorant individual would ever seek to promote a philosophy such as "race" as a political ploy to make people think their one in the same, when if their going to push race at all none of us are the same race. We would all be individually different races which just blow things out of proportion entirely. At that point everyone would be a racist vying for themselves and at that point everyone would be on the same page which would bring the ideology to a moot point. Racial philosophy in itself is an ideology, and a subjective one at that. Culture on the other hand is objectively based. A nation, religion, and language is connected according to rules and laws which can be objectively defined and expressed. How they're interpreted on the other hand becomes the object of subjectivity. Race on the other hand is purely a subjective matter. However I would advice against using "race" as an ethnic designation, especially, as far as the "authentic" usage of the "Aryan" phenomenon is concerned for the mere fact that the concept of race is a 19th century philosophy that never existed for either the Avestan or Sanskrit "Aryans." The German scholar Max Muller himself was a strong proponent against the usage of "Aryan" as a racial designation. Moreover the terms Indo-European and Indo-Germanic in reference to the "Aryans" preceded the usage of "Aryan" as a "racial philosophy." And you really want to be using the term national or national ancestry instead of culture because national ancestry is a specific identifier whereas ethnicity and culture are almost the same thing. Either ethnicity or culture a general terms for what encapsulates national, linguistic, religious, and if you must racial provenance. If you want to make a point about what it really means to be an "Aryan" as far as those who are in the "know" you might want to mention that most Europeans bear a pre-Abrahamic past including both Jews and Christians and at least Irano-Afghan Muslims, which although distant is tied to the language and national ancestry of the Irano-Afghan people. This is generally consistent with all 10 of the living Indo-European or "Aryan" language subfamilies. Even the national self-designation India is derived from the Irano-Afghan language-group or Old Persian Hindustan via Avestan Hepta-Hendu. Although the Sanskrit Septa-Sindu may be an archaic form of the same root the provenance of the national self-designation India traces back more directly to the Irano-Afghans than to the Indo-Aryans. Moreover the true "Intellectual Power" of the Aryans was not in the color of their skin it was in their cultural heritage, more specifically, their language or "Word" in both tongue and vision, and in addition to language being an indicator of national identity, much less, culture as a whole this is what distinguished the Aryan heritage from the Abrahamic heritage which is derived from a different tongue entirely being that the Jews speak Hebrew (not an Aryan tongue), Jesus Christ according to scripture itself was of Jewish ancestry the language of the Jews being of Hebrew provenance (not Aryan), and the language of the Quran is of Arabic (not Aryan) provenance. As far as ideology is concerned the Aryan language (Persian, Greek) embedded in the Hebrew Bible is a clear indication that the Aryan ideology (eg. Persian Zoroastrianism, maybe other Indo-European religious heritages as well such as pre-Christian Greek and Roman. Even "St. Paddy" could be considered an Indo-European element in what was once Roman Catholicism, now Irishized) itself was prevalent in the Hebrew Bible which both the Christian and Muslim traditions take after. Even the Vedas are valued for their antiquity as well as references to the non-Abrahamic or "Aryan" gods and as the ancestral "Word" of the living "Aryan" faith known as Hinduism (most other Indo-European cultural heritages having been relegated to myth. Yesterday's religion - today's literature eg. Greek, Roman, Celtic, and Nordic mythology). This is what all the intellectuals during all the Renaissances knew over the ages as well as since the so-called Volk movement of modern day Europe. If anyone is using the term "Aryan" in the national sense today it should only be used in reference to the Irano-Afghan national identity and language-group, otherwise their usage of it would be an indication of "race" a usage which since WWII has fallen out of use unless its used by neo-Nazi political groups which would be a loud and clear attempt to defame the "Aryans" themselves and the underlying truth or "Intellectual Power" of the Aryans.Mojobadshah (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Now, this is a wall of text.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It took me awhile to find this but, Mojobadshah sounds alot like OJOM whom I dealt with back in April, they were also posting "walls of text" on similar articles, Future Perfect at Sunrise may also remember OJOM, anyway it might just be the same user. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I could just be tripping :P. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not me. If you would like to private message me I would be more than willing to confirm the fact. Just wrote what came out naturally in order to reinforce my point. In any case, I've added a just a little bit more to the intro, an extra paragraph, and I did my best to keep it short. I was under the impression the intro needed more to distinguish between the "Nazi conception of the Aryans" and the so-called "underlying truth of the Aryan phenomenon." The latter preceded the former, and is really how the anomaly is meant to be understood, for the most part. Meanwhile I kept the fact that the Aryan phenomenon as far as Western thought and the 10 living Indo-European language-subfamilies of today are concerned have direct ancestral ties to the Irano-Afghan Aryans in the national sense as far as the initial inhabitants of Europe the Scytho-Sarmations are concerned for the time being. This is what I added:

