Talk:Indigenous Aryanism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Myth label

Is it really appropriate to call Indigenous Aryans a myth, given "myth's" scholarly meaning? It would probably be better to call it a false notion or something like that. Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thapar does, stating that Modi's government and the BJP have "peddled myths and stereotypes," such as the insistence on "a single uniform culture of the Aryans, ancestral to the Hindu, as having prevailed in the subcontinent, subsuming all others," despite the scholarly evidence for migrations into India, which is "anathema to the Hindutva construction of early history." I think it's a very apt description; see myth:

Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. The main characters in myths are usually gods, demigods, or supernatural humans.[1][2][3] [...] Myths are often endorsed by rulers and priests or priestesses and are closely linked to religion or spirituality.[1] Many societies group their myths, legends, and history together, considering myths and legends to be true accounts of their remote past.[1][2][4][5]

See also Witzel's description of Indigenism as a religious undertaking. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that "myth" is an apt primary label for the concept of "Indigenous Aryans". Its myth character (in the modern sense) is an epiphenomon (e.g. among social media users stuck in the Hindutva information bubble), but first of all yeah, it's an "idea", and for its staunchest proponents it is a theory and even simply a fact within their paradigm of world view – pretty much like in the case Creationism, especially Young Earth creationism. One journalist calling it a myth doesn't make the label leadworthy, at least for a primary characterization. It's first of all an ideology or ideology-driven axiom which dismisses out of hand anything that doesn't fit into its a priori assumption: Aryans as the Vedic culture bearers must originate from Indian soil; anything else is imperialism, Marxism blabla... Find us a good source that calls it an "ideology", and I'd feel more comfortable about it than with the myth label. –Austronesier (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Romila Thapar is not a journalist, but the pre-eminent Indian historian... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, that was utterly sloppy on my part then. I shouldn't have followed my instinct to immeditiately click on the back button upon seeing the NYT as a source for this kind of topic. On second thought, why not? It's a socio-political phenomenon so why not cite op-eds, written by a scholar? But even then, still opt for "ideology". –Austronesier (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not supported by the NYT source exactly. Thapar has written the whole India: Historical Beginnings and the Concept of the Aryan, which significantly covers this subject and was published in 2006. I have read this book and her views about this subject are way different. She says that a number of respected scholars uphold this theory but it is not a dominant one. Azuredivay (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thapar writes that the BJP, and affiliated organisations, "peddle myths and stereotypes"; one of the myths she describes is Indigenism. Basic text comprehension. And way different? She calls it a myth, but her views are way different? That's a Trumpian way of reading sources. Thapar is quite clear on these 'alternate facts': it's not historiography, but mythology. And regarding "ideology," it's an element of an ideology, namely Hindutva. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

That appears to be your own interpretation of the source than what the source actually said. You can similarly claim everyone mentioned by Thapar in that article is a "myth" cause it was mentioned in the title. But, the source has to explicitly state that "xyz is a myth" then only you can add it here. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:Joshua Jonathan It is unclear from the op-ed what exactly Thapar is talking about when she says "They have peddled myths". Is she talking about how Hindu nationalists are portraying texts like the Mahabharata, Ramayana, and Puranas as history, or is she talking about Indigenous Aryans. I think she is more likely talking about the former, which fits the scholarly definition of "myth", rather than the popular definition of "myth". Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chariotrider555: she gives Indigenism as one of the 'myths' propagated by Hindutva. Not as in the popular understanding, but in a scholarly sense: a narrative, presented as facts, but nevertheless a narrative, a founding myth.
@Dhawangupta: no, calling this my "own interpretation of the source" is a misrepresentation of the source. As I wrote before, basic text comprehension (emphasis mine):

Under Mr. Modi’s government and various state governments run by his party, the attempts to change history have taken many more forms, such as deleting chapters or passages from public school textbooks that contradicted their ideology, while adding their own make-believe versions of the past. They have peddled myths and stereotypes through pliant media networks [...] The origin of the Hindus is traced back to Aryan culture. Aryan identifies a language and a culture, not a biological race, whose emergence historians date to the second millennium B.C. But the Hindutva version of history is frantically pushing the date back to include the Indus civilization, a sophisticated urban civilization that preceded the Aryans by a millennium, as part of the Aryan origin of the Hindus.

