Talk:Indigenous Aryanism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Theory"

Hypothesis

I propose that this be revised to use "hypothesis" not "theory" through its text in reference to the indigenous Aryans idea. The scientific consensus is that this is, basically, pseudo-science. It's fine in the vernacular to call something a "fringe theory", but linguistics is a science (albeit a "soft" social one), and "theory" has a more circumscribed meaning in such a context.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid calling it a "hypothesis" make it sound more scientific than it is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly the opposite; see Theory and Hypothesis. The latter is some idea that is proposed for testing; the former is one after it's been shown to be broadly supported by that testing. The fact that some people in slangish English misuse "theory" to mean anything from "wacky nonsense" to "law of nature" isn't relevant in an encyclopedia, where precise language is very important.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Fringe

@SMcCandlish and Kautilya3: I have changed the first sentence so that it is identified as a "fringe theory". Given the language present throughout the article, especially in the Criticism section, it is clear that this proposal is a fringe theory. So, I don't think that the "fringe theory" descriptor needs a source in the lede. However, if someone thinks otherwise, feel free to attach citations to the "fringe theory" descriptor. BirdValiant (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Works for me. "Fringe theory" (though a mild oxymoron, strictly speaking) is a well-understood enough phrase that "this is an iffy hypothesis" is the conclusion it implies, while "theory" by itself suggests broad scientific support, at least to anyone with a sciences background.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: By the way, speaking of fringe theories, I will always be in your debt for when you definitively shut down the US-dollar-is-a-commodity-currency fringe theory on the US Dollar page, after I had been struggling to restore sanity for a year. I will always remember you for that. Thanks again. :) BirdValiant (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Memory is tricky! I had no recollection of that at all. :-) Glad it was apparently helpful. One of my bolder WP:NAC moves, I think.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this revert, edit-summary unsourced newly added labels, see the definition of Fringe theory, WP:FRINGE, and the section Indigenous Aryans#Criticism, for example Michael Witzel:

The revisionist and autochthonous project, then, should not be regarded as scholarly in the usual post-enlightenment sense of the word, but as an apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking aiming at proving the 'truth' of traditional texts and beliefs.

And of course, see also Talk:Indigenous Aryans/Archive 3#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. The IA/OoI-theory has no serious scholarly support whatsoever. I suspect that even Koenraad Elst doesn't really beleive in it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

See WP:VERIFY and WP:LABEL. All labels like "fringe theory" should be supported by sources. Although this is not exactly a fringe theory because it was a predecessor to Indo-Aryan migration theory. There are also other similar IE hyopthesis such as Paleolithic Continuity Theory, Armenian hypothesis, which like this subject, are supported by a minority of scholars. Bharatiya29 18:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Indigenous Aryans/Archive 3#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Since the main issue was with the use of the word "theory" which wasn't used on lead back in the day, I have re-modified to remove it from the lead. Other than that I agree that strong words should be supported by multiple reliable sources. ML ⁹¹¹ 19:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

NB: note that The Indigenous Aryans theory, also known as the Out of India theory (OIT), which proposes ... is grammatically incorrect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The main issue in the RfC was not whether Indigenous Aryan theory is a "theory" but whether it is a "fringe theory". Your reverts which remove the description as "fringe theory" also have nothing to do with the use of the word "theory", but rather, "fringe theory". BirdValiant (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, it was ungrammatical, but your edit is not really making sense because the discussion you cited was not about changing the terminology but treatment of the theory on Wikipedia articles in the sense how much weight it needs to be provided. Nothing about changing the terms on this article.  Though BirdValiant has already tried to source that statement, but it seems that they ended up misrepresenting sources. As Bharatiya29 noted, WP:VERIFY still applies, and if there is no existence of multiple reliable sources supporting the term 'fringe theory' then it needs to be removed right away. ML ⁹¹¹ 19:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Fringe theory: "A fringe theory is an idea or viewpoint which differs from the accepted scholarship in its field." See, again, the criticism-section and the above-mentioned talkpage discussion for mainstream scholarly opinions on the IA/OoI-theory: far, far away from mainstream scholarly views. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

So according to you, there can be either a 'mainstream' or a 'fringe' view and nothing else. You are wrong. But then again, where are your sources? "criticism-section and the above-mentioned talkpage discussion for mainstream scholarly opinions", you need to look at WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Capitals00 (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish, Kautilya3, Joshua Jonathan, Bharatiya29, and My Lord: Should we have another Request for Comment on whether "Indigenous Aryans theory"/"Out of India Theory" is a Fringe theory? As Joshua Jonathan has pointed out, the issue has already been dealt with and the consensus was: the "Indigenous Aryans" proposal which is the subject of this article is a fringe theory according to Wikipedia guidelines. jps (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Additionally, a cursory search also reveals that the subject has appeared on the Fringe noticeboard many, many times in the past: one two three four and many more and even has appeared on the administrator's noticeboard. However, perhaps the scholarly consensus has changed in the last five years to the point that the issue needs to be re-examined. BirdValiant (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This time the argument is over WP:NOTGETTINGIT that WP:V is a policy. So your discussions belongs to WP:TEAHOUSE whether you are allowed to add your unsourced view on article. You cannot even hold an argument if you don't even have sources to back up what you are saying. We say lots of things on talk pages but don't add something on article which isn't supported by the sources. WP:IDHT won't help, neither will any attempts to find ways to get around adding unsourced personal views. You need to provide sources or simply move on (see WP:STICK).

Given you have been caught misrepresenting sources recently you will need to tread carefully. Capitals00 (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Are you aware of the extensive discussion that occurred at the last RfC on this topic? The consensus was that the "Indigenous Aryan theory" is a Fringe theory. It is not my personal view. It is the view of the hard-won consensus here on Wikipedia.

You say that "[I've] been caught misrepresenting sources". Have I, now? As seen on WP:FRINGE, "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." The first three sources have been used to support the claim "This is contrary to the mainstream scholarly view, saying that the Indo-Aryan languages originated outside India" for a long time. In the fourth source, Witzel is directly quoted as saying (emphases mine):

The 'revisionist project' certainly is not guided by the principles of critical theory but takes, time and again, recourse to pre-enlightenment beliefs in the authority of traditional religious texts such as the Purånas. In the end, it belongs, as has been pointed out earlier, to a different 'discourse' than that of historical and critical scholarship. In other words, it continues the writing of religious literature, under a contemporary, outwardly 'scientific' guise […] The revisionist and autochthonous project, then, should not be regarded as scholarly in the usual post-enlightenment sense of the word, but as an apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking aiming at proving the 'truth' of traditional texts and beliefs. Worse, it is, in many cases, not even scholastic scholarship at all but a political undertaking aiming at 'rewriting' history out of national pride or for the purpose of 'nation building'

In the fifth source, Jamison is quoted as saying (emphasis mine):

The Indo-Aryan controversy is a manufactured one with a non-scholarly agenda, and the tactics of its manufacturers are very close to those of the ID proponents mentioned above. However unwittingly and however high their aims, the two editors have sought to put a gloss of intellectual legitimacy, with a sense that real scientific questions are being debated, on what is essentially a religio-nationalistic attack on a scholarly consensus.

The sixth source by Bryant has been the source for the claim "According to Bryant, OIT proponents tend to be linguistic dilettantes who either ignore the linguistic evidence completely, dismiss it as highly speculative and inconclusive, or attempt to tackle it with hopelessly inadequate qualifications; this attitude and neglect significantly minimises the value of most OIT publications" for a long time as well.

Finally, in the seventh source, Fosse is quoted with (emphasis mine):

largely neglected by Western scholars because it is regarded as incompetent

I have to ask: where have I misrepresented the claim? According to WP:FRINGE, a "fringe-theory" is one "idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". Do those sources not support that claim? BirdValiant (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't see why we need another RfC. Nothing has changed since the last one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I have fully protected the article per WP:PREFER pending consensus. Once consensus is established, the regular indefinite autoconfirmed protection can be restored. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"The concept of Indigenous Aryans also known as the Out of India theory (OIT) [...] originated within the Indian subcontinent" - chapeau. To remind you, with this statement from Mallory:

Many regard the scholarship of the Indigenous Indo-Aryan camp so seriously flawed that it should not be given an airing [...] I indicated that I thought it would be unlikely that any referee would agree with [Kazanas'] conclusions.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Consensus was already achieved in the previous Request for Comment. The result was that "Indigenous Aryans theory" is a fringe-theory. Additionally, when I asked whether the scholarly field has changed enough to warrant another RfC, the only answer so far has been a no from user Kautilya3. BirdValiant (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

And yet, here we have an active discussion about which language to use here. There is (more or less) an active edit war going on, and we (admins) will always invariably protect the The Wrong Version (and not to throw around more all-caps, but consensus can change). TSD asked me for my opinion on the matter, and I agree that full protection, at least in the short term, is justified. Primefac (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

We certainly could have another RfC on this, though the outcome is very obvious. There is not only no doubt that it is a fringe theory, we've had other RfCs on this "Well, does a source actually use the exact word 'fringe'?" WP:WIKILAWYERING before at other topics, and the answer is always the same: no, the sources do not have to use the exact word. I would be in favor of an RfC, simply to put this matter to bed so we can get on with more constructive things. I had no idea this was still running full-tilt five months after I opened the discussion. Way too long for something this simple.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Do you happen to have any links to those previous RfCs? BirdValiant (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think anyone stacks up lists of things like this, since WP isn't based on legal-style precedent. Consensus can change, but it usually doesn't, and that's good enough.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Those sources, as higlighted above by BirdValiant, are very clear that IA/OoI is a fringe-theory. Asking for sources which explicitly use the term "fringe" is a petty attempt to ignore the scholarly consensus; nay, to deny reality. Fringe is fringe, and you know it. Just acknowledge it. NB: the quotes above can serve as an explanatory note. So, we can change

The concept of Indigenous Aryans also known as the Out of India theory (OIT), which proposes that the Indo-European languages, or at least the Indo-Aryan languages, originated within the Indian subcontinent, as an alternative to the established migration model which proposes the Pontic steppe as the area of origin of the Indo-European languages.

into

The belief in Indigenous Aryans, also known as the Out of India theory (OIT), entails the idea that the Indo-European languages, or at least the Indo-Aryan languages, originated within the Indian subcontinent. While presented as an alternative to the established migration model, which proposes the Pontic steppe as the area of origin of the Indo-European languages, it is "largely neglected by Western scholars because it is regarded as incompetent."

Notes

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would be fine with this version; it still gets across that it's a fringe theory.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

An alternative proposal

@Joshua Jonathan: While that might work, I don't see why we can't have something modeled from the Christ myth theory article, which reads: "The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines.[4][5][6][q 2] It is criticised for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies,[7] and deviates from the mainstream historical view."

As pointed out time and time again, the consensus from the previous RfC [1] is that the "Indigenous Aryans"/"Out of India theory" idea is a fringe theory. The numerous sources provided also clearly show that the scholarly consensus is that IA/OoI is also a fringe theory. Accordingly, I think that the article should be classified as such, with just as clear a statement as in the Christ myth theory article, and with the appropriate article category. And as Joshua Jonathan pointed out, it is patently absurd to require sources to literally use the word "fringe" in order to support the notion that the idea is a fringe theory: the definition given in WP:FRINGE does not require sources to literally say "fringe", only that the idea needs to be demonstrated to be far outside of the mainstream scholarly view. In the Christ myth theory fringe appellation, very few sources used to support that fringe appellation chose to use the exact word "fringe".

So, how about the following?

The Indigenous Aryans theory, also known as the Out of India theory (OIT), is the view that the Indo-European languages, or at least the Indo-Aryan languages, originated within the Indian subcontinent.

...[moving to final paragraph of lede]

The Indigenous Aryans or Out of India theory is a fringe theory supported by few Western scholars; instead, the prevailing consensus is that the Indo-Aryan languages originated outside of India. It is criticised as having crucial theoretical and methodological shortcomings, and it deviates from the mainstream scholarly view whereby the Indo-Aryan migrations are part of the Indo-European migrations from a homeland at the Pontic–Caspian steppe.

Notes

References

(Note that these sources are fully cited in the article.)

The only argument that I can conceive of to avoid describing IA/OoI as a "fringe theory" is if we choose to classify it as pseudoscience instead. The Jamison source describes IA/OoI proponents as using the same tactics as Intelligent Design proponents; ID is, of course, correctly described as a pseudoscience in that article. In that case the, IA/OoI would be put in the Denialism category instead. BirdValiant (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"Let it go, let it go"... and simply stick to the sources. It's not a big deal; I'll bet that even Koenraad Elst doesn't believe in it anymore. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

What? First of all, I have stuck with the sources. And, it is a big deal: it is critical that Wikipedia accurately portray the scholarly consensus, just as it was done on the Christ myth theory article. BirdValiant (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would be okay with this version as well. As long as it is clear to the reader that this is a fringe theory, I don't much care what the exact wording is. We just cannot present this idea as real science.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Harappa dna source

Harappa dna is any match with northindian? krishh45 18:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Narasimhan et al (2019) has all the answers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Citation cleanup

I count at least 33 Harvard-style citation errors in this article (as of this writing). This is a good reason to convert to normal inline citations with a single "References" section (and perhaps put them in a WP:LDR end-of-page block, for neatness). Harvard referencing (separate citations and bibliography sections) is only practical in stable articles that see very little editorial churn, whereas this page is probably going to be furiously edited by all kinds of random people for decades, and very few of them are going to understand the complexities of two-section referencing, so they're going to continue breaking Harvard-style citations again and again.

PS: If you want to be easily able to detect broken Harvard cites, add the following to Special:MyPage/common.js:

// Detect broken Harvard citations (docs at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors):
mw.loader.load('https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Shaffer

Shaffer is often presented as a supporter of the idea of indigenous aryans. Ironically, while arguing for cultural continuity, to explain the similarities between sanskrit and western languages, Shaffer (1984) proposed that Sanskrit has non-Indians origins, and was taken over by Indians, together with a new kind of societal organisation, which was codified in the Vedas in this non-Indian language. Not the kind of argument ever repeated by indigenists... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Correction required

"Yet, Shaffer also notes that the Harappan culture was not extensively tied to this network in the third century BCE, leaving the possibility that.." in this sentence, should it be "third millennium BCE" instead of "third century BCE"? __Chaduvari (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chaduvari: you're absolutely right; I've corrected it. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst says: "Of course it is a fringe theory"

I knew it: if it fits the purposes, even Koenraad Elst would be rejected as a source. Elst, of all persons. LOL! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Haha, that is funny.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

NB, regarding "WP:RSPS, totally blacklisted sources cannot be used as reference on Wikipedia," Swarajya is not "totally blacklisted," but "considered generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It is blacklisted on the spam blacklist, to avoid link spam. WP:RSP further says "context matters tremendously when determining how to use this list. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." It's quite obvious that this interview in Swarajya can be considered as reliable for a direct statement by Koenraad Elst, especially when he acknowledges that Indigenism is rejected by mainstream scholarship. There is no indication, let alone evidence, that Indigenism has any relevance in mainstream scholarly debate on the origins of the IE-languages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst does not consider it a fringe theory in India, only out of India as mentioned in his quote itself attached to the article. He makes it clear it has the support of most archaeologists (not just some fringe "Hindu nationalists") in India.