"Furthermore the true value of the term Aryan according to most scholarly institutions (eg. historical-linguistics, historiography, comparative-mythology, biblical scholarship), as opposed to "White Power" political organizations has been sought in the antiquity of Iranian, Indic [12][13], and other pre-Christian or pre-Abrahamic Indo-European faiths and languages and their contribution to both the primary religious heritage of the West as well as the Abrahamic faiths, in the context of modern day, as far back as Europe's so-called "Volk" movement of the 19th century which included the likes of such intellectual greats as Nietzsche, Voltaire, Hegal, Strauss, Wagner, and Mozart. Most of these pre-Abrahamic cultural heritages (eg. Greek, Roman, Nordic religion) have since the advent of Christianity become relegated to myth as far as the realm of academics is concerned while the "authentic" and "genuine" Aryan faiths known as Hinduism and Zoroastrianism still survive to this day, considered "living" Aryan faiths and cultural traditions, the latter being responsible for its contributions to the core of the Abrahamic belief system.[14]"

Let me know if anyone has any problems with it and why if so.... Mojobadshah (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I have problems with it and have removed it for the following reasons. Factual reasons: Voltaire and Mozart did not live in the 19th century and have no relation to the Volk movement. I dont know whic Strauss you refer to, but I don't know any Strauss who could be considered related to that movement either. Formal reasons: Hegel is spelled Hegel, not Hegal. The sentences are much too long and convoluted and not easily intelligible. The last sentence is a sujective and clearly apologetic value judgment about zoroastrianism relative to other religions, and it is unsupported by sources and basically entirely unrelated to the topic of this article. I dont' think the paragraph contributes anything that is necessary to the lead. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Manus I'll correct Hegal to Hegel. Merely a type. You have my permission to correct any typos or grammatical issues. You're point about my sentences, however, being "not easily intelligible" has got to be an overstatement must be completely subjective. 19th century is when the Volk movement began. Voltaire and Mozart and Richard Strauss were all connected to it. Voltaire like Nietzsche had an interest in Zarathushtra the Aryan. Strauss was responsible for composing "Also Sprach Zarathustra," and Mozart composed "The Magic Flute" in relation to Zarathushtra. Maybe it would be more accurate in stating, at least, Mozart was a Freemason and the Masonic Order was centered around Zarathushtra the Aryan. As far as the last sentence I have no idea what you mean by apologetic. It begs the question as to whether you identify yourself as a "race nationalist" because you're denying an emphasis on the intellectual truth regarding the Aryans. The true value in the Aryan phenomenon is in its brevity as an identifier of language and expression, even more so than material culture. There is plenty of evidence to support the last sentence and it's even already cited. You're going to need to explain yourself further. Until you do I'm going to make the spelling correction as to Hegel's name, and add that the cited intellectuals were influenced by the Volk movement.Mojobadshah (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You will have to wait untill there is a consensus among all editors here that your text should be included. If you insert it again you will be violating basic editing protocol. Art and literature related to Zarathurstra may be relevant at the page about Zarathustrata, but it is irrelevant here. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Zarathushtra is not exactly the point. The point is this is a wikipedia on the term Aryan and what the expression Aryan conveys. You're saying in the intro that it conveys a "racial ideology," but that was not the point to begin with and it's not the point now. As V. Gordon Childe explains the term Aryan is used for its "brevity" to convey the long and rich heritage of the Indic, Iranian, and Indo-European people. Academia was initially concerned with tracing Europe's or the Indo-European people's roots. It was on account of the Indo-Iranian usage of the term "Aryan" and the antiquity of their languages and faiths that the rest of the Indo-Europeans adopted the term. Hinduism is an ancient "Aryan" religion and a close counterpart of many of the other IE. religions that died out whereas Hinduism lives on AS A RELIGION. The ancient Aryan religion of the Iranians (Zoroastrianism), however, had a big impact on the Abrahamic faiths, the religious heritage of most Westerners of today. You would be doing the people who identify with the Aryans on account of this fact rather than "race nationality" a seriously big injustice not to make a point of this in the intro. There is already an Aryan wikipedia page attributed to the development of the term Aryan as a "race nationality" ideology. Kindly do not evade the main point of the term Aryan. And definitely do not appropriate the definition of the term Aryan to "racial philosophy" on this public forum. Do it in politics or for entertainment value, but not here.Mojobadshah (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It does not appear that you have actually read the part of the introduction that describes how the term was appropriated for the racial ideology of the nazis. And certainly your idea about what I am saying is misguided bordering on the absurd which is apparent to a person who can actually read. Gordon Childes use of the term has not been influential at all compared to the misuse of the Nazis. It seems you suffer from several misconceptions about Wikipedia's mission and the way it works here. It is not wikipedia's mission to establishe the "true meaning" of terms, but rather to describe the meanings that they have been given by scholars. And the way we do this is by forming consensus and argueing for ones proposals. Your proposals seem to be pushing a zoroastrinan viwepoint trying to make this page out to be primarily about the specific zoroastrian understanding of the concept "aryan", which is one of the concepts meanings (along with the vedic and racial and others), but by no means the main one. The article must cover all the meanings of the term, not just one or the other as you and Kautilya seem to suggest, although you disagree on which. Your proposals have failed to convince anyone and hence they are not supported by a consensus at present and cannot be included in the form you propose.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the article must and does cover all meanings of the term. I see no indication that Mojobadshah has actually read the article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You're idea of "influential" depends on what part of the world you are speaking from. This is not a "History Channel" propaganda forum. If you're talking about Western academia Western scholars both expose students to the Nazi conception of the Aryan, how this "Nazi conception" was false or simply based on "myth" and also admit that there is underlying truth of the Aryans, that this truth regards the study of the Indo-Europeanism which is a culture that both lives on with the Indo-Iranians as a religion (eg. Zoroastrianism and Hinduism) and that Zarathushtra influenced the Volk movement which in turn influenced Hitler and the Nazis. It would appear to me that you are just trying to exploit this forum to evade readers of this fact or "underlying truth" of the Aryans and that you yourself are trying to propagandize the Aryan phenomenon as a "race nationality" which is a total deviation from anything that "authentically" or "genuinely" has to do with the Aryans. You're explanation of the term Aryan in the intro is extremely one sided. If you're in Iran or Afghanistan the term Aryan the usage of Aryan is more in line with this "underlying truth" of Western academia. Both V. Gordon Childe and J.P. Mallory - Indo-Europeanists - support this side of the "influence." So you're point is totally subjective. Either you study what it really means to be an Aryan which is what this post should ultimately be about or you merely cater to some outdated and obsolete propaganda that you'd only see in Hollywood or on cable TV. The schools promote both sides of the story. You don't have enough in the intro pointing to what the term Aryan really means as far as the intellectual aspect of the term. We all know it came from the Indo-Iranians and the usage extended to the Indo-Europeans, but its usage to identify "race nationality" is not the whole truth as far as what the term indicates and more over actually detracts from the truth and caters to the Nazi conception alone. What is in your view the "underlying truth of the Aryans" not the "myth"?Mojobadshah (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it is not the case that Zoroastrians have the monopoly on defining "what it really means to be an Aryan".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No one is saying that the Zoroastrians possess a monopoly on defining "what it really means to be an Aryan." I even emphasized that there are two sides to the story or maybe more. You have only addressed the origins of the term Aryan (and you're not even telling the truth about it deriving from Skr. Arya, because 1.) Skr. Arya is ultimately derived from the national place-name which became Iran, Skr. Arya having lost its meaning as a national identifier 2.) even if Skr. Arya was where the form "Aryan" came from and not Arian it was not the ancient form Skr. Arya alone. It was dependent on a reconstruction of the forms Skr. arya Av. ariya and maybe even Irish Eire) and its "race nationality" connotation. You not addressed its connotation as an identifier of the intellectual influence it had upon even the Nazis themselves eg. the monotheistic Aryan known as Zarathushtra and his influence on the Volk movement which Hitler was in turn influenced by. Academia makes allusions to both these points. I'm not sure what other meaning you would be referring to. You appear to be under the impression it only indicated "race nationality" signifying either the ancient Indians or the ancient Europeans. Can you explain why these so-called "White Races" were successful or was it merely on account of the color of their skin. If you don't want to address this question then at the very least kindly answer my question below and determine whether it will be an issue for you.Mojobadshah (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Monotheism