That's Indigenism as an example of those 'myths peddled by Hindutva-supporters'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Your interpretation is inaccurate as I have already described above. You need to avoid restoring given huge disagreement here. Azuredivay (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

No, your interpretation is flawed, as I've explained repeatedly. You have only stated It is not supported by the NYT source exactly., without any explanation how it is not supported by the source. Mere statements won't suffice, so please explain yourself. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Austronesier. Joshua's strong dislike of this idea/theory is very apparent in his editing which often touching/breaching neutrality barriers, I also would not take sides in the lead like this. Otherwise myth could be as well asserted to various other theories, which I listed often in our discussions. I suggest you to restore the previous version and else mention e.g. it is considered a myth by x with attribution.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC))

Not so much a dislike of the idea, but of the attitude of it's supporters here at Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I hope you noticed I am only a supporter of neutrality, btw. you know my general opinion of IE non-IE topics, all of them have their problematic issues. Have a nice day!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC))

Sathianathan Clarke (2017), Competing Fundamentalisms: Violent Extremism in Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, Westminster John Knox Press, p.106: "the myth that Hindus were a united race of indigenous Aryans." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@Chariotrider555: at second thought, you may be right: Kai Friese (2019), The Complications of Genetics, in: Which Of Us Are Aryans, p.128: "...to prove that today's Hindus are directly descended from the land's first inhabitants many thousands of years ago, and make the case that ancient Hindu scriptures are fact, not myth." See also Special Report: By rewriting history, Hindu nationalists aim to assert their dominance over India from which Friese quotes. The aims are obvious. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:Joshua Jonathan, Bruh why do you have to be like that? WP:LABEL literally states to avoid "myth" in its informal sense. Here on Wikipedia, we should use myth in its proper scholarly sense, as a tradition story that involves the supernatural. Just because you couldn't get the proper and more accurate "fringe theory" label that Indigenous Aryans deserves doesn't mean you should settle for a less proper substitute. Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chariotrider555: no, see the "at second thought"; after all, you may be right. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"Idea," again

Is "Indigenous Aryanism" an idea, a view, or a belief? Bryant (2001), p.4:

The various scholars whose work I have examined here are a disparate group. They range from brilliant intellectuals like Aurobindo, to professional scholars like B. B. Lai, to what most academics would consider "crackpots," like P. N. Oak. The primary feature they share is that they have taken it upon themselves to oppose the theory of Aryan invasions and migrations—hence the label Indigenous Aryanism.

Compare the comments of Witzel ("an apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking"; "a political undertaking") and Jamison ("a religio-nationalistic attack on a scholarly consensus"). "Idea" may fit "Indigenous Aryans theory," but not "Indigenous Aryanism." It's clear from Bryant, Witzel and Jamison that IA(t) is more than just an "idea": it's a stance, an active opposition against the Indo-Aryan migration theory. So, fitting would be:

Indigenous Aryanism, also known as the Indigenous Aryans theory (IAT) and the Out of India theory (OIT), is a "religio-nationalistic" motivated stance on Indian history, which opposes the widely accepted Indo-Aryan migration theory. Instead, Indigenists view the Aryans as indigenous to the Indian subcontinent,[1] and suggest that the Indo-European languages radiated out from a homeland in India to their present locations.[1] The Indigenist position reflects traditional Indian views[2] based on the Puranic chronology, and plays a significant role in Hindutva politics.[4][5][2][web 1][web 2]

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"View" or "belief" is what I'd go with: "idea" has an additional connotation of novelty, to me; but I also think this is a relatively minor point. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Particular phrasing

The last line in lead states exists among Indian scholars of Hindu religion and the history and archaeology of India. Coupled with It has no relevance, let alone support, in mainstream scholarship, the conclusion is that India has no mainstream scholar. It is not true. No serious Indian scholar accepts these except the fringe in right. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It states "mostly exists among Indian scholars"; that does not imply that all Indian scholars are indigenists. But would this nuance be helpfull? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, it is now fine! TrangaBellam (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Article title