""Of course it is a fringe theory, at least internationally, where the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) is still the official paradigm. In India, though, it has the support of most archaeologists, who fail to find a trace of this Aryan influx and instead find cultural continuity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldring234 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

And what does that tell us about Indian scholarship? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Kupamandukas -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It says that Indian archeologists does not always necessarily regurgitate what others say and do their own research and they are not afraid to question the dominant western narrative if it contradicts their evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldring234 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are using his quote to justify your assertion that its a "fringe theory", Shouldn't you add that its a fringe theory outside India and not for Indian archeologists as the quote makes it clear ?Goldring234 (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that special pleading? Arguing that the standard criteria for science do not apply to Indian scholarship, because they deviate en masse from it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Koenraad's quote does not say that. Indian archeologists oppose Aryan migration theory using established scientific models. The fact you think they oppose it out of thin air without scientific basis shows your bias.Goldring234 (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Classical rhetorics: "that's your opinion." See the "opinions" of Witzel and Doniger regarding the (lack of) usage of "established scientific models" (I suppose you mean "methods"?; the Indigenist "model" is precisely not that, "established") by Indigenists in their opposition against establishd scientific methods. I'm afraid that your "own research" and "question the dominant western narrative" in practice mean that they propagate a 'political-religious' narrative which irreconciliably deviates from mainstream scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The opposition to Witzel and Doniger by Indian archeologists and authors is precisely that they don't follow scientific models and suit their analysis to fit their ideological lens. The fact that these people accuse their Indian counterparts the same thing is like pot calling the kettle black. Talageri brought Witzel to his knees using the same scientific models which Witzel trumpet. What did Witzel do ? Initially came up with a half baked critique (which was again rebutted by Talageri using logical scientific method) and then ran away from the debate by appealing to authority. AMT thesis is a "Mainstream scholarship" only in entrenched "South Asian" academic cartels of the West. Not anywhere else and certainly not in India. In AMT debate, western "mainstream scholarship" AMT defenders act like the Church during Galileo's time trying to paint their opponents as devils instead of challenging the evidences of the OIT opponents on their own scientific merit.Goldring234 (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

So what you claim is that these Hindu nationalists, who rarely if ever any relevant education in the field, are more scientific than reputed scholars at the top of their field? Frawley, Talageri, Malhotra, Danino, and Rajaram are all non-scholars who have no proper training in any of the fields required for Indology. Elst and Lal still belong to the fringe of academia, and their work has been heavily criticized and had giant holes poked in them. If you need a refresher, read WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Koenraad has been labbled as a "fringe" not because his OIT thesis lacks merit but because his opponents labeled him as "radical anti-muslim". None of his opponents refuted his OIT arguments on their own merit. B.B.Lal was a distinguished archeologist and was Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India. He was anything but fringe in India. The fact that every Pro-OIT proponent is now being dubbed as "Hindu nationalist" is pure ignorance. Lal was actually Pro-AMT who turned Pro-OIT. Klaus Klostermaier, a Western academic himself had this to say in his book - A Survey of Hinduism. "This putative “Aryan invasion” was dated ca. 1500 bce, and the composition of the hymns of the Ṛgveda was fixed between 1400 and 1200 bce. The Aryan invasion theory was conceived on pure speculation on the basis of comparative philology, without any archaeological or literary evidence to support it. It was resisted as unfounded by some scholars from the very beginning. In the light of recent archaeological finds, it has become less and less tenable. Nevertheless, the Aryan invasion theory, recently downgraded to an Aryan migration theory, is still widely defended and forms part of many standard histories of Hinduism." Goldring234 (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

David Anthony's The Horse, the Wheel, and Language addresses much of the concerns that you cite from Klostermaier, which is again just rehashing the claims of indeginists that the scientific methodology of linguistics and archeology is just false. And that was even before the advent of archaeogenetics, which has been the final nail in the coffin for OIT. There is a reason I separated Lal and Elst from the rest. They are still academics, and I personally respect Lal for his archeological work, however his analysis has been heavily flawed and criticized. Chariotrider555 (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

David Anthony's does not provide anything new that Klostermaier or Koenraad Elst or Lal does not already included in their 'Pro-AMT' arguments which they then refute. Just because a book is relatively new does not mean the arguments and evidences are new. Its just rehashing the old arguments like old wine in new bottle. Even in archeogenetics, OIT has not been disproven. Like in linguistics, the AMT folks picked the studies which suited their already held views and ignored others which contradicted their views. Goldring234 (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

By refuting do you mean sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "La la la! Linguistics, archeology, and genetics are all wrong!" Anyway I am done here, as the community has already came to a consensus on the fact that the idea of Indigenous Aryans is complete fringe rooted in Hindu nationalism. Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Refuting in the sense showing scientific evidence and linguistic theories which pro-AMT folks choose to ignore or discredit them not on the basis of their scientific merits but who is saying them. Goldring234 (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The amount of rhetorics, and refusal to acknowledge the obvious, is overwhelming:

• Ideological lens: it's not 'western scholars accusing their Indian counterparts of the same thing'; it is fringe authors accusing mainstream scholars (the overwhelming majority) of the same thing;
• Which publications by Talageri are you referring to, and how much impact have they had in mainstream scholarship on Indian history?
• The AMt is not 'mainstream scholarship only in entrenched "South Asian" academic cartels of the West'; it ìs mainstream scholarship, worldwide, except for some scholars and authors whose impact is mostly confined to India and an alternate universe at the internet (ironically, the best-known voices of the Indigenist camp are westerners...;
• Most AMT-scholars don't pay any attention at all to Indigenists, simply because they are utterly irrelevant, lacking "scientific merit" worth responding to;
• Elst has given an overview of an OoI-model, but doesn't seem to take it very serious himself; Lal's latest publication on Indigenism is completely ignored in the scholarly debate; and Klostermaier is the sad black swan among credible scholars who has voiced support for Indigenism, though he too does not seem to be widely cited in his views on Indigenism, but rather neglected;
• Anthony's The Horse is an overwhelming book, incomparable to Elst, Klostermaier or Lal. Klostermaier's few alinea's on the origins of the Aryans don't adress Anthony's arguments at all;
• Archeogenetics isn't even interested in Indigenism; what authors in this field deem to be disproven is Renfrew's model. But that Reich and Narasimhan and their co-authors don't leave any room whatsoever for Indigenism is abundantly clear; and explicitly stated in their responses to Shinde's public turnaround discrediting his own conlusions in the infamous Rakhighiri-study (augh..... how low can you go throwing away your scientific reputation?)
• Which "scientific evidence" and "linguistic theories" are ignored? Did they have impact? Or are you running around in a circle? "Evidence" and "theories" which are ignored because they are irrelevant and useless, and their authors being ignored for this reason?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

AMT supporters themselves indulge in rhetorics of their own even while accusing their opponents of the same thing. And then they try to ride the high horse.

• OIT is not a fringe among Indian archeologists, academics and Archeogeneticists. Anglo-American academic cartels assume their opinions are the norm in the whole world. They are not. Its like labelling Hindus as "fringe" religious group because their numbers are insignificant in the West while turning a blind eye to the vast number of them in India.

• AMT/OIT topic itself is a fringe topic outside of India. Only in India, people have interest in it. Lal, Talageri, Koenraad, Klostermaier, Kazanas - these are well known names in Indian academic circles. Every one in India who is interested in AMT/OIT debate reads their books as a rule, even those who disagree with them. To say they have no impact on Indian mainstream scholarship is ridiculous. Western Pro-AMT academic cartels are not "mainstream". Their opinions on AMT are considered fringe among large sections of India. Not because Indians are against them for ideological reasons as AMT folks try to portray. But because the AMT folks have ignored Pro-OIT folks, labelling them while not debunking their thesis on scientific merits.

• David Anthony's book did not make any difference to the AMT/OIT debate. The people who champion it are already convinced about AMT. Its like eco chamber preaching to the choirs. The people who needs to be convinced - their critics were not convinced by his arguments and evidences as they are not new but old wine in new bottle.

• Archeogeniticists were dragged by AMT folks into the debate because they thought that will seal the debate in their favor. But what it did was to create more questions. When Shinde did not agree with them, he suddenly became "fringe" for them. Infact Reich himself was confusing interpreting his own results. AMT folks quote him to show Steppe ancestry for Indo-European languages with Indians and Iranians being one branch. But Reich is quoted as saying Iran or Armenia itself as the origin of Indo-European languages. See his attested quote here under "Indo-European origins" section.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reich_(geneticist)

• Russian Archaeologist Dr. Alexandr Semenenko' work on Chariots and its relation to the AMT/OIT debate promises to be as pathbreaking as those of Talageri's on linguistics. Anglo-American Pro-AMT academic cartels led by Witzel, Doniger et al who were unable to rebut Talageri's books on scientific basis tend to ignore him as his work goes against their well entrenched position. I would have loved to see them demolish Taligeri's work on scientific merit. I wonder what excuse these Anglo-American academic 'South Asian" cartels will find to ignore Semenenko's work.Goldring234 (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It's still not clear to me what debate between Wiztel and Talageri you're referring to. You mean Witzel's devastating critique of The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Witzel did critiqued Talageri's book 'The Rigveda- Historical analysis'. But it was not devastating. Like most AMT folks, he mostly rehashed his original arguments. Talageri's arguments were largely unaddressed. Talageri rebutted Witzel's lame critique of his book in his next book - 'The Rigveda and the Avesta'. He also rips apart the arguments of another AMT ayatollah Hans Hock. Goldring234 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Talageri is not even a fringe author, because he has no academic credentials. This is the main problem with the Aryan nativist group in general. They say Indian academicians were too westernized, when they have an actual education. This is their only argument. An argument, which is not taken seriously by western (and Indian) scientists.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

How does an IE origin in the Caucasus disprove AMT? ChandlerMinh (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment: IA/OoI is a fringe theory

Extensive discussion has been made whether the subject should be called 'fringe'. There is no consensus to modify the existing text. Kraose (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article say in the lede that the Indigenous Aryans / Out of India theory is a fringe theory as in the suggestion below? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Following this addition, the IA/OoI is a fringe theory, and should be qualified as such in the lead:

The [idea of] Indigenous Aryans [theory], also known as the Out of India theory (OIT), is a fringe theory which entails the belief that the Indo-Aryans were indigenous to South Asia. It proposes that the Indo-European languages, or at least the Indo-Aryan languages, originated within the Indian subcontinent, from where they spread to Central Asia and Europe. While presented as an alternative to the established migration model, which proposes the Pontic steppe as the area of origin of the Indo-European languages, it is "largely neglected by Western scholars because it is regarded as incompetent."

Notes

References

See also Talk:Indigenous Aryans/Archive 3#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory for additional scholarly assessments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Related threads

This RfC was preceded by the following RfCs and Administrator Noticeboard threads:

• Talk:Indigenous_Aryans/Archive_3#RfC:_the_"Indigenous_Aryans"_theory_is_fringe-theory (Result: the "Indigenous Aryans" proposal which is the subject of this article is a fringe theory according to Wikipedia guidelines. jps (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC))
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_45#Proposed_Hypothesis/Theory_as_fact (Result: Premature closure, see [2])
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive871#Massive_POV_pushing_problem_at_WP:FRINGE_and_Indo-Aryan_topics

This RfC was also preceded by the following related threads on this and related talk pages:

• Talk:Indigenous Aryans#"Theory" The thread immediately preceding this RfC.
• Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration#Shinde_et_al._(2019) Thread discussing recent (2019) genetic research
• Talk:Indigenous_Aryans/Archive_3#Questionable
• Talk:Indigenous_Aryans/Archive_2#Continuity_vs._immigration
• Talk:Indigenous_Aryans/Archive_2#What_does_Elst_conclude_regarding_OIT?
• Talk:Indigenous_Aryans/Archive_2#Re-ordering_to_fit_overview_of_arguments_and_scenarios

The topic of "Indigenous Aryans" or "Out of India" has appeared on at least the following threads on the Fringe Noticeboard:

• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Scientific_Parallels_in_Hindu_Mythology
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Bulgars
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Return_of_the_Hindutvavadis
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_11#the_obligatory_Hindutva_intermezzo
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Out_of_India,_migrations_from_the_Urheimat_to_cyberspace

Survey

• Support - see also Narasimhan, Vagheesh M.; Patterson, N.J.; et al. (2019), "The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central Asia", Science, 365 (6457): eaat7487, doi:10.1126/science.aat7487, PMC 6822619, PMID 31488661, representative of the scholarly consensus, which leaves no room whatsoever for any consideration of IA/OoI as being within the bounds of scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional quotes