Maybe it would help to point out where you say: "Scholars point out that, even in ancient times, the idea of being an "Aryan" was religious, cultural and linguistic, not racial.[7][8][9]" to add that "Aryan" is an Iranian and Indian religious, cultural, and linguistic, not racial identifier and that, especially, the Iranian usage of "Aryan" identified a monotheistic religion distinguishable from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.... Would there be a problem in this?Mojobadshah (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 or Maunus kindly address the questions I've posted above. To make it short I would like to merely add that in addition to the term Aryan being an indication of linguistic culture the ancient Iranians attested to in the Avesta were specifically culturally "monotheists" by religion. It's up to you whether you want to indicate that Hinduism was specifically a polytheistic religion or not.Mojobadshah (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no scholarly consensus about whether the Avestan religion is monotheistic or not. There is also no consensus that the proto-Indo-Aryans or proto-Iranians were.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Manus, I indicated I wanted to add the simple fact that the ancient Iranians of the Avesta were monotheists not the "proto-Iranians." Will that be a problem for you? If so, how so?Mojobadshah (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because there is no consensus that they were among scholars.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Manus, if that's the case and I strongly disagree there is no consensus (what books are you reading or not reading??) is there a consensus that Judaism or Christianity or Islam is a monotheistic religion? There may be no consensus that Hinduism is a monotheistic religion, but not Zoroastrianism: the religion of the Avesta...Mojobadshah (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I believe a majority of scholars would argue that ancient Avestan religion was (at least partly) Dualist. I realize that contemporary Zoroastrians consider their religion to be monotheist, and may argue that this was also the case for the ancient religion - but scholars of the history of religion seems to mostly disagree. [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Manus, I really don't want to get into a long theological debate about this matter, but I think you know as well as I do that generally speaking there is a scholarly consensus that the Avestan religion was a "monotheistic" religion. I could show you just as many sources that show Zoroastrianism was "dualist" that show that Zoroastrianism was "monotheistic" religion. In the same right just as many sources cite the Abrahamic faiths as "monotheistic" I could find a considerable number of sources that argue that they're not. In any case I believe if you're going to call Zoroastrianism "dualist" that the current convention in regards to the ascribed "dualism" is more properly defined "monotheistic dualism"[26] otherwise it's just another "monotheistic" religion with the same elements in Christianity and Islam. As a matter of fact the renowned Iranologist Martin Huag as you may know "proved" that Zoroastrianism was not just a "monotheistic" religion, but a "strict monotheism." So before we are forced to get into a long and drawn out theological debate due to differing interpretations of the Avesta, could we agree, in the meantime, to settle on the term "monotheistic dualism" as an identifier of the Avestan faith? Moreover, as you mentioned the Zoroastrians themselves, many of them scholars too, designate their faith "monotheism," and in the end this may be the only way to settle this question just as it may be the only way to settle the question as to whether Judaism, Christianity, or Islam are truly monotheistic faiths or not. Do you understand? I think you would be doing the people who identify with the Avestan faith themselves a huge disservice by catering to anti-Iranian or the influence of Western scholars who cater to the Abrahamic identity.Mojobadshah (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact that we can parade equal amounts of sources saying Zoroastrianism was dualist and monotheist PROVES conclusively that there is no consensus about the fact. Haug did not prove anyting, and his argument is still a matter of debate almost 100 years later. But no we should not have a theological debate here. Because zoroastrian theology is utterly irrelevant to the topic of this article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think any theological debate is warranted. Maunus has said that there is no "scholarly consensus" on Zoroastrianism being monotheistic. More to the point, I haven't seen any source saying that monotheism was a central ingredient of being "Aryan." I do have sources that say Zoroastrianism was an ingredient, but not monotheism. What you are trying to do is called WP:SYNTHESIS. "Zoroastrainism was an ingredient. Zoroastrianism was monotheistic. Ergo, monotheism was an ingredient." That kind of synthesis is not permitted. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya, sorry WP SYNTHESIS is not what is happening here. Both you and Manus are evading my point. First Manus evaded by pretending I was referring to the Proto-Indo-Iranians when I was referring to the Avestan people. You're evading because the article is on "Aryan" in reference to several phenomenon and people so you don't have a point in not indicating what the nature of the Avestan religion was. Manus just chose biased sources. I could show you plenty of sources that show that Zoroastrianism was monotheistic whether you want to consider it a pure monotheism or a dualistic monotheism. This is what there is no scholarly consensus on when it comes to the religion of the Airya in the Avesta. You've indicated that many consider Aryan to mean "white" which is based on 19th century "racial philosophy" which in itself could be considered religious in nature. There's other schools of thought on the nature of Aryan religion. If you're going to deny the Avestan religion was monotheism are you also going to deny that Judaism, Christianity, or Islam is monotheistic because if you're going to use the reasons that detract from Zoroastrianism being a monothesitc religion then you would also be detracting from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam being monotheistic religions? Please answer this question. Mojobadshah (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