Concerns

The more I think about it, the less I like it. An unfamiliar reader, seeing the title, may well believe that the article is about Indigenous Aryans, and be disappointed to find that it isn't. Similarly, the first sentence is a grammatical disaster. We really should be calling it the "Indigenous Aryans hypothesis" or equivalent. Thoughts? @Kautilya3, Joshua Jonathan, Fowler&fowler, and Chariotrider555:. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the original title was Indigenous Aryans Theory. I don't recall now why it got changed. I prefer this to "hypothesis" because I think the latter makes it sound scientific, which it is not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, in academia "theory" has greater weight than "hypothesis"; the former is something well-established, the latter is not. I'd still prefer "Indigenous Aryans Theory" to the current title, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer "Indigenous Aryans hypothesis", which would be better because calling it a theory would be giving it too much credit. It is a false idea meant to push a religious narrative. Chariotrider555 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Both "theory" and "hypothesis" give too much credit, I think. "Indigenous Aryans myth" might be okay, though ;). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, our disagreement here seems to have to with whether to use colloquial or formal terminology; "myth" and "theory" have specific meanings in scholarship that are not applicable here. I'd argue that we should avoid implied misuse of scholarly terms where possible. If y'all would like to hold a formal RfC we can do so: in the meantime, are there any objections to moving it to "Indigenous Aryans hypothesis" while we discuss the matter, given that nobody prefers the current title? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, it seems that you have to break the tie here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"Indigenous Aryans controversy"? I already hate it when I see it, but that's how we treat a lot similar topics in WP. But then, Cold fusion and Flat Earth work without any labelling. –Austronesier (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"Controversy" would seem to wrongly imply that there is a controversy within mainstream scholarship, when that is not the case (mainstrean scholarship widely rejects and dismisses the indigenous Aryan idea). So I think adding it would be misleading. Skllagyook (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

On Google Books, I get

• "Indigenous Aryan Theory" (no "s"): 6 + 1
• "Indigenous Aryan hypothesis": 1
• "Indigenous Aryan myth": 0
• "Indigenous Aryan controversy": 0 for the exact form

On Google Scholar, I get

• "Indigenous Aryan Theory": 13
• "Indigenous Aryan hypothesis": 0
• "Indigenous Aryan myth": 0
• "Indigenous Aryan controversy": 0

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There has been an article Indigenous Aryan controversy, later changed to Indigenous Aryan arguments, and later deleted by a somewhat inconclusive RfD, I'm afraid.

The change from Indigenous Aryan theory to Indigenous Aryans was made here, by @Dbachmann, in 2007, with the edit summary

moved Indigenous Aryan Theory to Indigenous Aryans over redirect: mv after repeated suggestion without opposition, and repeated observation that the term including "Theory" isn't current.

However, the consequential removal of "theory" from the lead was made much later, here, within the general overhaul and radical abbreviation of the text by Joshua Jonathan in the beginning of 2015.

@Joshua Jonathan: If you mean that a plain title and lead beginning Indigenous Aryans refers to the idea... would give less validity to the idea/hypothesis/myth than e. g. Indigenous Aryan hypothesis does, then I disagree. Now, IMHO, the title and text beginning conveys the idea that it concerns an historical fact rather than a (scientifically) rather marginally held idea. (Readers who just glance at this probably would tend to miss the fact that technically your text defines "Indogenous Aryans" not as a people but as an idea, I fear.)

I would personally prefer the title Indigenous Aryan hypothesis or possibly Indigenous Aryan hypotheses over both Indigenous Aryan theory and Indigenous Aryan myth, though. The reason is that although the idea nowadays is rather discredited (except as supported by a fundamentalist Hindu attitude), I think that in earlier centuries there were some mainstream ideas of this kind. I do not remember Mallory's list of earlier hyptheses; but I do note that Schleicher's fable is written in something fairly similar to Vedic Sanskrit. Thus, in reality, we may have to deal both with older hypotheses which were not completely outrageous considering the restricted knowledge at that time, a Hindu fundamentalist standpoint somewhat comparable with Young Earth creationism, and possibly, some rather small contemporary minority attempts at arguing this scientifically.

However, I do not have strong opinions about this; except that the currect title is misleading (as referring to a fact). JoergenB (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Skllagyook and Austronesier: if you had to choose between "myth", "hypothesis", and "theory", where would you land? Austronesier, I think Skllagyook's point about an absence of controversy is a good one; this isn't a large debate with associated controversy; it's essentially a fringe theory. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Why can’t we just call it a fringe theory? Why do we all have to dance around that fact due to the previous RFC failing to give it that label? Every here knows that Indigenous Aryans is a fringe theory, we don’t need to give it alternative names like myth or controversy. Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Guys, don't overcomplicate, Finno-Ugrian theory, Daco-Roman theory, this is also a theory. It does not mean it is necessarily true, neither it indicates the measure of being scientific or serious. Theories are just theories.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC))