The sources as quoted above are quite explicit. See also: Romila Thapar (2006), India: historical beginnings and the concept of the Aryan: Some of the arguments to support these theories tend to set aside scholarly analysis there is no scholar at this time seriously arguing for the indigenous origin of Aryans. Erdosy (2012), The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, p.x, explicitly uses the term "fringe" (emphasis mine): Assertions of the indigenous origin of Indo-Aryan languages and an insistence on a long chronology for Vedic and even Epic literature are only a few of the most prominent tenets of this emerging lunatic fringe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content So, there we are: a reference for "fringe." End of discussion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC) Full quote; "lunatic fringe" refers to the opposition against the Indo-Aryan migration model: Unfortunately, political motivation (usually associated with Hindus revivalism [...]) renders this opposition [against the Indo-Aryan migration model] devoid of scholarly value. Assertions of the indigenous origin of Indo-Aryan languages and an insistence on a long chronology for Vedic and even Epic literature are only a few of the most prominent tenets of this emerging lunatic fringe [opposition [against the Indo-Aryan migration model]]. Wendy Doniger (2017), Another Great Story, review of Asko Parpola's The Roots of Hinduism; in: Inference, International Review of Science, Volume 3, Issue 2: The opposing argument, that speakers of Indo-European languages were indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, is not supported by any reliable scholarship. It is now championed primarily by Hindu nationalists, whose religious sentiments have led them to regard the theory of Aryan migration with some asperity. Girish Shahane (Sep 14, 2019), Why Hindutva supporters love to hate the discredited Aryan Invasion Theory, Scroll.in, in response to Narasimhan et al. (2019): Hindutva activists, however, have kept the Aryan Invasion Theory alive, because it offers them the perfect strawman, “an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument” [...] The Out of India hypothesis is a desperate attempt to reconcile linguistic, archaeological and genetic evidence with Hindutva sentiment and nationalistic pride, but it cannot reverse time’s arrow [...] The evidence keeps crushing Hindutva ideas of history Koenraad Elst (May 10, 2016), Koenraad Elst: “I am not aware of any governmental interest in correcting distorted history”, Swarajya Magazine: Of course it is a fringe theory, at least internationally, where the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) is still the official paradigm. In India, though, it has the support of most archaeologists, who fail to find a trace of this Aryan influx and instead find cultural continuity. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - It is obviously an unscientific theory based on blind beliefs and some junky arguments brought forth to buttress them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The essential argument is that WP:FRINGE has a broad definition of "fringe theory": In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. The numerous sources given in these threads and throughout the article clearly demonstrate that, under that definition, IA/OoI is a fringe theory. This is not only a consensus of mainstream scholarship, but it was also the consensus of Wikipedia editors during the last Request for Comment: [3]. Furthermore, I concur with user Erutuon from that discussion (in the Comments section) in that the term "fringe theory" is not a value judgment expressing the despicability, dishonesty, and ulterior motives of those who promote a theory. It is not a pejorative, it is not an insult. It simply reflects the level of acceptance of an idea among academics. For example, with regards to the Christ myth theory, I enjoy listening to Richard Carrier and I think that his ideas are intriguing, but at the same time, the article must characterize mythicist position as a fringe theory, which it thankfully does. To do otherwise would be a grave disservice to readers and give a false impression of the idea's position in scholarship. Likewise, we would be doing a grave disservice to readers to characterize IA/OoI as anything less than a fringe theory. BirdValiant (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. As noted above, "fringe" is not a "value judgment", but an accurate description of how the mainstream academic community perceives the issue. Heiro 23:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended content
Still WP:OR unless supported by reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Description is more effective than labeling. Why is it considered 'fringe', who pushes it, etc.? Just calling it 'fringe' doesn't really tell me all that much. I suspect the sources more often describe as 'revisionist' and lacking rigor or non-scholarly. Is that 'incompetent' quote by Fosse often cited by others? Should be a pretty high bar to include such. with lots of others repeating and citing the quote. fiveby (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC) My comment was focused on the details of the wording, striking so as not to detract from the consensus. fiveby (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

It is not "just [being] called fringe". The entire lead paragraph is proposed in the RfC, not to mention the fact that the entire article is available for you to read. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC) And the lede should summarize the article. Nowhere in the text do i find the word 'fringe', nor in the lede do i find summarized: "adopted by Hindu nationalists", "authority of traditional religious texts", outside of "historical and critical scholarship", "religio-nationalistic attack on a scholarly consensus", " methodological shortcomings". Labeling as 'fringe' may be satisfying, but it's not adequate. fiveby (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC) @Fiveby: As User:SMcCandlish said above, if sources do not use the exact word "fringe", that does not mean that they are disqualified from being used to back up a "fringe theory" description; and, it's essentially a WP:WIKILAWYERING tactic to demand that they do. (The majority of the sources used to back up the "fringe theory" description in the Christ myth theory article do not use that particular word, but that didn't disqualify those sources.) The sources presented throughout the article, in this RfC, in the above thread, and in the previous RfC overwhelmingly support the notion that IA/OoI is outside of the mainstream scholarly consensus and, therefore, IA/OoI qualifies as a Fringe theory. BirdValiant (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC) This is a Request for Comments right? Seems pretty pushy for an invitation. Nowhere did i demand anything, nowhere was I "WIKILAWYERING". I said the lede should summarize the article and there is a better way to do that than just sticking a 'fringe' label in the first sentence. fiveby (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC) The descriptions are sourced, so they can be used in the body of the article too. Description is a good option too, indeed. See my previous proposal above, in a previous thread. But, note that this "theory" is so fringe that it is mostly ignored by scholarship; Witzel and Fosse are some of the few who have bothered to respond to it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC) Fiveby, I fully agree that you are entitled to voice your opinion. My query arose because it appeared that you were trivialising the proposal with phrases like "just calling it fringe". Calling it a "fringe theory" is in effect summarising all those more detailed explanations that are given in the lead as well as the body. We can agree or disagree on whether it is a reasonable summarisation. But you seem to be discounting the fact that it is a summarisation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - As absurd. No reliable sources have been presented to support the argument. Recent DNA studies by archaeologists and scientists support this theory, I would also say we need to improve coverage of this subject in context of Indian history. Shrikanthv (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

The link you give and the underlying paper are is "Aryan invasion" related and do not "support this theory". There have been plenty of sources presented that make it clear that WP:FRINGE applies and that 'fringe' could be a word used for description in the article (just not the best way of describing it in my view). fiveby (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC) Several sources have been presented. Shinde's own study actually explicitly supports the Indo-Aryan migration theory; the "spin" he gave to it was absurd. See Talk:Indo-Aryan migration#new study disproves aryan invasion theory. If "fringe" was to be used as a label, Shinde would serve as the ultimate example. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC) @Joshua Jonathan, Fiveby, and Shrikanthv: Wow, thank you for these references. The Shinde et al. Cell paper has a free-access PDF and actually says this in the Discussion: However, a natural route for Indo-European languages to have spread into South Asia is from Eastern Europe via Central Asia in the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE, a chain of transmission that did occur as has been documented in detail with ancient DNA. The fact that the Steppe pastoralist ancestry in South Asia matches that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe (but not Western Europe [de Barros Damgaard et al., 2018, Narasimhan et al., 2019]) provides additional evidence for this theory, as it elegantly explains the shared distinctive features of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages (Ringe et al., 2002). The Scroll.in article reveals that Shinde, in press releases, made the self-contradictory claim that “[the Indo-Aryan migration] is not a migration but a movement of people” In press releases, Shinde made claims that the Harappan (Indus Valley Civilization) people spoke Sanskrit and were the same as the Vedic people, but this view was not shared by the paper's co-authors: Niraj Rai is quoted with: “This is not my statement; I don’t agree with this statement" and another co-author, Nick Patterson, said: “While I am always willing to listen, I disagree with Dr Shinde that the people of the Indus Valley spoke an Indo-European language.” So, Shinde's view that the Harappan/IVC people were Sanskrit speakers is: * explicitly contradicted by his own paper in the Discussion section * disavowed by the paper's co-authors. In the context of the RfC, the pertinent result of the Shinde et al. paper is that it provides evidence against the Anatolian hypothesis. It not only provides no evidence against the prevailing Kurgan hypothesis, but it explicitly affirms it. Finally, the Scroll.in article also references the other major work, this time in Science, by Narasimhan et al. which concludes: Earlier work recorded massive population movement from the Eurasian Steppe into Europe early in the third millennium BCE, likely spreading Indo-European languages. We reveal a parallel series of events leading to the spread of Steppe ancestry to South Asia, thereby documenting movements of people that were likely conduits for the spread of Indo-European languages. And so, ironically, the very papers purported by some in the India Media to have somehow disproved the Indo-Aryan migrations actually did the exact opposite: they bolstered IAM and provided further evidence against IA/OoI. Truly, IA/OoI is a failure at every turn. References BirdValiant (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose [Statement by indefinitely blocked user] As I already noted in above sections, WP:VERIFY is the policy not Wikipedia's user's own interpretation of their personal feelings towards the subject. As such I oppose the RfC and redirect people to scholarly sources such as this from Cambridge, this from Oxford University Press, this by Routledge and many more scholarly sources where this theory has got significant attention as a contender or alternative theory. Fringe theories barely ever get attention other than their particular fringe circles. ML ⁹¹¹ 16:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: User:My Lord has been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

You've read the section and two reviews here for Bryant's 2005 Indo-Aryan Controversy? I don't think the other two links are very informative. fiveby (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC) Reviews written by 2 staunch supporters of a theory he and other authors in the book have criticized; not by a professional book reviewers or someone who is totally uninvolved in this debated matter. It is merely a natural reaction. Capitals00 (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC) WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Maybe you can tell us where the cited sources (Witzel, Jamison, Fosse, Thapar, Erdosy) say that IA/OoI is within the bounds of mainstream scholarship? They are very explicit in their rejection of it as not related to mainstream scholarship, or being even anything resembling scholarship. As for the other sources: Flood (1996) mentions it; he does not voice any support Bryant (2001) is close to being an apologist, giving room to fringe theorists. From the blurb: "Although Indian scholars reject this European reconstruction of their country's history, Western scholarship gives little heed to their argument." With other words: fringe. Olson (2016) mentions the indigenist position superfluously, without providing sources or sustained arguments. Nor does he voice any support. The fact that a couple of sources superfluously mention a theory, does not mean that it is accepted, mainstream scholarship. That is, you are drawing "a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Your comment Fringe theories barely ever get attention other than their particular fringe circles, despite it's rhetorics, neatly underscores this: this "theory" hardly gets any attention, other than a superfluous mentioning. And the few sources which do give it serious attention completely reject it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC) Erdosy (2012), The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, p.x, explicitly uses the term "fringe" (emphasis mine): Assertions of the indigenous origin of Indo-Aryan languages and an insistence on a long chronology for Vedic and even Epic literature are only a few of the most prominent tenets of this emerging lunatic fringe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC) @JJ; WP:OR means anything that isn't supported by the source. You are misunderstanding sources and my comments here. I mentioned that many of the scholarly sources discuss this theory as a reasonable theory which contradicts IAMt. I was not saying they are supporting it. Fringe theories gets no mention by scholars, and in fact not that many. In order to accept one theory, other theory needs to be rejected, however the sources are mentioning and their basic summary can be accepted as "but don't think the issue is established, due to lack of evidence for x and x, argument is unsettled and it is disputed by proponents of other theories". :::::"The origin of the Indo-Europeans remains unsettled and is a question beyond the parameters of this monograph." And that is the fact.ML 911 18:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC) @My Lord: Shelley's claim that "the origin of the Indo-Europeans remains unsettled" in no way constitutes evidence that IA/OoI is not a fringe theory. It is a fact that, among academics, there is still some small debate between the Kurgan hypothesis and the Anatolian hypothesis (though the former is vastly dominant over the latter). However, the fact that there still is some debate between those two hypotheses does not imply that IA/OoI is not a fringe fringe theory, any more than the idea that because Windows and Mac OSX remain competitive in the desktop market that NetBSD is not on the fringes of that market. It's simply a non-sequitur. The overwhelming body of evidence presented in the article, in these threads, in this RfC, and in the previous RfC demonstrate that IA/OoI is a fringe theory. You claim that "many of the scholarly sources discuss this theory as a reasonable theory". Which ones? So far, I have seen no support whatsoever by qualified scholars. On the other hand, I have seen overwhelming evidence that the scholarly consensus is that IA/OoI is a fringe theory which is nowadays motivated entirely by Hindutva and other nationalist or religious projects. BirdValiant (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support As I've not seen any mainstream scholarship supporting this opinion other than the Sanskrit nativists, who usually lack any type of formal education in the related fields.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose [Statement by indefinitely blocked user] - Violates WP:OR and none of the sources are verifying the word, nor other parts of the the lead. This theory isn't "presented as an alternative", but has been founding support since 18th century.[4][5] I also don't see any sense in WP:SYNTHESISING non-independent sources for the lead. You would be supporting the "mainstream theory" if it was as mainstream as "Out of Africa" theory, but it is very far from that and has been deduced to a much different conclusion than what it was proposed in 18th century - 20th century. Bharatiya29 14:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: Bharatiya29 has been blocked indefinitely by the Arbitration Committee. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

Did you actually read the sources and arguments above? The sources are clear that IA/OoI is not mainstream scholarship; Erdogy even explicitly uses the term fringe. The fact that this idea has found support since the 18th century does not mean that the present-day support is representative for mainstream scholarship. I don't understand what you mean with "non-independent sources", unless you want to imply that there is some conspiracy by mainstream scholarship to suppress a truth which is defended by IA-supporters. But if you think the sources mentioned above are not WP:RS, please let us know why. If you want to argue that the Indo-European migration theory, c.q. the steppe theory, is not the mainstream theory, you'll have to provide very good sources, per WP:REDFLAG. Merely stating that the steppe theory is not the mainstream does not suffice; nor does it mean that the IA/OoI "theory" is a mainstream "alternative." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC) @Bharatiya29: You have mentioned Out of Africa. As has been said before "The project is unlikely to find the support of the university's history department. "This is a meaningless debate. We all now know that the entire human race can trace its ancestry back to Africa. So how does it matter whether Aryans were indigenous to our country or were outsiders? There are far more serious issues of archaeological and scientific research that need to addressed in our country," said Nayanjot Lahiri, a professor of archaeology in the history department at Delhi University. Unfortunately, with IA/OoI, one cannot assume a common ground with Out of Africa. Proponents of IA/OoI appear to exist on a spectrum, with those on the extreme end asserting not only that the Indo-Aryan languages originated in India, but that the Aryans have been in India since the dawn of humanity, or literally forever. To do this, these extreme proponents are forced to cast doubt the dominant theory of human origins. Your first supplied source by Sanjay Sonawani [6] is no different: it has a whole section entitled "Out of Africa theory: becoming a myth", the thesis of which is that Out of Africa is a something which is doubted by "many scholars" and should therefore be discounted. As pointed out by Stephanie Jamison (see quote in Indigenous_Aryans#Criticism), IA/OoI proponents share a similar tactic with Intelligent Design proponents, in that both attempt to exploit differences in detail to cast doubt on the theory in general, and to suggest that the dominant scientific theories are essentially nothing more vague, unprovable hunches. I would love to see an attempt to show that the Sonawani book qualifies as a Reliable source. Who is this author? What are his scholarly credentials? What was the peer review process that went into publishing the book? Surely, someone about to prove not one but at least two fringe theories must be the intellectual giant of our time, ready to collect Nobel Prizes. Oh wait, the book has no reviews either on Google Books or on Amazon... Oh... there he is gaining lots of traction by advertising on a web forum... [7] or maybe not... BirdValiant (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC) No Erdosy, not Erdogy has nowhere used the term 'fringe' to describe this theory. You are misrepresenting the footnote. You should instead read p.54 of the same book where he discusses Jim Shaffer, who's research helped in rejecting the original Indo-Aryan Invasion theory. Capitals00 (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC) You're partly right; the term "lunatic fringe" was used to qualify the opposition against the Indo-Aryan migration theory. Fuller quote from Erdosy (2012), The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, p.x (emphasis mine): Unfortunately, political motivation (usually associated with Hindus revivalism [...]) renders this opposition [against the Indo-Aryan migration model] devoid of scholarly value. Assertions of the indigenous origin of Indo-Aryan languages and an insistence on a long chronology for Vedic and even Epic literature are only a few of the most prominent tenets of this emerging lunatic fringe. The term "lunatic fringe" is used for the opposition against the IAmt; this opposition is "devoid of scholarly value." "Assertions of the indigenous origin of Indo-Aryan languages" is a tenet of this opposition. The sources are quite clear, stating that "there is no scholar at this time seriously arguing for the indigenous origin of Aryans," the IA/OoI-theory is "largely neglected by Western scholars because it is regarded as incompetent," that it is a tenet of a "lunatic fringe" opposition against the IAmt, "devoid of scholarly value," and belonging "to a different 'discourse' than that of historical and critical scholarship." Not exactly statements which imply that the IA/OoI-theory is within mainstream scholarship, is it? For any impartial reader it's clear that these statements are saying that IA/OoI is a fringe theory. Shaffer is relevant, for his insight that there is a continuity between the IVC and the subsequent post-IVC/Vedic cultures; his ideas are still mentioned in the Wiki-article on Indo-aryan migrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC) PS: we're supposed to summarize sources, and to paraphrase text if necessary; "fringe" is a summary and a paraphrase of these statements. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, and I embrace all the argument of the opposers. Given the fact the Indo-European theories suffer from a relevant uncertainty ans mostly consist hyphothesis and speculations mostly based on even a hyphothetical artifically reconstructed PIE that often tries to identify itself as a borrower to non-Indo European langauges or cultures even on those timelines and ages that is heavily controversial. Hence, labeling a theory in such a determined manner could be indentified as a POV support for part of the Indo-Europeanist lobby, shall it be any direction regarding the hyphothetical location of origins, etc. Until the exact and uncontroverisal location of the Urheimat is not determined and there is no evidence of the common langauge ancestor, the whole question should be left open.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC))