We are not evading your point, the thing is you dont actually have one. This article is about Aryans not about Zoroastrian religion. And Even if it were it is not the case that Zoroastrian religion is defined by being monotheist - it is rather defined by its aspects of dualism, and whether it has any monotheist aspects is a matter of discussion among scholars. The question of monotheism is 100% irrelevant for this article, which is not about the religion of the Avestans, or the of the Indo-Iranians for that matter.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya, I'm afraid you are both evading and every point you both make concerning my points appear to be subjective. First of all I have put my point in the context of the "Aryans." I want to mention a point in relation to "Aryan" religion. The Aryan "religion" I want to make a point on is specifically the Aryan "religion" as contained in the Avesta. Merely a brief indication as to the nature of the Aryan religion in relation to the Iranian Aryans. Now the only problem I have with you making the claim that the Irano-Aryan religion was specifically "dualism" is that if you were to make this claim that you would also have to explain why Judaism, Christianity, or Islam is any less dualistic. Do you see my point here? So unless you want to indicate that the Irano-Aryan religion of the Avesta was either "monotheistic" or "monothestic dualism" then you might as well also note that likewise the Abrahamic people practiced either "dualism" or "monothesitic dualism" by religion too. Otherwise all you need to indicate is that the "Aryans" of Iran were "monotheistic." (I also noticed that you have identified the Indian "Aryans" as Vedic which is an indication of religion, but you haven't mentioned that the "Aryans" of Iran were Avestan.... Do you have a good reason for not pointing to this fact?)

So I would essentially like to see something along the lines of this: 1.) "The word was used both by an Iranian peoples, who ascribed to a dualistic faith (such as observers of the Abrahamic faiths), and formed the etymological source of the country Iran" or 2.) "The word was used both by an Iranian peoples, who ascribed to a monotheistic faith, and formed the etymological source of the country Iran"

Kindly respond. Mojobadshah (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This will be my last response to you as you do not appear to be reading. The number of deities in the religion of the Iranian people is irrelevant for this article and mentioning it is not helpful, but only serves to side track the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Aspians

I would like to make a connection between the Afghans or Arya-Aspains as they were known according to Grecian sources and in turn a connection between the Arya-Aspians and the Aspa line or dynasty of Zarathushtra the Aryans time such as Pourush-Aspa and Visht-aspa - Airya or "Aryans" of Airyana Vaejah - and then make a point that the Avestan language of the Airya may be directly tied to Afghani (or Pashtu). Would anyone have an issue with this or care to add to this point?Mojobadshah (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean Aspasians? Please check Aryan (disambiguation) to find the right page to add such material. This page is merely about the word "Aryan." Pourushaspa apparently means the "owner of the horse," according to this source. I don't see any relation to "Aryan." - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No I mean: Ir. arya-aspa 'one possessing noble horse'. <https://books.google.com/books?id=LAVuAAAAMAAJ&q=arya-aspa&dq=arya-aspa&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAmoVChMI07OYn9yUyQIVxuYmCh0cVwYU> Several sources make references to them. The term aspa was used in several common-names to identify people show shared a common lineage from the Avestan period such as Visht-aspa (the Bactrian King), Pourush-aspa (Zarathushtra's father), Haēcat-aspa and Patlragtar-aspa (Zarathushtra's grandfathers) all Airyas or "Aryans" and thereafter Grecian sources refer to the latter Avestan or East Iranian people or ancient Afghans as Arya-Aspa. <https://books.google.com/books?id=GhzjAAAAMAAJ&q=Armiaspi+%2B+Arya-+aspa&dq=Armiaspi+%2B+Arya-+aspa&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIg4K6wu-UyQIVyTMmCh2y4grc> As it turns out aspa is an East Iranian loan into Persian because the Persian form for aspa is asa and additionally aspa in Pashto means 'horse' even today (must be a linguistic descendant of Avestan) <https://books.google.com/books?id=z5ucAAAAMAAJ&q=arya-aspa+%2B+Afghan&dq=arya-aspa+%2B+Afghan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAWoVChMI1OH0-d2UyQIVAcImCh0yoAHa>. So this form aspa is connected to the national self-designation Afghan and the Afghan language (Pashto) is a said linguistic descendant of Avestan the language of the Airya or "Aryans". Mojobadshah (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this is WP:OR again. You would need to find a reliable source that discusses the aspa name in the context of Aryan culture, to be able to say anything about it in this article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya, do you mean to say that I need to find a source that mentions both the term aspa and the term Aryan exactly that ties them together. Because the source that I provided a link for does discuss the arya-aspa in the context of "Aryan culture." The link I provided connects the Arya-Aspa to the region of the Helmand (ancient Afghanistan) an Irano-Afghan or "Aryan" place-name. Is this not "Aryan culture" the same "Aryan culture" that's being discussed in this wikipedia article (especially in the Iranian section)?Mojobadshah (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The connection between Anatolians and Indo-Aryans and the domestication of the horse is well known and documented. It however has no relevance for this article, except to the degree that we can write about the significance of the horse in proto-Indo-Aryan culture. The idea that there is a particularly close relation between Avestan and Pashto is not supported by the literature.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Aryan religion