"Theory" is the WP:COMMONNAME. In response to JoergenB, as a scholarly theory it has 19th century origins, as shortly noted in the text; but as common name it refers to the present Hindutva-notion, which has little to do with the 19th century scholarly discussion (or a lot, said the cynic; stuck in time, given the frequency Max Muller is attacked). I've added a caveat to the lead diff. With that in place, I wouldn't object to moving the article to "Indigenous Aryans theory." "Indigenous Aryan myth" was a little joke. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@KIENGIR and Joshua Jonathan: Both of your points make sense to me. "Theory" seems the best choice here (with caveats). Skllagyook (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I would object to "theories are just theories"; some "theories" have ugly consequences in real life, such as differentiating between 'real Indians' and 'import-Indians'. But I know what KIENGIR means. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Joshua, this not an argument just because there are some theories which may have ugly consequences in real life. Also consuming much sugar, or playing football may ugly conquences (diabetes or injury). Most of the theories were born in th 19th century, and some are still accepted despite their still unsolved discrepancies, some are rejected, which is not just influenced by politics, but buy lobbying and other interest. If I would make such kind of edits in the Finno-Ugrian or Daco-Roman theories - or just even the quarter - I would be accused with heavy POV-push, or being very POINTY. You overstress this issue, and every second you wish to justify it's invalidity. A reveant WP:CSECTION already. I think you should be satisfied and stop at this point.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC))

Proposal: Indigenous Aryanism

What about the title Indigenous Aryanism? This would be consistent with the category name Indigenous Aryanism. Similar titles on Wikipedia include Phoenicianism, Gothicism, Anti-Normanism and Sarmatism. Indigenous Aryanism seems to be a relatively common name for the topic. It is also concise. Krakkos (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Krakkos's proposal for "Indigenous Aryanism". It's concise, telling (the "-ism" evokes a context of similar constructs), and also well attested in Google Books and Google Scholars. –Austronesier (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - elegant solution. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Pretty well attested in sources, and the -ism makes it clear that it is an ideology. Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - for reasons similar to the above. Skllagyook (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support To comply with category. Azuredivay (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Conditional, I would let the title as it is, or supporting Indigenous Aryan theory better. However I have to admit, Krakkos is a very professional diplomat in this case :).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC))
• I'd prefer "theory" or "hypothesis over this, but I prefer this over the current title, so tentative support, I suppose. It is certainly an alternative term used by the sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I think it is much more suitable than the alternatives. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support on the basis that the -ism suffix clearly shows that the idea is intricately connected with an ideology, and also on the basis that the term is already used in the literature. For example, Edwin Bryant uses it in his 2001 book The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate [1]; it can also be found in the chapter by Lars Martin Fosse in The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History [2]. As an aside, I don't think that the word "theory" is necessarily inaccurate, because even among academics, the idea that the word "theory" is used exclusively for well-tested models is a bit of an idealized conception. After all, the phrase Fringe theory uses the word "theory" as well. BirdValiant (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Moved per WP:SNOWBALL.--Berig (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Caveat

@Kiengir: see my comment above on "caveat." Otherwise, see the version before the caveat, for the original placement of te moving sentence ("It is based on traditional and religious views on Indian history and identity, and plays a significant role in Hindutva politics." / " It is considered as well that it is not a theory in the usual, scientific sense, but a "religio-nationalistic" view on Indian history,[2][12][note 1] and plays a significant role in Hindutva politics.[13][14][2][web 1][web 2]"). I hav removed "not a theory in the usual, scientific sense, but." But you've already respondend; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your intent to clarify, JJ, but "theory in the usual sense" is going to be lost on many of our readers, and exacerbates the issues with the term "theory" that I discussed above. If we're going to add this caveat at all, the "in the usual sense" needs to instead say what that sense is. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I've already removed it... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

An occupational (or lack-of-occupational) hazard of going on vacation is that the pings inch up to 99 and thereafter look all the same (99+). So apologies to @Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93: for not noticing intimations.