Extended content

You're repeating the talking points of the indigenists. The linguistic evidence is only problematic for indigenists and the like. A phrase like "Indo-Europeanist lobby" also betrayes a seriously biased point of view; in other situations, I'd say that this talkpage is not a WP:FORUM. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC) Sorry but I saw no violation of WP:FORUM in the above comments of KEINGIR. Indigenist positions are generally adamant about a single location and that is not the case here. Anyway, I am basically saying the same thing here as KEINGER, that we lack consensus regarding an 'uncontroversial location'. ML 911 18:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC) @KIENGIR: Please everyone note that User:KIENGIR has employed the exact same tactic identified by Bryant as typical of the IA/OoI proponents: the dismissal of historical linguistics as a field of study, characterizing it as something that is speculative and inconclusive: ("the Indo-European theories suffer from a relevant uncertainty ans mostly consist hyphothesis and speculations mostly based on even a hyphothetical artifically reconstructed PIE"). "even on those timelines and ages that is heavily controversial". That is a baseless assertion which requires extraordinary evidence. The simple fact of the matter is that the so-called "Indo-Europeanist lobby" is the entirety of scholarly linguistics today: there is no reputable scholar in the modern day arguing that Indo-European is not a valid language family. When it comes to the Indo-European languages, a common linguistic ancestor is unanimously agreed-upon. Another equally baseless assertion is "there is no evidence of the common langauge ancestor". That is simply a false statement, as the study of the Indo-European languages over the past several centuries has amassed an enormous amount of evidence showing that they share a common ancestry. The idea that the Indo-European languages do not comprise a coherent language family is even more fringe WP:FRINGE than the IA/OoI idea that the PIE homeland was located in India. Again, here we see clearly demonstrated that IA/OoI proponents, like Intelligent Design proponents, must employ an ever-increasing cascade of fringe theories, pseudoscience, and dismissal of science itself, in order to justify their flimsy ideas. If you want to say something like "there is no evidence of PIE because it was not written down", then I'm sorry, but that simply is an unacceptable demand. For example, one might say "there is no evidence for a Last universal common ancestor and therefore for the common ancestry of all life on Earth, because we don't have a sample of LUCA". I'm sorry, but some arguments simply will not do. BirdValiant (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC) @My Lord: it wasn't a violation of WP:FORUM, indeed; I wrote that in other cases I might perceive those comments as such. But in the context of this Rfc I understand them, though I reject the value of those comments as valid arguments. Merely repeating the arguments of indigenists doesn't establish the IAmt as questionable or non-mainstream; nor does the questioning of the mainstream-position imply that the indigenist position is a serious alternative. There are multiple logical fallacies in this line of reasoning. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC) @Joshua Jonathan:, Thank for your opinion, you have the right for that, as I do, however I am not an "indigenist", I just told some facts of the weak points of the IE theory, and my statements does not have logical fallacies. And please have in mind that saying could be indentified as a POV support for part of the Indo-Europeanist lobby does not betrayes a seriously biased POV of mine, since I just pinpointed anyone may regard or see like so if one theory is labeled fringe on another, in a field where anyway after a point everything is blurry. So please do not interpret/use imporperly my words. @BirdValiant:, contrary to your statements - I did not made the dismissal of historical linguistics as a field of study hence characterizing it as something that is speculative and inconclusive is a failed generalized statement of yours - the quotation you cited after are some facts from IE, thus you you even did not reinforce your statements based on a false premise - second quotation of mine: did you ever think about maybe (proto)-IE borrowed from others and not necessarily the latter borrowed from the hyphothetical? See i.e. the Mytanni hyphithesis, just by a few names they visionate a foreign ruling elite, but they do no think immediately maybe IE also borrowed and some words from non-IE served the languages' genesis as well.. - ...arguing that Indo-European is not a valid language family. -> I never said such, a typical fallacious straw man argumentation of yours - there is no evidence of the common langauge ancestor vs. has amassed an enormous amount of evidence showing that they share a common ancestry. -> second fallacious straw man, I never said the IE languages does not share a common ancestry, I said we don't have any evidence yet of the common languages ancestor. - "The idea that the Indo-European languages do not comprise a coherent language family.." -> This is what you said, not me, again the same failed inference like before... - Hence your last sentences starting with if you want to say I do not even react, because you clearly did not interpret properly what I have said and produced to many failed inference that is nothing else then your speculation, I am sorry. Please in the future twice as more carefully mind your sentences, and I doubt my thoughts would be exact same by anyone in spite of this, so just careful!(KIENGIR (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)) @KIENGIR: You stated "the Indo-European theories suffer from a relevant uncertainty ans mostly consist hyphothesis and speculations". By using the words "the Indo-European theories" you appear to be referencing the entire field of Indo-European studies, comprising PIE itself, the language tree, the various hypotheses of its homeland, etc. By discounting "the Indo-European theories" collectively, characterizing them as consisting mostly as "hyphothesis and speculations", you are effectively dismissing the entire field as if it were not legitimate study, or as if it could not come to a legitimate consensus. Indo-European theories are not based mostly on hypotheses and speculation. The Comparative method used to determine Genetic relationship (linguistics) within Indo-European (and other) languages cannot be characterized as merely hypotheses and speculation. My point on the similarity between your characterization of Indo-European theories as consisting of hypothesis and speculations, and the tendency of Intelligent Design proponents to discount the validity of the scientific consensus, stands. "Mytanni hyphithesis": I'm still waiting for extraordinary evidence to back up the claim that "a hyphothetical artifically reconstructed PIE that often tries to identify itself as a borrower to non-Indo European langauges or cultures even on those timelines and ages that is heavily controversial". Then, I would like to know what that has to do with the scientific consensus over the Proto-Indo-European homeland. For the sake of argument, let's grant that PIE loanwords into, e.g. Uralic are all bunk. What does that matter? The situation remains: in the field of historical linguistics (or Indo-European studies which is a subset of the former), the dominant hypothesis for the PIE homeland is the Kurgan hypothesis, followed distantly by the Anatolian hypothesis. The remaining hypotheses, which include IA/OoI, are so far outside of serious consideration by mainstream scholarship that they are fringe. That is the topic of this debate. "I said we don't have any evidence yet of the common languages ancestor." The claim that we don't have any evidence of the common language's ancestor is a false statement. As I illustrated with the LUCA analogy, we have an enormous amount of evidence for PIE. While we don't have actual samples of LUCA which we can examine, we nonetheless have been able to use biochemical evidence from extant (and extinct) organisms that provide conclusive evidence 1. that there was a common ancestor of all known terrestrial life, and 2. which allows us to characterize much about LUCA (its 20-amino-acid genetic code, many of its genes, proteins, and other characteristics). Likewise, yes, we don't have any direct attestations of PIE because it appears that it was not written down. But, that does not mean that we have no evidence for it. The extant IE languages, as well as writings from ancient IE languages, constitute an enormous body of evidence for PIE. This evidence allows us to determine not only that PIE certainly existed, but also allows us to deduce many of its characteristics. I'm glad to see that you accept that PIE existed, because that is not a given with IA/OoI proponents. Given that many IA/OoI proponents deny IE as a coherent language family, and given your "we don't have any evidence yet of the common languages ancestor" claim, and given your claim that "the Indo-European theories suffer from a relevant uncertainty ans mostly consist hyphothesis and speculations", and given the demonstrated similarities between IA/OoI proponents and ID proponents, and, especially, given the poor quality of the pro-IA/OoI sources presented thus far (e.g. the random book presented by User:Bharatiya29 which, in order to argue for IA/OoI, attempts to cast doubt on the Out of Africa consensus); given all that, I hope you can understand how someone could interpret your stance as PIE not existing. Regardless, the situation remains: the most dominant hypothesis for the Proto-Indo-European homeland is the Kurgan hypothesis, followed distantly by the Anatolian hypothesis, and then, way on the fringes, IA/OoI. BirdValiant (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC) @BirdValiant:, much part of your reply is again circling around of your personal (mis)interpretation of my words despite it has been explained what I meant, thus I will only react your premises, not necessarily your inference from them. First pharagraph: yes, it is your point, but nothing else, just because there are weak points, uncertainties, hypothesis' and speculations, it does not infer what you wish to put in my mouth. (2)I think you should study the Mitanni-Aryan hyphothesis, and generally see with what claims are based back in time on the path I demonsrated earlier, not I have to "back up a claim", but the whole things itself backs up a claim without proof, so do not twist on who's shoulder is to come up with evidence! Moreover, nobody debated which hyphotesis' theories are considered the mostly accepted by the scholars and I understood what is this debate is of, despite I uphold my opinion, in case of anyway the field of artificial reconstructions and hyphothesis', it is odd to say fringe on one theory and another not... (3) Again, you repeat your earlier straw man, despite I explained to you the thing. No my statement is not false. Please understand that very easy thing, that being unable to show of evidence of something does not mean the thing did not exist. Your further argumentation shows you again did not interpret properly what I have written, you just render your own mistaken interpretation if it. (4) Thank you that you acknowledged in my case exact same did not exist! Yes, someone may interpret things in a way, that's why we are discussing if it is not accurate. In your last sentence you reiterate something again that is known; how much credit are given to the listed hyphothesis, my point was not about this, again, my point is that in the field of hyphothesis' is quite odd to judge one fringe and the others not, given the weak points anyway on the subject.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)) You're still prsenting a theory without support in mainstream scholarship as an equivalent of the mainstream position. It may be your personal opinion that there is too much uncertainty about the steppe-origins of the IE-languages, but this certainly isn't the view of mainstream scholarship. Indigenism simply isn't a model which is considered credible, or even discussed, in the relevant scholarly discourse. There is no equivalent WP:RS for, say, Anthony's The Horse, the Wheel, and Language, Parpola's The Origins of Hinduism, or Narasimhan et al. (2019). The only sources presented so far are Bryant, and a few sources which superfluously mention the indigenist position, without any serious treatment of the arguments. The indigenist position is a non-issue in mainstream scholarship; it is simply irrelevant for the understanding of the origins of IE-origins. It only has relevance in Indian nationalistic discourse, as illustrated by Shinde, who had a publication in a relevant journal, then publicly dismissed his own research results and conclusions, and was publicly rebuked by his co-authors and other knowledgeable authors. That's the sad status of the indigenist position: annoying, embarrassing, and irrelevant. Fringe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC) @Joshua Jonathan:, No, I did not say such that my summarization would be equal with the mainstream scholarship. I kindly ask you all, do not address things to me I did not say!(KIENGIR (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)) Yes, you said so before. Well, for the nuance: the indigenist position is not equivalent to the steppe-theory, whether we explicitly call it fringe or not. Time to move on... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC) @Joshua Jonathan:, no way, I never said or implied such (search back, you started to talk about mainstream, I never even mentioned the word until replying you)! Yes, better to move on, but it is annoying still adressing to me anything I never said or implied, since the point is exactly the mainstream acceptance of the theories mentioned are caring much less of the problems I pinpointed.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)) @KIENGIR: no, I mean the opposite! You did indeed say before that you're not necessarily an indigenist! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC) @Joshua Jonathan:, oh about that...yes...as you recall we worked together as well aginst irreal Pan-Turkic claims, the same way I put criticism to the weak points of the Finno-Ugrian theory, or any other theory....yes my critics does not mean a devotion to indigenists, but it does not mean there is no harsh critics on the other hyphothsis' as well; I mean recent general scholar acceptance we may discuss, but purely scientific manners we cannot say any of the hyphothesis' are standing on solid grounds, hence my opinion is not to distinguish the way as planned, nothing more!(KIENGIR (talk) 05:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)) @KIENGIR: You say "my point is that in the field of hyphothesis' is quite odd to judge one fringe and the others not". I reject that point in its entirety. First of all, just because something is not known with 100% certainty, or just because all the details are not worked out, that does not mean that all competing hypotheses are equally likely: for this, I suggest that you read Isaac Asimov's "The Relativity of Wrong". The modus operandi of IA/OoI proponents, like Intelligent Design proponents, is to characterize the state of the science as fundamentally uncertain, so that they may slip in their fringe view as if it were somehow equivalent. They are not equivalent. Please do not use the same tactics as IA/OoI or ID proponents. Secondly, and most importantly for our purposes here, just because something is not known with 100% certainty, that in no way means that some views on the subject cannot be considered fringe. For example, consider the case of the existence of a historical Jesus figure. We do not know with 100% certainty whether such a person existed or not. However, the prevailing view of knowledgeable scholars on the subject is that such a person in all likelihood did exist. The opposing view, which is that the the Jesus figure was entirely mythical, is a fringe theory among historians. However, we may never know either way with 100% certainty. My objection to you characterizing Indo-European theories as "hypotheses and conjecture" is that you can apply that same characterization to all historical science. You could say that the opposing views on the existence of a historical figure of Jesus are all hypotheses because we cannot know the truth with 100% certainty. You could say that both views are nothing but "conjecture" because we do not have access to eyewitnesses. You can use those words if you choose to. However, that in no way precludes historians from categorizing the Christ myth theory as a fringe theory. It in no way precludes Wikipedia from classifying it as WP:FRINGE, and it in no way prevented editors of that article from accurately portraying it as fringe. You say "Moreover, nobody debated which hyphotesis' theories are considered the mostly accepted by the scholars". I'm delighted to see that you agree. If you agree that the Kurgan hypothesis is by far the most accepted by scholars, and that the IA/OoI view departs significantly from that mainstream view, then IA/OoI clearly qualifies as a fringe theory under the language of WP:FRINGE: In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Would you agree that IA/OoI qualifies as WP:FRINGE under that language? If so, then where exactly is your disagreement? Is it just the "hypotheses and conjecture" point? If that's the case, then please demonstrate why the "hypotheses and conjecture" characterization applies to Indo-European theories and not on historical views of the existence of the Jesus figure. If it's something else, then please put forth another argument. BirdValiant (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC) @BirdValiant:, I did not say all hyphothesis is equally likely. Again your first pharagraph is a straw man argumentation of yours, at this point I have to say please stop not just these huge logical fallacies you are performong on an on, but as well avoid such ridiculous accusations that I would follow any tactic, no I just tell frankly what the situation is and what is my opninon, as similarly do with any Pan-Turkic theory or the Finno-Ugrian theory, the Daco-Roman or any theory where there are relevant weak points! Second pharagraph: your personal fallacious deduction from the anyway failed first pharagraph, since nobody said that some views on the subject cannot be considered fringe. Third pharagraph: alike, I did not charachterize all aspects of Indo-Eruopean theories as hyphothesis, so the rest of your argumentation is on the same category as before (despite I clarified this as well earlier...). The last two: You probably missed this is an RFC and users telling opinions, and we are not discussing about necessarily general rules of WP and their appliance. Any WP:FRINGE may have a borderline interpretation, due to many circumstances or specialties in a current field, many of them are still not put in a lead and qualified like so even, that would seem a kind of prejudicative labeling, although in the article there are plenty of space to describe any evaluation, acceptance, opinion, acedemic standpoint of any view, etc. I just pinpointed there is a huge different on studies with exact and verified evidence and really unsupported hyphothesis and theories that easily may be judged fringe, but in a field where the main theories are unclear in a relevant manner such labeleing and cetegorization is avoidable, as generall acceptance do not replace the fact or evidence. Your questions are again a result of your personal illogic and contraint way of thinking, contructed from the above contemplations that fell into a similar category, that would falsely imply they'd be valid at this point. As your last sentence since I did not say that the "hypotheses and conjecture" characterization applies to Indo-European theories, I said there are parts of it, that anyway anyone knows who studied carefully the subject (it seems you did not, along with Mitanni-Aryan hyphothesis, again don't turn the burden and I never mentioned Jesus, it is your invention). In case you don't change on the recurrent addressing/giving to my mouth I did not say along with the continous twisting and misinterpretaion of what I really said - very annoying - I am afraid we cannot really continue this discussion in an appropriate way (even if with a good faith I do not consider it utterly deliberate, but at this point becomes highly relevant...)(KIENGIR (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC))