Draft:Aryan_Religion has been declined. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Aryan as racial classification

The idea of an "Aryan race," depicted pejoratively here, was not concocted by "Western scholars in the 19th Century." As everyone knows, the racial classification of the Aryans, described as fair-skinned invaders from the North, this goes back to the Hindu texts themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.54.77 (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Gee, everyone know it except the expert sources cited here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

One only needs to read the Vedas. The whole story is about race, about the fair-skinned Aryans and the darker-skinned Indians, hence the racial caste system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.153.89.10 (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

What's your point? Do you want to add something to this article or you want to rewrite it? This article cites expert/scholary sources and we don't remove them just because some readers don't agree with them. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This page is completely wrong

This page is all wrong. Aryans, apart from the distorted view in America of the "Aryan nation", is exclusively those Scandanavian peoples who are "not of the Jewish descent". Now this last phrase (from Nazi ideology) must be interpreted as "not descendents of Adam and Eve". That is all. They are part of the genus homo. It is a critical distinction to set them apart from the Hebrew descendents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.112.9 (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for your contention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Ariana

@Beyond My Ken: you reverted my edit for "unexplained deletion of sourced information" but I had added sources to unsourced and there was no source before. See version before the IP[27]'s recent edit. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. I've self-reverted. Apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Meaning

This article claims, right off the bat, that Aryan means "noble", without even citing a source for it. First, the English word "Aryan" does most definitely not mean "noble", so the claim as such is simply wrong. Second, the meaning of the word (the etymon, to put it more technically precisely) as attested in Indo-Iranian languages is neither clear nor uniform. Its philology is notoriously complicated and thorny, and there are many open questions. It seems to have originally been an endonym among the Iranians (with meanings like "noble" really being secondary), whose derivation is completely obscure, while the meanings of formally similar terms in the earliest Sanskrit are varied and sometimes obscure and it's not even clear if and how they are related to the Iranian term (see Wiktionary for details). While the article later does cite three sources to the effect that the term means "noble", these sources are not technical sources written by cutting-edge researchers and experts but merely general reference works whose reliability and currency in such matters is often less than stellar. It may once have widely believed to have originally meant "noble", but contemporary researchers are much more cautious. As in Iranian, positive meanings like "noble" are thought to be secondary in Indo-Aryan, see wikt:आर्य#Sanskrit (where "noble" is not even mentioned; this meaning only seems to appear in Middle Indo-Aryan, apparently derived from the meaning "a member of the first three castes", which only attested later in Sanskrit and where an ethnic derivation suggests itself since the top three castes are the ones said to be correlated with the immigrant Indo-Aryans originally). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: Rather then delete it outright, as you did, I restored it, but added a boiled-down version of what you wrote above, however with a "citation needed" tag. Please provide a citation or citations back up your claim. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works. If you want an assertion into an article, especially as prominently, you need high-quality sources. The burden of proof cannot be shifted on whoever wishes to exclude a claim from the article.