My first association to "Indigenous Aryanism" is "home-grown nuts," i.e. Timothy McVeigh, Alt-right, Aryanism in the US, neo-Nazis, or if you want to cross the pond, Skin-heads and Paki-bashers ... So "indigenous" is problematic as is "Aryanism." Not to mention that people on the other side of the Dneiper in Ukraine might well say, "And what were my ancestors, chopped liver?" Afghanis and Iranians in whose ancient languages Aryan is a cognate (Iran, Ariana, ...) might well too; i.e., why does "indigenous" apply to India? I think something like "India-homeland theory for Indo-European languages" would be most accurate. Sure, it is a mouthful, but so is "Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury," (for Salisbury). As for OIT, fringe or not, a theory it remains, just as the Steady State model does. We don't say "fringe" in the title or even the lead sentence on that page. "India-homeland model for Indo-European languages" would work too. Hello to @Joshua Jonathan: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries. The tie got broken sooner or later anyway. I can't say I am displeased with the insertion of "ism" in the title. No model, no theory, just an "ism". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not an ism in the sense that Marxism or Darwinism or Feminism or Socialism are. If you think it is a belief, then it should be India-homeland beliefs about Indo-European languages, with "belief" in the plural, for there is no one such clearly identified stream of belief from the mid-19th century (when some European linguists supported it) and the late 20th and early 21st when Hindu nationalists co-opted it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Not as in Marxism or Darwinism or Feminism or Socialism, but "-ism" as in primordalism. It is not just a legitimate alternative theory that happens to be very weakly supported by our current knowledge about linguistics, archaeology and palaeogenetics; as such, it wouldn't probably merit an article of its own. Its current notability stems from the very fact that it has been co-opted for (what I referred to as the "epiphenomenon" above) by Hindutvas in total disregard of the currently known evidence and Occam's razor, because it fits best with their Weltanschauung. In the course of scholarly history, some respectable researchers did support the OIT because they were convinced it explained the linguistic and archaeological signals best, based on their knowledge at that time. But that's not what we primarily cover in this article. Other theories about the homeland of the "Proto-Indo-Europeans" were also co-opted in the past by an -ism which was just as toxic and much more lethal. (However, the present-day shits you mentioned in your first sentence who follow in the footsteps of the latter -ism don't care in the least about academic homeland debates. They co-opt other contemporary scholarship which better suits their cause.) –Austronesier (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I take your point about the issues with "aryanism" as a term, but I do think your suggestion is rather too long. If we want to move this to OIT, I'd be okay with that, but otherwise the current title strikes me as a reasonable compromise...Vanamonde (Talk) 20:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:, as Krakkos has pointed out above, it is an -ism in the same sense as Phoenicianism, Gothicism, Anti-Normanism and Sarmatism.--Berig (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, Austronesier, Kautilya3, and Berig: Thanks for the replies. Fair enough. Yes, it has been co-opted by people who have no pretensions of scholarship. Yes, it is a mouthful. And yes, I did appear here late in the day. Let's give this title a try. If there are issues we can revisit this discussion. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

Why do you think IAT has no relevance? This has tremendous relevance for the people of India. Please change "It has no relevance, let alone support, in mainstream scholarship." to "There are no universally accepted scholar work to validate IAT." Aak1991 (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Where does the article state that IA has no relevance? It states that it has no relevance in mainstream scholarship; that this belief has relevance for some people in India is quite clear. Regarding "to validate IAT," see Popper for a basic aspect of science: falsification. It's not a matter of "universally accepted scholar[y] work[s] to validate IAT"; there are no scholarly works whatsoever which validate the IAT. And there won't be; IAT is just plain incompatible with the linguistic, archaeological, and genetical data. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Mainstream Scholarship

Some archaeologists in India do not think the Aryan Migration occurred. This article provides some background: https://theprint.in/features/archeologist-who-found-4500-yr-old-skeletons-in-haryana-doesnt-buy-aryan-invasion-theory/113852/. Therefore, I don't think the Wikipedia article should say that the Indigenous Aryanism theory has no mainstream support or relevance. In fact, the internationally reknowned archaeologist Vasant Shinde does not support the Aryan migration/invasion theory. I think that the article should be changed to say that it is a minority viewpoint in the scholarship.

Additionally, over 300 Indologists have rejected the Aryan migration/invasion theory: Fosse, L. (2005). Aryan Past and Post-Colonial Present : The Polemics and Politics of Indigenous Aryans.

Furthermore, there have been DNA studies that reject the Aryan migration/invasion. Here is an example of one: Rakesh Tamang and Kumarasamy Thangaraj (2012), Genomic view on the peopling of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakespeare143 (talk • contribs) 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The sources are quite clear: Indigenism has no support in mainstream scholarship. Shinde is a disgrace; his own co-authors have debunked Shinde's betrayal of scientific standards. See:

• Rakhigarhi DNA
• Ancient DNA study of skeletal remains of IVC
• Shinde et al. (2019)
• Further confirmation of Narasimhan (2018)

Regarding those 300 Indologists, see this blurb:

ABSTRACT

On October 16, 1996, the Indian newspaper The Economic Times published an article, quoted on the Internet, about a conference entitled “Indologists discount Aryan influx theory.” The first paragraph reads:

A conference of over 300 Indologists here has rejected the Aryan Invasion Theory.