• Support per everything I and so many others have said before in all these related discussions. I'm not going to repeat it all here. WP:FRINGE is broadly defined, and it does not require that the source literally use the exact word "fringe"; they simply have to agree that it doesn't represent the scientific consensus.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Per KIENGER, I oppose and agree that majority of linguistics support Kurgan theory by saying that it wields the higher possibility than saying that the Kurgan theory is scientifically established. Agree with Bharatiya29 about sourcing of proposed wording. Kaweendra (talk) 11:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended content
The discussion is about the Indigenist position, not about the steppe theory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The sources are not supporting the proposed info as clarified above. Present lead of the article is good enough. Capitals00 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

Note - It seems to me that this theory is strongly related to Indian nationalism, and therefore to the Indian-Pakistan conflict, for which this editor is topic-banned. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC) The ban appears to be lifted; see the section below on extended discussion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC) @Capitals00: Could you expound on that? In what way or ways, specifically, do the sources provided for the proposed lede not support the characterization of IA/OoI as a fringe theory? Which ones do you take issue with? BirdValiant (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support - The sources make it clear that it is not mainstream scholarship. —PaleoNeonate – 14:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - per Joshua Jonathan Idealigic (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Basically unsourced original research. As of now, every many countries (at least in Eurasia) claims to be the origin of Indo-European language, thus the subject is not surprising. Azuredivay (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

Romila Thapar (2006), India: historical beginnings and the concept of the Aryan: there is no scholar at this time seriously arguing for the indigenous origin of Aryans. Viewing this as "unsourced original research" is wishfull thinking. As for every country (at least in Eurasia) claims to be the origin of Indo-European language, thus the subject is not surprising: 1. I'm completely unaware of the "fact" that "every country (at least in Eurasia) claims to be the origin of Indo-European language"; looking forward for sources for this WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim; the IA-"theory" is a specific Indian phemomenon, linked to Indian nationalism; 2. And even if this was the case, it doesn't change the basic fact that the Indigenous Aryans "theory" is totally irrelevant in mainstream scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC) @Azuredivay: Could you please demonstrate how the citations provided in the proposal constitute "unsourced original research"? Specifically, how do they constitute "unsourced"? How do they constitute "original research"? Additionally, could you provide some evidence for your claim that "As of now, every country (at least in Eurasia) claims to be the origin of Indo-European language"? BirdValiant (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Not one source support the proposed lead text. The proposed text still lacks sources which would support the lead. See WP:OR. Iran, Armenia, India, Germany, Baltic regions, Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, and others claim themselves to be the origin of Indo-European languages. This phenomenon isn't even uncommon. Azuredivay (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC) I still don't see you answer my questions above: how do the sources not support that IA is fringe? As for the countries you mention: The Caucasus and Iran are indeed options discussed in the relevant literature, for good reasons: it may explain where the CHG-component came from. There is no such reason for India: the CHG-component surely doesn't come from India. Ergo: IA is fringe. Aryan race (Germany) is as fringe as IA. A Baltic homeland, according to Mallory, may be compatible with the Steppe theory; though apparently hardly relevant for the scholarly discussion, this theory is from another order than the IA-theory. Ukraine and Russia: serious? That's the Steppe theory. Just because the IA-theory proposes a specific homeland, just like the Steppe-theory does, does not mean it is not fringe. Anatolian hypothesis: that was the only serious alternative for the Steppe-theory. The same applies here: just bdcause the IA-theory proposes a specific homeland, just like the Anatolian hypothesis, does not mean that the IA-theory is a mainstream theory. Which is demonstrated, by example, by Anthony & Ringe (2015): they state that the Anatolian hypothesis is incompatible with the data, ergo, that the Steppe-theory is the only viable theory left. No mention of the IA-theory whatsoever; it's simply irrelevant. IA is like Flat Earth: irrelevant, except for the believers. But see also WP:CHEESE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC) PS: it's not countries which claim to be the origon of the Indo-Europeans, it's scholars who propose certain regions to be the origin of the Indo-Europeans. It's only India where the origins of the Indo-Europeans is intertwined with nationalistic claims. In essence, the IA-"theory" is not about scholarship, but about identity. And, as you know, the IA-theory is completely debunked. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC) @Azuredivay: Could you specify how the Witzel, Jamison, and Fosse sources do not support the categorization of IA as fringe? Is it because they do not specifically use the word "fringe"? Well, as has been discussed above, WP:FRINGE does not require sources to use the exact word "fringe"; it only must be demonstrated that the idea departs significantly from the mainstream scientific view. Besides, as Joshua Jonathan showed, Erdosy (2012) does explicitly use the words "lunatic fringe" to describe IA. Witzel notes that IA is "revisionist ... project, [which] should not be regarded as scholarly in the usual post-enlightenment sense of the word, but as an apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking". Jamison notes a "non-scholarly agenda", with tactics close to ID proponents. Bryant (2001) notes that the IA proponents "tend to be linguistic dilettantes" with hopelessly inadequate qualifications. Fosse is quoted with "[IA is] largely neglected by Western scholars because it is regarded as incompetent." I fail to see how any of this qualifies as WP:OR. Are you saying that these scholars are incompetent or unqualified? I'm also waiting on evidence on your claim that "every country (at least in Eurasia) claims to be the origin of Indo-European language". Even if you do that, you would then need to provide evidence as to how that makes any difference to this discussion. What matters here is the acceptance of IA in academia. You put forth Aryan race as some kind of proposal. Do you really think that a Germanic PIE homeland is a serious academic proposal nowadays? It is clear to anyone competent in this field that the overwhelmingly favored origin is the Kurgan hypothesis, followed distantly by the Anatolian hypothesis. Have we all been misled here? Is the state of the academic field so woefully rudimentary that the Kurgan hypothesis is on equal footing to Nazi ideas of an Aryan race? BirdValiant (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. To begin with, for a theory to be deemed fringe in Wikipedia's voice, there needs to be a lopsided rejection of the theory amongst the subject matter experts. That has not been demonstrated at all. What has been advanced in the name of 'scholary consensus' in the course of this discussion are certain quotations from books that have been cherry-picked in order to reinforce personal prejudice. And even then, these cherry-picked arguments don't do justice to the inferences that had been drawn from them; something that a number of users have already highlighted above.
  Just to add to this: there is much debate within the relevant scholarly literature itself on the concerning theory, and one could find a plethora of views in favour of it, including from some of the eminent authority on the subject such as B. B. Lal[8] and Jim G. Shaffer[9] Clearly then, in view of this acceptance amongst the leading experts of this particular field, the label of 'fringe' would but be incompatible.
  In other words, in the face of this scholarly disagreement, we should follow the usual drill and cover the different viewpoints, rather than taking sides. Regards, MBlaze Lightning 07:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

The "lopsided rejection" has been clearly demonstrated; there is no support for these ideas in mainstream scholarship. See the sources above. As far as the discussions in the relevant scholarly literature are concerned with the idea of indigenous Aryans, they voice an unambigious rejection: indigenous origins are simply incompatible with the data. Period. See Narasimhan et al. (2019). There is simply not "a plethora of views in favour of it." Not. Lal's writings on this topic are not "relevant scholarly literature"; his views are disjoined from the scholarly consensus. Calling him an "eminent authority" or a "leading expert" is weird, and out of touch with reality. He may have been an accomplished archaeologist, but his views on the origins of the Aryans are irrelevant for the scholarly discussion. There's no scholarly disagreement; there's only nationalistic disagreement. It's a pity that you're willing to ignore the facts, and give credence to fringe theories here at Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC) @MBlaze Lightning: Can you specify what you mean by "inferences"? And could you provide more detail on why you believe that the sources have been "cherry-picked"? BirdValiant (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Regarding "a plethora of views in favour of it": Lal (2005), Aryan Invasion of India: Perpetuation of a Myth, chapter 2 of The Indo-Aryan Controversy, as referred to at p.3. The Indo-Aryan Controversy was explicitly meant to investigate the ideas of Indigenists, and give them room to vent their ideas. Google Scholar gives 18 citations for this chapter; not really a hint of a big scholarly impct or relevance. Lal (2015), The Rigvedic People: Invaders? Immigrants? or Indigenous? has even less citations, namely 7; of these seven, three are by Danino and one is by Lal himself. Compare Anthony (2010), The horse, the wheel, and language, which has 1417 citations. Shaffer (1986), "Cultural Development in the Eastern Punjab." In Studies in the Archaeology of India and Pakistan (195-235), as cited in Bryant (2001), The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture, says "we have no archaeological culture that might represent the Aryan phenomenon." Not quite the same as 'The Aryans were indigenous to India'. Implicitly he's even rejecting the indigenist position, because there are many remains of the Harappan culture, but "we have no archaeological culture that might represent the Aryan phenomenon." So, what you present as an argument in favor of the indigenist position is actually an argument against it. What Shaffer argues is that there is a greater continuity between Harappan and post-Harappan times than previously thought in the 1980s. Shaffer is writing in the 1980s, arguing against Wheeler's idea of an intrusive invasion. See Shaffer (1984), The Indo-Aryan Invasions: Cultural Myth and Archaeological Reality: In the framework of European prehistory, the analytical importance of these Indo-European or Indo-Aryan intrusions has been replaced somewhat by the current emphasis on ecological reconstruction and indigenous cultural development, although invasion or migration explanations are still found (e.g., Gimbutas, 1973). Gimbutas 1973... Since the the 1980s, the pendulum has moved back, and the migrationist steppe-theory has become *the* explanatory model. That's completely missing in Shaffer's writings. Shaffer's notion of cultural continuity is still relevant, though; but his 1980s publications are outdated with respect to present-day scholarship. You simply won't find any supporter of indigenism in present-day mainstream scholarship. So, even if there is a "plethora of views," they are not equally credible, lest up-to-date, and some are desperatly uncredible. But correct me if I'm wrong, and you have recent WP:RS mainstream sources available which argue in favor of the indigenist position. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per MBlaze Lightning. As he pointed out, there is a not insignificant number of scholars supporting this hypothesis. I can certainly agree that it's a minority point of view, but the use of the term "fringe theory" is derogatory and doesn't belong in the intro without attribution. Indian historians advocating this theory have been called nationalists by some, but the fact remains that they do exist and they are credentialed historians, so, when it comes to the intro, we shouldn't call them "fringe" outright. However, I think we could directly quote another reputable historian who does choose to call them "fringe". IvoryTower123 (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Which scholars? Publishing which publications in which journals? Sources please, not unfounded statements. And which attribution are you missing? Who are those "credentialed historians"? Again, please provide solid sources for your statements. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support per BirdValiant and Joshua Jonathan. Puduḫepa 06:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per the overwhelming consensus within contemporary scholarly sources. I could quibble with the wording; specifically, I think "fringe" is a Wikipedia-specific term that might be confusing in context; but the substance of this proposal, that the mainstream consensus among scholarly sources clearly opposes this theory, is supported by the sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per KEINGIR and MBlaze Lightning. Theory isn't fringe (nor any sources say so) but one of the competing hypothesis. The sources above only show significance that this theory has attracted attention in serious literature and considered to be accurate by enough scholars, even if not most but then there is absence of a non-controversial theory about the subject. Yoonadue (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