However, see Witzel (2016) (p. 3f.), who stresses that Old Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit) Ārya- (like Proto-Iranian *arya-) is primarily a self-designation and the meaning "noble" appeared only in the post-Vedic, Middle Indo-Aryan period. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The "noble" derivation is cited to the Oxford English Dictionary, which is a reasonably "high quality" source. Your claim above sounds reasonable, which is why I included it in the lede, but it needs to be cited. If contemporary scholars are in agreement that it doesn't mean "noble", then you should have no trouble coming up with sources (Author, Title, Publisher, Page number, at the very least). You do, after all, have an M.A. in Indo-European languages-- so, source it! NBD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I already gave you a source, for crying out loud! Stop shifting the goalposts. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Florian. These historical terms have had different meanings at different times. Dictionaries are not necessarily the best sources to get to the bottom of their meanings. Oxford English Dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica and whole host of British sources still depend on colonial scholarship, which we don't consider to be reliable as per WP:HISTRS. The English meaning of Aryan has nothing to do with "noble". So it would be misleading to suggest that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Please provide the sources which give the current understanding of the meaning of "Aryan". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

In which language? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

For a comprehensive, if brief, coverage see the entry on FREEMAN in Mallory, J. P.; Adams, D. Q., eds. (January 1997), Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Taylor & Francis, p. 213, ISBN 978-1-884964-98-5. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The entry "FREEMAN" was written by the co-editor of the book, Professor Douglas Q. Adams of the Department of English, University of Idaho. He's an English professor who "specializes in linguistics [and] is considered one of the world's utmost authorities on Tocharian, a “dead” language discovered at the turn of the 1900s. Adams co-edited "The Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture" in 1997, and is currently working on another Indo-European book project." [28]. So now we know that this specific scholar, an English professor, holds that "Aryan" means "Freeman" - all we need now is some evidence that this opinion is shared by the community of specialists in the specific subject matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

What, are you playing the good old game of disparaging sources? I thought you were one of the good guys! J. P. Mallory is an authority in Indo-European Studies. And Douglas Q. Adams has been described as an Indo-European comparativist.

The book is an encyclopedia explaining the meanings of "Indo-European" words, often reconstructed from the existing words in descendant languages (live or dead). The meaning of the root word has been explained as 'member of one's own (ethnic) group, peer, freeman; (Indo-Iranian) Aryan'. And then the entry goes on to list the various words derived from it.

• For Old Iranian aire the meaning was 'freeman (whether commoner or noble); noble (as distinct from commoner)'.
• The Avestan airya- meant 'Aryan', (i.e., 'Iranian' in the larger sense).
• Old Indic ari- meant 'attached to, faithful; a faithful devoted person; ± kinsman'.
• Old Indic arya- meant 'Aryan; one who is faithful to the Vedic religion'.

Then the say in the summary: Clearly supposed in the original meaning is an emphasis on in-group status as distinguished from the status of the outsider, particularly those outsiders forcibly incorporated into the group as slaves. This "in-group status" is what is important for our purposes, which is exhibited in the second and fourth words above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I am "one of the good guys". It's simply that all I have to go by at this point are the OR statements of two editors and one source, none of which go to show that the information in the source is generally accepted. Because I don't know the subject matter, I need to see a source which says, explicitly, something on the order of "we thought it meant 'noble', but current scholarship believes it means 'freeman'", which is the claim which I believe is being made. If this is generally accepted, it should be easy to come up with that kind of citation, shouldn't it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no shortage of sources that tell you that Aryan meant the self-designation of the Vedic tribes when it was taken over into English by William Jones perhaps. The encyclopedia above tells you the history of the word before the Vedic tribes. The Indian meaning of arya as noble was after the Vedic tribes, in particular, after the tribal distinctions ceased to exist and the society was unified. This encyclopedia article explains the different evolutions of the word, even though it is not historically accurate (too much focus on "Hindi", whatever that means). Remember that throughout the 19th century, the idea was the "Aryans" invaded India. By that, they did not mean that "noble people" invaded India. The very thesis is laughable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You know better. It is not sufficient to say "there are no shortage of sources", when asked to YOu ahve to provide those sources." You can;t expect all Wikipedia editors to be masters of the subject of every article they work on, so if you are versed in it, you have the ability to find those sources and share them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I gave you a link to a Google Books search page. You can take the first one, which is good enough.