Full quote:

A conference of over 300 Indologists here has rejected the Aryan Invasion Theory. The conference on “Revisiting Indus-Saraswati Age and Ancient India,” attended by scholars all over the world, was aimed at correcting the “distorted Hindu history,” according to Ms Reeta Singh, one of the organisers. “Recent archaeological discoveries have fully established that there was a continuous evolution of civilization on the Indian subcontinent from about 5000 BC, which remained uninterrupted through 1000 BC. This leaves no scope whatsoever to support an Aryan invasion theory,” a resolution at the conference said. It explained that the term Arya in Indian literature has no racial or linguistic connotations. It was used in the noble sense.
(The Economic Times, October 16, 1996)

That's 25 years ago, from a conference on "Revisiting Indus-Saraswati Age and Ancient India," purporting an outdated 'continuity stance'.

Regarding Tamang and Thangaraj, and their comment "we have detected gene flow from the west prior to the Aryan invasion," Thangaraj et al. (2009) detected west-Eurasian gene-flow predating the Indo-Aryan migrations. That's still brilliant, but.... not a falsification of the IAmt. In fact, I think, they detected Narasimhan et al. (2019)'s Iranian hunter-gatherers, or a related group as described in Da Silva et al. (2017). See Indo-Aryan migrations for an extensive treatment of the genetic research on the Indo-Aryan migrations.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Joshua JonathanRegardless of whether someone has critiqued Shinde or not, he is still an internationally reknowned archaeologist. He's not the only one. There are many more scholars. His is still mainstream scholarship. I believe that the articles you linked do support the Aryan migration theory, however, just because those articles might support the Aryan migration theory, they do not automatically make the Indigenous Aryan theory have no relevance at all in mainstream scholarship. There are many other reknowned scientists besides Shinde who support the Indigenous Aryan theory, therefore even if there are many other articles that are in support of the Aryan migration theory, I do not see how the Indigenous Aryan theory has no relevance to mainstream scholarship. I think this would be considered minority viewpoint, because there are many experts who support it.

If the resolution at the conference stated that "This leaves no scope whatsoever to support an Aryan invasion theory" which was supported by 300 academics, this means that they do not support the Aryan migration theory. I think that 25 years is relatively recent to still mention it.

https://www.news18.com/news/india/didnt-aryans-invade-harappan-civilisation-study-of-4500-year-old-female-genome-refutes-theory-2299677.html.

T.R.S. Prasanna, There is no scientific basis for the Aryan Invasion Theory

Where does it say Shinde is a "disgrace" and that his own co-authors "dubunked Shinde's betrayal of scientific standards"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakespeare143 (talk • contribs) 15 april 2021 (UTC)

I also found more articles:

• Wim Borsboom, Out of India -By Land or By Sea? A Paradigm Shift in Ancient Migration Theories
• Michel Danino, Methodological issues in the Indo-European debate

Shakespeare143 (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

If you had actually read the study that [3] references (An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers), you would know that it never refutes the Indo-Aryan migration. It states that the people of the Indus Valley Civilization lacked the steppe ancestry found in modern populations. Shinde et. al. 2019 states "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)". T. R. S. Prasanna, the author of "There is no scientific basis for the Aryan Invasion Theory", is a metallurgical engineer and a materials scientist, not a historian, not a archeologist, not a geneticist, not a linguist, or any other scholar of a field needed to properly study history. Please read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources.Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Wim Borsboom is an independent researcher not affiliated with any academic institution, and his education qualifications are unknown. Michel Danino has been criticized by scholars for promoting Hindutva and participating in Historical negationism. Indigenous Aryanism is a fringe theory that is of a religo-nationalist agenda. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I did read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. T. R. S. Prasanna is a Professor affiliated with the Indian Institute of Technology. He has published in peer-reviewed journals of history regarding the Aryan migration theory.

Shinde, who was a co-author in both https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(19)30967-5.pdf and https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6457/eaat7487, has stated "that the new data “completely sets aside the Aryan Migration/Invasion Theory” and also proves that the “Harappans were the Vedic people”" "“This is not a migration but a movement of people,” Shinde argued. “And the movement from the Steppe is not large.”" "Shinde also disagreed with the linguistic conclusions in the research, claiming that they were not based on any scientific proof. “The Harappans were speaking Sanskrit since they were so advanced,” Shinde told Scroll.in."