What makes you think that the IA-theory is a "competing hypothesis"? Could you please provide examples of "serious literature," that is, recent WP:RS publications from relevant journals and publishers, which seriously engage with this theory? The sources above, to which you refer, are quite explicit that this theory is not "considered to be accurate" by mainstream scholarship: Jamison: "The Indo-Aryan controversy [...] is essentially a religio-nationalistic attack on a scholarly consensus." Witzel: "The revisionist and autochthonous project, then, should not be regarded as scholarly." Fosse: "[Indigenism] is "largely neglected by Western scholars because it is regarded as incompetent." Romila Thapar (2006): "there is no scholar at this time seriously arguing for the indigenous origin of Aryans." Wendy Doniger (2017): "[Indigenism] is not supported by any reliable scholarship." And what's your criterium for "enough scholars"? It seems to me that that's your personal opinion; could you please provide mainstream scholarly sources, for example Nature, which state that "enough scholars" consider this theory to be a serious contender? Regarding "absence of a non-controversial theory about the subject": the Indo-Aryan migration theory is the mainstream theory, and non-controversial in contemporary scholarship; it's only certain nationalistic authors who consider it to be controversial. So, please, back-up your statements and personal with WP:RS which substantiate your claim that the IA-theory is non-controversial mainstream scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Quoting a few opponents of the theory does not change the fact that OIT is a competing hypothesis. You are creating a mountain out of a molehill with those quotes. You should re-read my comments and the comments I referred because ultimately I am not going to repeat myself, you seem inclined to ignore every argument that goes against your personal bias with the subject and becomes a "personal opinion". -Yoonadue (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Please show us where exactly it is a "competing hypothesis," other than in the Hindutva discourse. If it really is a "competing hypothesis in mainstream scholarship, that shouldn't be hard to demonstrate. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support - The multiple reliable sources provided by nom clearly demonstrates that IA/OoI fits our definition of a fringe theory. Krakkos (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Current scholarly consensus holds that we don't enough info on history as to where did the Indo-European languages originated from. While enough agree with Kurgan Hypothesis citing linguistic evidence, but still there isn't enough info or clarity from sources (including those mentioned here) to name Out of India as fringe. I wouldn't name any of the current proposals as 'fringe' unless there are enough sources supporting the information. If we are creating our own meaning from the sources then it is just violation of WP:OR. Santosh L (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

Please cite sources for this "current scholarly consensus" that "we don't [have] enough info on history as to where did the Indo-European languages originated from," especially given your misinterpretations of recent research, for which I warned you at User talk:Santoshsatvik#March 2020. See Indo-European Urheimat: the Pontic-Caspian steppe, with some proposals for the Caucasus for archaic PIE. Definitely not India. See also the responses to Shinde's spin, as mentioned in this same warning. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC) @Santoshsatvik: Please see my earlier discussion on what does and does not constitute a Fringe Theory as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Just because the scientific field has competing hypotheses, that doesn't mean that some of those hypotheses cannot be considered by the scientific community to be fringe. For example, when it comes to cosmology, the dominant model is the Lambda-CDM model with the universe having both dark matter and dark energy. However, there still is some research into Modified Newtonian dynamics as an alternative model. We do not know which model will ultimately turn out to be correct. On the other hand, there are models like Tired light, which has so little support nowadays that it is considered fringe. It could conceivably turn out that the "tired light" idea has some truth to it, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Our job here is to accurately represent the status of models within the scientific community. Likewise, when it comes to the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, the scholarly consensus is that there was some historical figure; the idea that Jesus was entirely mythical has so little support among competent historians that Wikipedia must consider it as fringe. The numerous citations given throughout these discussions very clearly show that in mainstream academia, IA/OoI has no support. Indeed, in most circumstances, in reviews of the PIE homeland, lingusts don't even deign to mention IA/OoI. It is very much akin to evolutionary biologists who, when reviewing the literature, typically do not give Intelligent design the honor of even being mentioned. If you could find a review in the mainstream scholarship which actually treats IA/OoI on equal footing to the Kurgan or Anatolian hypotheses, then you could make a case. However, good luck: over these many months, no IA/OoI proponent has managed produce a single piece of evidence like that. BirdValiant (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Koenraad Elst (May 10, 2016), Koenraad Elst: “I am not aware of any governmental interest in correcting distorted history”, Swarajya Magazine: "Of course it is a fringe theory." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Please use this section for extensive re-argumentation.

• Notice of my formatting activity - I have reformatted the RfC, making it have a clear question. I have also added sub-sections for Related Threads, consolidated a Survey section, and made this Comments section. If anyone has any objects to me doing this, please feel free to revert.<br.

Also, I'm going to remove my signature from the question section. I added it to make it clear that I added the question. However, it falsely makes it look like I started the RfC in the first place, which I did not. So, I hope that this comment will suffice for documentation. BirdValiant (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64 and Joshua Jonathan: As stated here, I (BirdValiant) formatted the RfC and added sub-sections, including the Question section where I added a concise question with this edit here: [10]. I wrote the question since I'm pretty sure that RfCs are supposed to have a concise question; Joshua Jonathan technically did not write that exact question. However, as stated above, I was not the one to start the RfC, and I thought that having my signature on the question made it falsely look like I started it. I also thought that adding the question was more of a "formatting activity" than a "post" per WP:SIGNHERE, so I figured that my signature was distracting and unnecessary. On the other hand, I didn't want to make it look like Joshua Jonathan wrote that exact question, so I just decided to put it in italics. But, now it looks like Joshua Jonathan wrote the exact wording, so I don't know if that's good, either. BirdValiant (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Whilst the full signature is optional, the timestamp component of it is mandatory, otherwise Legobot doesn't know where the statement ends. If it can't find a valid timestamp within a certain length, it doesn't list the RfC correctly, and will not publicise it through WP:FRS. It's covered at WP:RFCST and WP:RFCBRIEF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. Joshua Jonathan's signature was so far down (after the references) that Legobot must've missed it. Well, I guess we can leave it up to Joshua Jonathan to determine whether I summarized the RfC in a way which reflected his intentions, and whether there should be a full signature there, or a five-tilde-style timestamp. BirdValiant (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment on RfC format - Is this RfC categorized into the appropriate topic? It seems to me that it should belong in rfc|hist and rfc|lang instead of, or in addition to, rfc|reli, because the topic concerns the historical place of origin of the Indo-Aryan languages. I'm not sure, though: can this be changed after it is added? BirdValiant (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I've added the rfc|hist and rfc|lang categories. Feel free to revert if adding categories is not allowed. I don't see anywhere on WP:RFC that says this is not allowed, but maybe I'm missing something. BirdValiant (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment on wording of the proposed statement: I think that the bracketed [idea of] should be replaced by "concept of" as it is now, and that the bracketed [theory] should be deleted. I don't think that square-bracketed statements are esthetically pleasing in ledes. It's difficult to find a phrasing which neatly ties together both of IA and OoI together, but I think that making those small changes would be about as good as possible. BirdValiant (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment unrelated to the content dispute - the prose in this article is a tangled mess and requires improvement. All of the editors who are participating in the editing of the article should work together to simplify the prose in the lead paragraph in the first instance. I think that will assist others (whom you are seeking comments from) so that they can focus on the content issues you would like them to review. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Notice of editing another's posts @My Lord: In this edit, you edited my posts so that my citations were broken. I don't know if it was intentional or some kind of automated process, but please do not do that. BirdValiant (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It is my browser setting, removes very unnecessary spaces. I generally turn it off. ML ⁹¹¹ 18:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@BirdValiant: I'm sure it wasn't intentional; there's simply no need for ML to do so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Don't strike comments by My Lord. We only strike comments by socks not by sockmaster even if the multiple accounts abuse concerned this page. Though sock comments can be removed as well but not master's. Capitals00 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I support the strikethrough. In this case, not only were the sockpuppets blocked indefinitely, but so too was the sockmaster. Does the opinion of someone totally banished from the website matter, when it comes to the activities of those who remain on the website? I don't think so. BirdValiant (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. ML is no participant anymore at Wikipedia, for good reasons; their opinions don't count here. But we can ask @Bbb23: should the comments of banned users be included in the conclusion of this Rfc? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Birdvalient: Sockmasters can be unblocked with or without convincing request but socks remain "totally banished from the website". This is why I said, only comment of socks comments are removed. Capitals00 (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Request to re-list - The discussion had grown stagnant for a couple weeks, with no progress. Legobot has apparently removed the RFC tag. I suggest that the RFC be re-listed, in order to gain more input. BirdValiant (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Question on full protection - Why have you fully protected the article? Other articles that are very high profile, such as coronavirus, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders only have extended confirmed protection as of posting. Bernspeed (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment on lack of responses - I notice that most editors who oppose the explicit qualification of the IA-"theory" in the lead have not responded to requests to substantiate their statements with reliable sources. The only sources mentioned are given by Shrikanthv, who refers to Shinde (2019), whose public contradiction of his own publication has been ripped to pieces; and by MBlazeLightning, namely Lal, who's opinions on this topic are neglected in the scholarly literarture; and Shaffer, who does not voice support for the indigenist position, and whose cited statement even contradicts the indigenist position. In lack of evidence for the supposed mainstream position of indigenism, the opinions of these editors should be weighted as such, namely personal opinions and beliefs, when concluding this RfC. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment on possible topic-ban - @Joshua Jonathan: You are mistaken with this note. I am not topic banned, see this. You may want to remove it. After all, per WP:FOC, you must not comment on contributors but only comment on content and refrain from speculating backgrounds of other editors per WP:ASPERSIONS even if they have declared it on their userpage. Capitals00 (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Calling my comment "speculating backgrounds" or an aspersion is incorrect; you were topic-banned, and asking if you're rightfully commenting here is relevant and reasonable. But, given the fact that your topic-ban was lifted, I'll strike my comment. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Given the above discussion has been closed as no consensus to make the change, the immediate disagreement seems to have been solved so I've dropped the article back to semi-protection if there's productive editing to be done. If the edit warring resumes, of course so can the protection. ~ mazca ^talk 19:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mazca: Given User:Kraose (who closed the RfC) hasn't edited for 3 months and you were involved in an administrative, could you please clarify for me whether your understanding that the intention behind the close was that Indigenous Aryans be described as a fringe theory or not? My understanding is that Kraose meant that there wasn't consensus to modify what was the current text as of their close (fringe theory not in the lede) rather than there being no consensus not to adopt the suggested text. However, there have been recent reverts and discussion about it below. Just want to confirm what the original intent was before I determine what administrative action should be taken. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Yeah, by my recollection this RfC was closed with there being no consensus to modify the text as it stood - the version I unprotected was this, which does not include "fringe" in the lead. For context, I got involved briefly after there was further discussion of Kraose's closes at AN here, but beyond a general review that "no consensus" wasn't an unreasonable conclusion, and unprotecting it after most parties seemed to agree to stop edit warring, I've not really stuck my head in this disagreement much further than that. Thanks! ~ mazca ^talk 13:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Re Fringe Label

RfC revisited

@Azuredivay: Regarding the sources for the fringe label, there are several. The theory is widely rejected by mainstream scholarship/outside the mainstream, and thus meets the definition of "fringe". It is not necessary that the word "fringe" explicitly be used, although it is explicitly used by Konrad Elst (see below). I think you may possibly have misunderstood the rfc. The inclusion of the fringe label, as far as I can tell, was the preexisting state of the article (before the rfc). The rfc seems to have been about whether or not it should stay, and the decision was not to modify it (i.e. keep the label). However, if unsure, the thing to do might be to ask some of those involved (such as User:Joshua Jonathan, who seems to have begun the rfc, - or User:Kraose or User:Mazca, who seem also to have been involved but in a neutral capacity). I In the meantime, it is best to avoid edit warring.

Edit: The "fringe" label does indeed predate the rfc. The "fringe" label was added on January 24th 2020. The rfc was begun on Febuart 23rd 2020. Seemingly the decision of the rfc was to keep the label (by not modifying the text). See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/937316103

The sources in the note alone make clear that the indigenous Aryan theory is fringe and rejected by mainstream scholarship. Here are just those from the note (many others are cited in the rfc and elewhere in the article):

"Romila Thapar (2006): "there is no scholar at this time seriously arguing for the indigenous origin of Aryans".[101] Wendy Doniger (2017): "The opposing argument, that speakers of Indo-European languages were indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, is not supported by any reliable scholarship. It is now championed primarily by Hindu nationalists, whose religious sentiments have led them to regard the theory of Aryan migration with some asperity."[web 1]

Girish Shahane (September 14, 2019), in response to Narasimhan et al. (2019): "Hindutva activists, however, have kept the Aryan Invasion Theory alive, because it offers them the perfect strawman, 'an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument' ... The Out of India hypothesis is a desperate attempt to reconcile linguistic, archaeological and genetic evidence with Hindutva sentiment and nationalistic pride, but it cannot reverse time's arrow ... The evidence keeps crushing Hindutva ideas of history

Koenraad Elst (May 10, 2016): "Of course it is a fringe theory, at least internationally, where the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) is still the official paradigm. In India, though, it has the support of most archaeologists, who fail to find a trace of this Aryan influx and instead find cultural continuity."[4]"

Skllagyook (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The rfc-question was if the fringe-label should be added, but the existing text indeed included the fringe-label. Which is correct; Indigenism is indeed a fringe-"theory" in all the meanings the trrm has. Anyone with some basic knowledge of Indo-European history and linguistics, and the intention to build a reliable encyclopedia, knows that Indigenism is totally incompatible with the facts, and plays no role whatsoever in the scholarly debate. None. And I'm still waiting for the solid sources, instead of the wiki-lawyering and the attempts to game the system, to prove me wrong. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:IDHT, I won't repeat my message which I already added here, that the RfC was about whether the term "Fringe" should be included and there was no consensus to include it. This was the version during the RfC.