Honestly, I think you are wasting your time here. There is nothing contentious. You are merely trying to back some outrageous POV that somebody added. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you're totally wrong. I don't give a flying fig if it means "noble" or "freeman" or "eucalyptus tree", I am simply trying to uphold WP:V, which I'd advise you to read sometime if you're going to continue to edit here. Oh, and WP:OR would be good to read as well, since you seem not to understand it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Arya means noble is accepted and supported in dictionary definition as well as scholarly sources, specifically in context of vedic literature. Aryan word is not more than a couple century old, and some scholarly article dispute various theories around it which lend the meaning of a 'race' to the word itself. Britannica has fairly established editing process. They conclude similarly. --G (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this page about the English word "Aryan", or Indian use of "arya" and Aryan, or both? What is your view? Why is, fo example, Aryan Books so called? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this page is about Aryan. I think they wanted to convey "Indology" in "Aryan" word. Are you suggesting that Arya and Aryan are not ncecessarily related? I think that is possible, I do not know. But I find pre-vedic discussion of word Aryan counter-intuitive, if that word is newly coined then it is plausible that it was born independent of the word Arya, if we talk in the context of Vedic culture then it is more likely that the worn Aryan was associated with or same as Arya. --G (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

References

The Aryan movie

This reference should be included. The Aryan is a 1916 American movie with racial overtones (White Anglo Americans vs Mexicans/Hispanics/Latinos and Native American tribes in the western USA) with the title is a reference to the Aryan race. It was made in response to the racist, but popular movie The Birth of a Nation which was Confederate nostalgia and white supremacy to dehumanized black slaves and to justify the Confederacy's lost cause to keep blacks as slaves. 67.49.85.100 (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Please find a reliable source that links to the subject of this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

"อารยัน" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect อารยัน. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this sentence correct?

On the lead's 3rd paragraph we can see,

Under Nazi rule (1933–1945), the term applied to most inhabitants of Germany who were not Jews, Poles, Slavs, or Russians.[13][14]

But this sounds like Jews, Poles, Slavs, or Russians were also considered 'Aryans' according to Nazis. However, as far as my understanding from the cited sources goes, that's not the case, right? If so, I think the current sentence formation sounds like Jews, Poles, Slavs, or Russians were also considered as 'Aryans' by the Nazis because they the most inhabitants of Germany and 'non-Aryan' applies to people who are not Jews, Poles, Slavs, or Russians. But shouldn't it sound or written like "Under Nazi rule (1933–1945), the term applied to most inhabitants of Germany, except Jews, Poles, Slavs, or Russians" according to the source? Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 06:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This sounds like an issue with English-language comprehension rather than a problem with the sentence (unless I'm missing something here). The word "not" is the operative word. Generalrelative (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The way that particular sentence sounds looks incorrect. Because Jews, Poles, Slavs, or Russians were not considered 'Aryan' by the Nazis, which is what the sources say. If we replace the term with 'Aryan', it sounds the opposite. Under Nazi rule (1933-1945), the Aryan term applied to most inhabitants of Germany who were not [...], which is incorrect because we're including Jews, Poles, Slavs, and Russians as Aryans and only excluding others. I think it should be written like, "Under Nazi rule (1933–1945), the term [Aryan] applied to most inhabitants of Germany excluding those who were Jews, Poles, Slavs, or Russians." Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 22:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot even parse your argument here. Perhaps someone else will have better luck. Your userpage states that you are a native speaker of English so I'm not sure how you could be so thoroughly misreading this sentence. Note that "excluding" works just fine as a substitute for "who were not", so I won't stand in the way if you'd like to change out the one for the other, but I don't see any substantive ambiguity with the way the sentence is currently written. Generalrelative (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change myself since I noticed a different error in the sentence. Generalrelative (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Generalrelative —Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 00:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, the photo of Page 41 literally states this:

A person of Aryan descent (= "German-blooded") is therefore a person who, from the point of view of the German people, is free of a foreign blood strain. Above all, the blood of the Jews and Gypsies who also live in the European settlement area is considered foreign , that of the Asiatic and African raptors and the natives of Australia and America (Indians), while, for example, an Englishman or Swede, a Frenchman or a Czech, a Pole or an Italian, if he himself is free from such blood stains, which are also foreign to him, must be considered as related, i.e. as Aryan, whether he lives in his homeland, in East Asia or in America or whether he is a citizen of the USA or a South American free state purely German descent is closer than another Aryan of more distant racial affinity is self-evident.

So in fact, Poles (and Europeans in general) were considered as Aryans. This is stated in the Ahnenpass itself, therefore what this article says is misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.135.11.49 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

History

Boy 223.29.193.101 (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've forked the article in order to clean it up. It will probably take several days. You can find it at User:Alcaios/Aryan. I'll do a merge request when it's ready. Alcaios (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)