Clearly in the mainstream there are scholars who support the Indigenous Aryanism theory, and I think it seems like this Wikipedia article has bias and does not have proper NPOV. Therefore I think that the statement "It has no relevance, let alone support, in mainstream scholarship." should be changed to: "It is a minority viewpoint in mainstream scholarship." I think in the beginning part of this article "conviction" should be changed to "theory". Additionally, I think that "It is a "religio-nationalistic" view on Indian history," should be deleted.

Additionally, I understand that Wim Borsboom has been criticized; however, he has published in peer-reviewed journals. Also Meera Nanda is the one who criticized Danino, and Danino has criticized Nanda for not citing evidence and has also criticized certain methodologies she has employed.https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2016/oct/13/in-defence-of-indian-science-1527495--5.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakespeare143 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Shinde was the main author of the cell-publication; next day, he gave in to political pressures and had a press-conference in which he denied the results of his own publications. That's a disgrace. If he had any reputation, very little will be left of it.

I think you should read the refernces, and note 2. "Conviction" comes from Bryant. "Religio-nationalistic view" is properly sourced, and an adequate summary of what Indigenism is; just like "apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The publications were not just his, they included multiple other authors. Shinde said that he just had a different interpretation of the results than what was published. This occurred because the article that was published had multiple authors, and I think the other authors disagreed with him on that point. Therefore, Shinde was explaining his own viewpoint to make sure his viewpoint was clarified. I understand that "conviction" comes from Bryant, however, from what I have read in other sources, they do not talk about it being a conviction, they just talk about it being a theory. I think that the "religio-nationalistic" label might be true for only some proponents of Indigenous Aryanism but not for all of them. Are there any other sources that call it "religio-nationalistic"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakespeare143 (talk • contribs) 15 april 2021 (UTC)

You hear that roaring thunder in the background? That's a part of the scholarly community, LOL, while another part falls silent and closes the eyes in disbelief: "Yes, I published that, I was the main author, but actually I meant to say something else, but my co-authors made me do it." How low can you go? Hence, "conviction" and "religio-nationalistic"; Shinde neatly demonstrated the whole point. See also Kai Friese (2019), The Complications of Genetics, in Romila Thapar et al. (2019), Which Of Us Are Aryans?.
Shinde's comments are telling: "The Harappans were speaking Sanskrit since they were so advanced,” but "Shinde also disagreed with the linguistic conclusions in the research, claiming that they were not based on any scientific proof." The laughter silences, and scholars softly move away: "No, no, I don't know him, never worked with him, I have nothing to do with him," trying to avoid any association that might hurt their own reputation.
Regarding Prasana, his article has been cited three times since 2012. B.B. Lal (2015), The Rigvedic People: 'Invaders'?/'Immigrants'? or Indigenous? Has been cited 12 times, four of which by Danino. In contrast, Narasimhan et al. (2019) has been cited 138 times, while David Anthony (2007), The Horse, the Wheel, and Language has been cited 1662 times. Indigenism is a closed circuit, totally irrelevant for the scholarly discourse, except for the way it's hindering genetic research in India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
PS: you should the rest of Fosse on this conference and it's 300 participants. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
PS2: regarding the Scroll.in article, Two new genetic studies upheld Indo-Aryan migration. So why did Indian media report the opposite?, the title is telling, don't you think? The article explains quite well what is wrong with Shinde's statements.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan. I could not find where to read more about the conference. I did some more online research, and I found some more articles talking about the Indigenous Aryan Theory. There are many scholars that support the Indigenous Aryan Theory or at the very least say that the Indigenous Aryan Theory is just as likely as the Aryan Migration Theory (like American Harvard/Columbia University Indologist Edwin Francis Bryant). An interesting source I was reading is: https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195137779.001.0001/acprof-9780195137774. It discusses how the Aryan Migration Theory is promoted by religious and nationalist ideas and how scholars that support the Indigenous Aryan Theory are marginalized. Bryant says that "Although European scholars have long since forgotten the biblical roots of the Aryan problem, Old Testament narrative was certainly an initial factor causing European scholars to interpret the data in selective ways. One must bear in mind that European notions of human history had been based on Genesis for the better part of a millennium and a half. This formative influence was strengthened and then superseded by research intimately connected with the specific political exigencies extant in nineteenth-century Europe. This combination of factors contributed to the development of various assumptions concerning Indo-Aryan (and Indo-European) origins, some of which have remained by and large unquestioned, outside of India, to this very day." Therefore, I think considering Bryant's views, it would be good to say it has support in mainstream scholarship.Shakespeare143 (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The quote is on p. 303 in the chapter "Conclusion" is Bryant's book. I do not read here that Bryant argues "that the Indigenous Aryan Theory is just as likely as the Aryan Migration Theory". To the contrary, he says that by the simple principle of Occam's razor, IAT is the least optimal way to interpret the data: "the corollary of the Indigenous position is that all the Indo‐Europeans must have come from Northwest India and its borderlands. And this position has so far provided very little positive evidence with which to recommend itself (p. 302)."