It is ironic that you want to avoid edit warring while you are edit warring over a silly label that has no support from the sources and you are WP:CHERRYPICKING Koenraad Elst who you would otherwise reject as a source. You seem to have omitted the quotation of Elst who also said that "But anyway, this ‘fringe’ aspect doesn’t impress me at all. When Copernicus put the sun rather than the earth at the centre of the solar system, he was in a minority of one, very ‘fringe’ indeed; but he won the day." If you don't agree with this, then at least don't cherrypick. Rest of your sources don't verify the term. There is criticism towards every other proposed Indo European origin. Azuredivay (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Bullshit. Scholarly consensus is that IE-languages originated ate the Pontic-Caspian steppes. And now please provide the sources which show that Indigenism is a credible theory in mainstream scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: See WP:REFACTOR and stop modifying your already replied comments like you are doing above:[11][12] Wareon (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wareon: I'm not quite sure how REFACTOR applies here. But regarding modifying my comment, that is noted. However, when I modified the comment, I was not yet aware it had been replied to (it was not yet obvious to me; the reply and my modifications happened around the same time), and also I believe my modifications were fairly minor (or meant to be) not significantly changing the substance of the comment. Edit: I have now undone (thought it best to undo) some of the aforementioned modifications to my comment. Skllagyook (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You too, Wareon: provide sources, instead of hitting the revert-button, templating the regulars, and divering the issue. Back-up the claim that Indigenism is a credible theory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That isn't something we are even discussing. We are not verifying credibility of the theory but removing a label that is unsourced and was already discussed during the RfC above. Wareon (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Above, I was also asked the same question but I ignored it per WP:NOTFORUM. Azuredivay (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for the ping Callanecc. I don't edit these days but I check my emails regularly. The RfC concerned about the addition of the label which was being discussed at the time when the RfC was opened. I had closed the RfC as no consensus concerning the inclusion of the term/label after the prolonged discussion. It seems that until last month this page abided by the result of the RfC and I don't see any reason to second-guess the simple closure. Kraose (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Kraose. FYI on what the consensus version is Wareon, Joshua Jonathan, Skllagyook, Azuredivay. If you would like to change it (that is, add it), given that it is disputed and contentious, another RfC will need to be held. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Azuredivay (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Idem. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

More sources

Another enlightening article, describing Hindutva revisionism and the misuse af archaeological data: Anne-Julie Etter (2020), Creating Suitable Evidence of the Past? Archaeology, Politics, and Hindu Nationalism in India from the End of the Twentieth Century to the Present.
And H. Tull (2019), India and Beyond: Vedism, Hinduism, and the Continuity of Culture:

Parpola hardly pauses, and correctly so, over the countervailing “out of India” theory

That's the state of affairs internationally regarding Indigenism: scholars don't even bother to mention it, let alone engage it and reject it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps someone will find this recent article useful for the IA article: "Integrating Linguistics, Social Structure, and Geography to Model Genetic Diversity within India" [13] . A layman's summary by Purdue Univ. is available here: [14] . BirdValiant (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Chaubey

Arbitrary header #1

Chaubey, cited here, refers to Metspalu et al. (2011). Interestingly, Metspalu stated to Fountain Ink that "the West Eurasian component in Indians appears to come from a population that diverged genetically from people actually living in Eurasia, and this separation happened at least 12,500 years ago." That's in line with Narasimhan et al. (2019), who found that the Iranian hunter-gatherer component (west Eurasian!) entered South Asia before the advent of farming. I've always found Metspalu's comment intriguing, since it is at odds with the Indo-Aryan migrations; Narasimhan et al. (2019) offers the explanation - and underscores the relevance of genetic research. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:. That seems very different from the claim that no admixture has entered India since 60kya (!). But I'm not sure that Metspalu's statement is necessarily at odds with Indo-Aryan migrations; since part (sometimes the bulk) of the west Eurasian component in Indians is from a pre-Aryan/pre-IE wave (the one related to peoples in Iran) which came earlier, with the steppe-admixed admixture component linked to Aryan languages arriving after, which is what Narasimhan found. (Unless, of course, that is what you are referring to, which I think likely is the case.) Skllagyook (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Skllagyook but given you are "not sure" you should avoid giving more weight to your own opinion above the reliable source. DNA India is a reliable source and it talked about study published in peer-reviewed journal which is American Journal of Human Genetics. If you still have problem then you can use this source instead but I don't see any valid reason to remove the content added here. Azuredivay (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Azuredivay: The source was already added back by User:Joshua Jonathan in a more appropriate/relevant place here [[15]]. I now see, from your link what Chaubey was stating. Since Chaubey, more recent research (e.g. Anthony, Narasimhan 2019) has supported the idea/theory of a steppe-descended migration into India and its association with the introduction of IE/Aryan languages. Skllagyook (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: that's indeed what I mean. But at the time Metspalu et al. (2011) was published (two years after Reich et al. (2009), with their pathbreaking ANI-ASI distinction), this was less clear. No wonder Chaubey claimed there was no Indo-Aryan migration (though Shinde claimed the same, after having published a paper which explicitly provided arguments pro IAm...). Still, it's fascinating that Metspalu et al. (2011) picked up this signal, confidently stating that there had been no inflow of external genes for at least 12,500 years. They were not talking nonsense; given Narasimhan et al. (2019), they picked up signal from a (or more) pre-agrarian migration(s) from the west, that is, the Iranian plateau. Only when the Harappan civilisation started to take shape in the river-valleys, that is, after the Mergarh-phases in the mountains, did they start to mix with the AASI, the hunter-gatherers who had been in India for 50,000 years. Why not before? Strict endogamy? Different niches? NB: that genetic research supports IAm an sich is not in question, not at all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

So why one should not restore the study by "Chaubey"? User:Skllagyook your argument is not supported by a policy. The study by Chaubey was highly acclaimed and has been mentioned in multiple scholarly sources (one provided above) so your argument that DNA India is unreliable that's why you removed it falls flat.

I don't see how "since 2015 genetic research has increasingly confirmed the migration of Steppe pastoralists into South Asia" is supported by any of the two added source. It appears WP:OR which was recently added, and should be removed or modified. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dhawangupta: It is not WP:OR at all. The sources (and others) state/support what the edit says. Narasimhan et al. 2019 for example (which found no steppe admixture or R1a in the Indus Valley people, as is present in many/most modern South Asians/South Asian populations) supports the theory that steppe/Yamnaya descended peoples subsequently brought IE languages to South Asia. I quoted the study in the edit notes. Here is the quote again (in full) (from the "Discussion" section of the study toward the end):

"Our results not only provide evidence against an Iranian plateau origin for Indo-European languages in South Asia but also evidence for the theory that these languages spread from the Steppe. Although ancient DNA has documented westward movements of Steppe pastoralist ancestry providing a likely conduit for the spread of many Indo-European languages to Europe (7, 8), the chain of transmission into South Asia has been unclear because of a lack of relevant ancient DNA. Our observation of the spread of Central_Steppe_MLBA ancestry into South Asia in the first half of the second millennium BCE provides this evidence, which is particularly notable because it provides a plausible genetic explanation for the linguistic similarities between the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian subfamilies of Indo-European languages..."

And (from the beginning of the study): "Earlier work recorded massive population movement from the Eurasian Steppe into Europe early in the third millennium BCE, likely spreading Indo-European languages. We reveal a parallel series of events leading to the spread of Steppe ancestry to South Asia, thereby documenting movements of people that were likely conduits for the spread of Indo-European languages."

Also see Figs 1, 3, and 5 (migration maps and admixture charts).

The study: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6457/eaat7487

Lazaridis et al. (2016) also finds that the ANI (west Eurasian) component in South Asians "can be modelled as a mix of ancestry related to both early farmers of western Iran and to people of the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe".

From Lazaridis:

"In South Asia, our dataset provides insight into the sources of Ancestral North Indians (ANI), a West Eurasian related population that no longer exists in unmixed form but contributes a variable amount of the ancestry of South Asians... We show that it is impossible to model the ANI as being derived from any single ancient population in our dataset. ...it can be modelled as a mix of ancestry related to both early farmers of western Iran and to people of the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe; all sampled South Asian groups are inferred to have significant amounts of both ancestral types. The demographic impact of steppe related populations on South Asia was substantial, as the Mala, a south Indian population with minimal ANI along the ‘Indian Cline’ of such ancestry35,36 is inferred to have ~18% steppe-related ancestry, while the Kalash of Pakistan are inferred to have ~50%, similar to present-day northern Europeans."

link here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/059311v1.full

Silva et al. (2017) stated that "the recently refined Y-chromosome tree strongly suggests that R1a is indeed a highly plausible marker for the long-contested Bronze Age spread of Indo-Aryan speakers into South Asia." And that "they likely spread from a single Central Asian source pool, there do seem to be at least three and probably more R1a founder clades within the Subcontinent, consistent with multiple waves of arrival." (Excerpts from study and link to study here: https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/03/heavily-sex-biased-population.html?m=1)

Skllagyook (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources offered here by Skllagyook do not state that there is a trend in genetics research towards increasing acceptance of Steppe pastoralist invasions/ancestry in India.

By combining them to support that statement, he is engaged in WP:SYNTH. What he needs is a secondary source saying that the trends in genetics research is now reflecting consensus of Steppe invasion/ancestral contribution to India. I'm sure that's not possible at the moment because there has been resistance to this idea.

I agree with his overall assessment of the data, but our individual assessments don't belong on Wikipedia. The WP:SYNTH guideline exists for a reason. See also recently formed consensus about primary research. Note that at least one of Skllagyook's sources is a pre-print paper. Hunan201p (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for this "consensus," which refers to an essay. And which of the two is a pre-print? Narasimhan et al. (2019), peer reviewed, cited more than 100 times already; or Anthony (2021), SUNY Press. But if you like, we can remove "increasingly." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for not specifying. I refer to the reference given here at the talk page: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/059311v1.full

Using biorxiv articles to make a point is very haphazard, as crucial passages in pre-prints and peer-reviewed published documents can differ substantially. Many passages in pre-print papers won't even survive the review process.

And excerpts from published studies posted by bloggers (especially a known Eurocentrist like Eurogenes) are also not feasible for discussion here. Hunan201p (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: removing the word "increasingly" just seems like good common sense, but there is another problem I'd like to show you.

This is the full text link to David Anthony's essay in Homo Migrans:

https://www.academia.edu/44892216/Anthony_2021_Migration_nomads_from_the_east_IEMA_SUNY_Buffalo

Can you point out to me where it mentions that there is evidence of steppe genetic ancestry in India? It does not seem to make mention of Indian genetics at all and mostly concerns European prehistory. Hunan201p (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: I see, you're referring to the discussion above. Apologies; I thought you were referring to the references in the article. I'll go through Anthony (2021) again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: I was not aware that the Lazaridis link I provided was a preprint. But I know the study has been published/peer-reviewed, and I will go over the published study to verify whether the same statement appears there. Regarding the blog, eurogenes, I can understand your objections; though the excerps there seem to be quoted directly from the paper, I will go over the paper also to verify that. Skllagyook (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit/update: @Hunan201p: and @Joshua Jonathan: The final/peer-reviewed version of Lazaridis also contains the statement. From the paper:

"In South Asia, our dataset provides insight into the sources of Ancestral North Indians (ANI), a West Eurasian related population that no longer exists in unmixed form but contributes a variable amount of the ancestry of South Asians34,35 (Supplementary Information, section 9) (Extended Data Fig. 5). We show that it is impossible to model the ANI as being derived from any single ancient population in our dataset. However, it can be modelled as a mix of ancestry related to both early farmers of western Iran and to people of the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe; all sampled South Asian groups are inferred to have significant amounts of both ancestral types. The demographic impact of steppe related populations on South Asia was substantial, as the Mala, a south Indian population with minimal ANI along the ‘Indian Cline’ of such ancestry34,35 is inferred to have ~18% steppe-related ancestry, while the Kalash of Pakistan are inferred to have ~50%, similar to present-day northern Europeans7."

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5003663/

The statements/similar statements to the excerpts from the eurogenes also do seem to appear in thr Silva et al 2017 source.

From the source:

"An influx of such migrants into South Asia would likely have contributed to the CHG component in the GW analysis found across the Subcontinent, as this is seen at a high rate amongst samples from the putative Yamnaya source pool and descendant Central Asian Bronze Age groups. Archaeological evidence suggests that Middle Bronze Age Andronovo descendants of the Early Bronze Age horse-based, pastoralist and chariot-using Sintashta culture, located in the grasslands and river valleys to the east of the Southern Ural Mountains and likely speaking a proto-Indo-Iranian language, probably expanded east and south into Central Asia by ~3.8 ka. Andronovo groups, and potentially Sintashta groups before them, are thought to have infiltrated and dominated the soma-using Bactrian Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) in Turkmenistan/northern Afghanistan by 3.5 ka and possibly as early as 4 ka. The BMAC came into contact with the Indus Valley civilisation in Baluchistan from ~4 ka onwards, around the beginning of the Indus Valley decline, with pastoralist dominated groups dispersing further into South Asia by ~3.5 ka, as well as westwards across northern Iran into Syria (which came under the sway of the Indo-Iranian-speaking Mitanni) and Anatolia [12, 95, 97, 98]. Although GW patterns have been broadly argued to support this view [24], there have also been arguments against. For example, Metspalu et al. [28] argued cogently that the GW pattern in South Asia was the result of a complex series of processes, but they also suggested that an East Asian component, common in extant Central Asians, should be evident in the Subcontinent if it had experienced large-scale Bronze Age immigration from Central Asia. In fact, however, aDNA evidence shows that this element was not present in the relevant source regions in the Early Bronze Age [76]. Moreover, whilst the dating and genealogical resolution of Y-chromosome lineages has been weak until recently, it is now clear that a very large fraction of Y-chromosome variation in South Asia has a recent West Eurasian source."

And from the section entitled "Genetic signals of Indo-European expansions":

"There are now sufficient high-quality Y-chromosome data available (especially Poznik et al. [58]) to be able to draw clear conclusions about the timing and direction of dispersal of R1a (Fig. 5). The indigenous South Asian subclades are too young to signal Early Neolithic dispersals from Iran, and strongly support Bronze Age incursions from Central Asia. The derived R1a-Z93 and the further derived R1a-Z94 subclades harbour the bulk of Central and South Asian R1a lineages [55, 58], as well as including some Russian and European lineages, and have been variously dated to 5.6 [4.0;7.3] ka [55], 4.5–5.3 ka with expansions ~4.0–4.5 ka [58], or 4.7 [4.0;5.5] ka (Yfull tree v4.10 [54]). The South Asian R1a-L657, dated to ~4.2 ka [3.3;5.1] (Yfull tree v4.10 [54]]), is the largest (in the 1KG dataset) of several closely related subclades within R1a-Z94 of very similar time depth. Moreover, not only has R1a been found in all Sintashta and Sintashta-derived Andronovo and Srubnaya remains analysed to date at the genome-wide level (nine in total) [76, 77], and been previously identified in a majority of Andronovo (2/3) and post-Andronovo Iron Age (Tagar and Tachtyk: 6/6) male samples from southern central Siberia tested using microsatellite analysis [101], it has also been identified in other remains across Europe and Central Asia ranging from the Mesolithic up until the Iron Age (Fig. 5)."

And:

"Altogether, therefore, the recently refined Y-chromosome tree strongly suggests that R1a is indeed a highly plausible marker for the long-contested Bronze Age spread of Indo-Aryan speakers into South Asia,..."

From: https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-017-0936-9

Skllagyook (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2

Here's a quote from a different chapter by Anthony about the steppe ancestry in South Asian populations:

Steppe ancestry averaging 22% was found in 31 ancient South Asians dated 1200–800BC from the Swat valley, but was not found in individuals dated before 2000BC, probably associated with the Harappan civilization, indicating the arrival of this suite of genes in South Asia during the 2nd millennium BC (Narasimhan et al. 2018). IE-speakers in modern South Asia have more steppe ancestry than non-IE speakers (p.26).

That's a secondary source citing Narasimhan et al. (2018). Not to mention that Anthony cite Haak et al. (2015) all over the place. We don't need to overly rely on primary sources, and per policy shouldn't. Good secondary sources are avaliable anyway. –Austronesier (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

References

To get back to Chaubey, and Dhawangupta's comment

So why one should not restore the study by "Chaubey"? User:Skllagyook your argument is not supported by a policy. The study by Chaubey was highly acclaimed and has been mentioned in multiple scholarly sources (one provided above) so your argument that DNA India is unreliable that's why you removed it falls flat.

you added the following (in bold):

While some OIT-proponents have questioned the findings of genetic research, since 2015 genetic research has increasingly confirmed the migration of Steppe pastoralists into South Asia. According to Gyaneshwer Chaubey, "No foreign genes or DNA has entered the Indian mainstream in the last 60,000 years."

References

First, Chaubey's comment should logically be placed after "While some OIT-proponents have questioned the findings of genetic research," and not after "since 2015 genetic research has increasingly confirmed the migration of Steppe pastoralists into South Asia." As you placed it, it seems that Chaubey (speaking in 2011), rejects the value of DNA-studies from after 2015. I don't know which policy applies here, but it's clear that this is a kind of synthesis or editorializing.

Second, dnaindia is not the original study, but a comment by one of the authors. The original study is (I've left out the other 14 authors): Metspalu, Mait (2011), "Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia", The American Journal of Human Genetics, 89 (6): 731–744, doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.11.010, ISSN 0002-9297, PMC 3234374, PMID 22152676 Copying from Indo-Aryan migrations#Pre-agricultural migrations, this is what the paper, and other authors, had to say about it:

Metspalu et al. (2011) detected a genetic component in India, k5, which "distributed across the Indus Valley, Central Asia, and the Caucasus".[205] According to Metspalu et al. (2011), k5 "might represent the genetic vestige of the ANI", though they also note that the geographic cline of this component within India "is very weak, which is unexpected under the ASI-ANI model", explaining that the ASI-ANI model implies an ANI contribution which decreases toward southern India.[206] According to Metspalu et al. (2011), "regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years."[207]

In the conclusion, the authors also state:

our oldest simulated migration event occurred roughly 12,500 years ago and predates or coincides with the initial Neolithic expansion in the Near East [...] We found no regional diversity differences associated with k5 at K = 8. Thus, regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years. Accordingly, the introduction of k5 to South Asia cannot be explained by recent gene flow, such as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migration [...] Both k5 and k6 ancestry components that dominate genetic variation in South Asia at K = 8 demonstrate much greater haplotype diversity than those that predominate in West Eurasia. This pattern is indicative of a more ancient demographic history and/or a higher long-term effective population size underlying South Asian genome variation compared to that of West Eurasia.

As I wrote before, Metspalu et al. (2011), with their k5 marker, detected the traces of the migration of Iranian hunter-gatherers into India, prior to the Indo-Aryan migrations. Yet, this is what Metspalu and others had to say about theor results (also from Indo-Aryan migrations#Pre-agricultural migrations):

Speaking to Fountain Ink, Metspalu said, "the West Eurasian component in Indians appears to come from a population that diverged genetically from people actually living in Eurasia, and this separation happened at least 12,500 years ago."[web 13][note 40] Moorjani et al. (2013) refer to Metspalu (2011)[note 41] as "fail[ing] to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years".[211] CCMB researcher Thangaraj believes that "it was much longer ago", and that "the ANI came to India in a second wave of migration[note 42] that happened perhaps 40,000 years ago."[web 13]

As we can see now, speaking in 2021, they were wrong in theor generalisations, just like Chaubey. While the study is nuanced, k5 being older than the Indo-Aryan component, it is not (emphasis mine) "the West Eurasian component in Indians." So, when referring to Metspalu (2011), brass statements like Chaubey's in dnaindia should be put in context, and balanced with other views. That nuance can be found in other Wiki-articles, such as the section from which above extensive quote comes. That the dnaindia article is informed by Indigenism is clear, and as such it's a usefull additional reference for "While some OIT-proponents have questioned the findings of genetic research." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You would never know that, and if you think you do then your analysis should be instead backed with a secondary source then only it can have currency as already stated above. The study which is also cited by other scholarly sources indeed deserve a separate mention. You can't deem them as "OIT-proponents" based on your own thinking, instead, it needs to be backed with a source which I find impossible. Azuredivay (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Chaubey is an Indigenist; see the dnaindia article. Danino p.216 (a dubious source, given Danino's writings on the 'Sarasvati' river) refers to Chaubey (2007), Peopling of South Asia: investigating the caste–tribe continuum in India, not to Metspalu et al. (2011). The quote from Chaubey et al. (2007) is about mtDNA, not y-DNA. There's broad agreement that the maternal lineages in India are anciet, in contrast to the paternal lineages. That is, men came to India, and had children with local women, replacing or reducing older paternal lineages.

When referring to Metspalu et al. (2011), there's a substantial difference between peer-reviewed research (Metspalu 2011), and individual comments in non-neutral news-outlets (Chaubey), unchecked by scrutinizing reviewers. Metspalu et al. (2011) does not make the sweeping statements Chaubey makes (or is quoted as such) in dnaindia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

[@Skllagyook] Thank you for taking the time to provide full links and quotes, @Skllagyook:. However, while Silva argues the case for their hypothesis in their paper, there is one passage that you did not quote:

India, the second most populous country worldwide, includes a patchwork of different religions and languages, including tribal groups (~8% of the population, speaking over 700 different dialects of the Austro-Asiatic, Dravidian and Tibeto-Burman families) and non-tribal populations, who mostly practice Hinduism, grounded in a strictly hierarchical caste system, and speak Indo-European or Dravidian languages. Indo-European is often associated with northern Indian populations, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and a putative arrival in South Asia from Southwest Asia ~3.5 ka (the so-called “Indo-Aryan invasions”) has been frequently connected with the origins of the caste system [11, 12]. Although some studies suggested a greater affinity of upper castes to European and Southwest Asian populations than lower castes [13, 14], genetic data have provided no clear evidence for the “Indo-Aryan invasions” so far [15], and their very existence is challenged by many archaeologists [16].

Hence, Silva acknowledges that this is still a contentious issue that has not been resolved by genetic research.

I read David Anthony, Homo Migrans (2021) several times, and there is definitely nothing in there about the genetics of India. Hunan201p (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Silva, "so far" comes from the introduction, referring to Metspalu et al. (2003). That's 18 years ago... (I've checked; 2003 is not a typo). It is followed by their own results. From the discussion, p.12:

The more widely accepted “Steppe hypothesis” [91, 92] [in contrast to Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis; JJ] for the origins of IndoEuropean has recently received powerful support from aDNA evidence [...] An influx of such migrants into South Asia would likely have contributed to the CHG component in the GW analysis found across the Subcontinent, as this is seen at a high rate amongst samples from the putative Yamnaya source pool and descendant Central Asian Bronze Age groups. Archaeological evidence suggests that Middle Bronze Age Andronovo descendants of the Early Bronze Age horse-based, pastoralist and chariotusing Sintashta culture, located in the grasslands and river valleys to the east of the Southern Ural Mountains and likely speaking a proto-Indo-Iranian language, probably expanded east and south into Central Asia by ~3.8 ka.

The "many archaeologists" refers to Coningham R, Young R. (2015), The Archaeology of South Asia: From the Indus to Asoka, c. 6500 BCE–200 CE, Cambridge University Press. That's quite unspecific, butseems to refer to the Indigenists (see p.16), or archaeologists like Shaffer, who worked with a 1980's diffusionist model (see Antbony (2021)). NB: it's peculiar that they use the phrase “Indo-Aryan invasions”; that's a non-neutral term, not used in mainstream scholarship.

Anthony (2021) does indeed refer to the western migrations; I've copy-edited the sentence accordingly, and added additional sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

To re-word the paragraph, to suggest that genetic resesrch confirms the migration of Steppe pastoralists in to Western Europe and Asia, for the purpose of including David Anthony (2021), seems rather WP:SYNTH and POV. Anthony's paper only concerns the intrusion of Yamnaya in to Europe. David Anthony never speaks to the origin of the Yamnaya pastoralists in his essay, and for all we know, based on the essay, the "Steppe pastoralists" had an Indian origin. That is, of course, not what David Anthony believes; my point is that this paper doesn't say anything about the origin of Indo Aryans (or Steppe pastoralists, for that matter). It concerns a very narrow timeframe between the arrival of Yamnaya and Corded Ware pastoralists in to central Europe. It shouldn't be synthesized with any other research to support an anti-indigenist consensus, and rewording the paragraph to state "in to Western Europe and Asia" just adds another layer of personal interpretation.

Silva doesn't definitively state that the Indo-Aryan invasions are confirmed but seems to cautiously endorse them as a possibility. It wasn't in her concluding remarks. Delving further into the minutia of her paper doesn't seem to be yielding any conclusive declarations, which doesn't fit the bold statements in the Wiki. Hunan201p (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #3

Silva et al. (2017) p.12-14:

Genetic signals of Indo-Europe an expansions
Contrary to earlier studies [99, 100], recent analyses of Y-chromosome sequence data [55, 58, 94] suggest that haplogroup R1a expanded both west and east across Eurasia during the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age. R1a-M17 (R1a-M198 or R1a1a) accounts for 17.5% of male lineages in Indian data overall, and it displays significantly higher frequencies in Indo-European than in Dravidian speakers [55]. There are now sufficient high-quality Y-chromosome data available (especially Poznik et al. [58]) to be able to draw clear conclusions about the timing and direction of dispersal of R1a (Fig. 5). The indigenous South Asian subclades are too young to signal Early Neolithic dispersals from Iran, and strongly support Bronze Age incursions from Central Asia [...] Moreover, not only has R1a been found in all Sintasha and Sintashta derived Andronovo and Srubnaya remains analysed to date at the genome-wide level (nine in total) [76, 77], and been previously identified in a majority of Andronovo (2/3) and post-Andronovo Iron Age (Tagar and Tachtyk: 6/6) male samples from southern central Siberia tested using microsatellite analysis [101], it has also been identified in other remains across Europe and Central Asia ranging from the Mesolithic up until the Iron Age (Fig. 5) [...] Altogether, therefore, the recently refined Y-chromosome tree strongly suggest s that R1a is indeed a highly plausible marker for the long-contested Bronze Age spread of IndoAryan speakers into South Asia [...] the spread of Indo-European within the Subcontinent seems to have been mainly male-mediated
Conclusions
In conclusion, analysis of the uniparental marker systems can provide complementary insight into the main genome-wide component that arrived in and spread throughout South Asia since the LGM. This “CHG” component [...] underwent of multiple dispersals into the Subcontinent, with chronologically distinct sources in the eastern Fertile Crescent and the Steppe, via Central Asia. Moreover, these dispersals involved [...] the male-dominated arrival of Indo-Aryan speakers from Central Asia.

I think that that does fit the "bold statements." "[T]hese dispersals involved [...] the male-dominated arrival of Indo-Aryan speakers from Central Asia" is what you call a confirmation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan: But Chaubey is a clearly reliable source of this field and highly acclaimed who has his works published in a number of major science sources.[16][17][18] You appear to be underestimating the publications without a strong argument. Agreeing with above Hunan201p, I see the sources are not being used carefully here. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a difference between peer-reviewed publications, and bold statements in non-reliable news-outlets. See Shinde, who published his analysis of the Rakhigarhi-DNA, including clear statements about the Indo-Aryan migrations; and next stated at a press-conference that his research disproved the Indo-Aryan migrations, in full denial of his own publication. He was publicly contradicted by several of his co-authors... What you added was a personal statement from Chaubey, not a quote from a peer-reviewed paper.

See the quotes above for what Metspalu et al. (2011) actually stated: k5, an indicator of west-Eurasian genetic influx, entered India before 12,500 years ago. Chaubey et al. (2007) found that maternal DNA-lineages in India go back 60,000 years. As I stated before, and see Silva et al. (2017), that's an accepted fact. But it does not mean, as Chaubey concurred back in 2011, that there has been no genetic influx, that is, migrations, into India after 60,000 years ago. Continuity in maternal DNA does not mean that there is also continuity in paternal DNA. As I also stated before: men came to India, and had children with local women, replacing or reducing older paternal lineages. See Silva et al. (2017) (A genetic chronology for the Indian Subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased dispersals), Narasimhan et al. (2019), etc etc. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Would you like to propose some text now? I assume we had enough discussion and now it is time for addition of this particular content. Azuredivay (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Is this entire contentious discussion the result of this article in DNA? Because we ought to be giving exactly zero weight to an article of that sort; the Indian news media (as with news media in other countries) routinely misrepresents genomic and genetic studies of human populations. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and indeed. The same dnaindia article states that "Dr Chaubey had proved in 2009 itself that the Aryan invasion theory is bunkum." That may refer to (no title given...) Petraglia et al. (2009), Population increase and environmental deterioration correspond with microlithic innovations in South Asia ca. 35,000 years ago, PNAS; or to Underhill et al (2009), Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a, Nature:

Its origin and dispersal patterns are poorly understood as no marker has yet been described that would distinguish European R1a chromosomes from Asian [...] the virtual absence of M458 chromosomes outside Europe speaks against substantial patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, including to India, at least since the mid-Holocene.

That was 2009. The origins of Haplogroup R1a are much better understood now, and Underhill's 2009-findings are superceded by more recent research, including Underhill et al. (2014), The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a], Silva et al. (2017), and Narasimhan et al. (2019). Underhill, commenting in 2017:

The avalanche of new data has been so overwhelming that many scientists who were either sceptical or neutral about significant Bronze Age migrations into India have changed their opinions. Dr. Underhill himself is one of them. In a 2010 paper [=2009 Separating...; JJ], for example, he had written that there was evidence “against substantial patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, including to India” in the last five or six millennia. Today, Dr. Underhill says there is no comparison between the kind of data available in 2010 and now. “Then, it was like looking into a darkened room from the outside through a keyhole with a little torch in hand; you could see some corners but not all, and not the whole picture. With whole genome sequencing, we can now see nearly the entire room, in clearer light.”

From Haplogroup R1a#Proposed South Asian origins:

According to Martin P. Richards, co-author of Silva et al. (2017), "[the prevalence of R1a in India was] very powerful evidence for a substantial Bronze Age migration from central Asia that most likely brought Indo-European speakers to India."

References

See also: ""Heavily sex-biased" population dispersals into the Indian Subcontinent (Silva et al. 2017)". Eurogenes Blog. March 28, 2017.. To present Chaubey's dated quote, from non-WP:RS, a lot of context needs to be given, for WP:NPOV. This is not the place for a WP:COATRACK; the context is given in other articles, such as Indo-Aryan migrations. Some editors seem to ignore, if not just completely ignorant of, this context, that is, the publications in question themselves, the broader field of research, and the more recent developments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, perhaps; but my point remains that we ought not to be basing anything on the news pieces, or on quotes taken in isolation. For all we know Chaubey himself may have presented a very balanced view of the science, and was subsequently quoted out of context. The news media are generally not a good source for interpreting primary science. If anyone is agitating to add content in support of the OIT, they need at the very least to present scientific sources explicitly supporting it, and ideally, present content based on secondary scientific sources. Honestly, discussions without such are really a waste of time. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)