He only calls to attention that 19th scholars were partly driven by religious bias too. Modern Western scholars must acknowledge that much of the foundations of IE studies was laid by scholars who did believe in a Biblical narrative and were influenced by it. But to ascribe this bias to modern scholars as a tool refure their arguments is a fallacy. Mainstream scholars ("western" and Indian alike) do not found their work on mythology-derived paradigms which attribute infallacy to ancient scriptures, but on Occam's razor. Comparative-historical linguists from its very beginning has not been based on religious and nationalist ideas (in fact, it was anti-biblical from the start because it rejects the Tower-of-Babel myth). Believing in the infallacy of the Bible certainly automatically results in a Out-of-India migration scenario, but no modern scholar evokes that idea to support the Migration theory. Our modern paradigm is data + Occam's razor, and Bryant – who is rooted in the same foundations – clearly explains why he considers the IAT untenable.

One wise thing that Bryant does is to say that the IAT is not wrong (i.e. positively counterfactual in a Flat-Earth sense). But among the available possible interpretations of the data, it is the least plausible and thus untenable at the current state of research—unless one evokes scriptural infallacy, as proponents of the IAT do. (It is wrong to say that aliens do not exist since we cannot disprove it. But so far, there is not positive evidence in favor of their existence either. Many laypeople cannot handle the fact that evdidence-based science will never give you infinite certainty of a 2+2=4 kind. But lack of infinite certainty does not mean that all hypotheses are of equal rank.) Austronesier (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not a wise thing. Bryant is not a linguist, archeologist or historian. He specialises on Hindu Studies, which has no bearing on the issue. He just makes some intelligent-sounding commentaries, but otherwise Bryant should be completely ignored for scientific discussions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

He's a scholar and well equipped to comment on intellectual dishonesty, especially if he knows where it comes from. But sure, a linguist, archeologist or historian is better equipped to explain how utterly bad the Indigenous Aryan Theory actually is as a model to describe the things we observe. His idea that our lack of knowledge about the Harappan language leaves wide room for uncertainty is of course bunk, and unfortunately an outflow of him not being a linguist, archeologist or historian. –Austronesier (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If he did a good job commenting on intellectual dishonesty, we wouldn't be having this debate here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Shakespeare143: the rest of Fosse's article. I'll make a bet that none of those "many scholars" has any relevance for the study of Indo-Aryan migrations.

@Austronesier: I agree with you that Bryant does not write in support of Indigenism; what he did was doing a study of Indigenism and it's proponents. Regarding 'disproving' Indigenism: Bryant's studies on the (Indian) support for Indigenism are 20 years old. Since then, the scientific evidence in support of a migration into India has only accumulated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Shinde

I've added a note on Shinde's disgracefull rejection of his own publication in Cell, in response to the recent edit-warring by User:KnowledgeHunter9090, who's currently blocked. I've also added his Republicworld.com-source. From that source:

We always thought the Iranians or people from Steppe region had some role in the development of Agriculture in this region.

The sheer stupidity of this statement. Steppe (pastoralist) people who brought farming to India, when the IVC and it's predecessors had been farming for millennia? Did Shinde really say this? I trust it's the reporter who lacks basic knowledge, not Shinde, despite his shortcomings. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

This is very important. I have argued before that the actual notability of this topic is not its scientific merit (or rather non-merit) as a hypothesis out of many, but the extra-scientific ideological discourse that has emerged from it. So this note actually deals with the core topic of this article (viz. the "-ism"). Deliberate misuse/misquoting of scientific sources appears to be a recurrent pattern of the AIT camp; maybe you can fold this aspect of the note out into the main text. –Austronesier (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Circular reference or bug?

If I click reference "[2]" which brings up "Trautmann 2005, p. xxx.", and then click on the link "Trautmann 2005", it offers to open article "Indigenous Aryanism" - the same article over again! This does not happen if I "View article in browser". (I am using the Wikipedia app on a Galaxy tablet.) Is it a bug or am I doing something wrong? 1.136.106.172 (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Some bug, I guess. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

When you use the WP app (which I have tried out now for the first time on my Galaxy phone), you have to click on "Read article" when a link to a reference pops up in a citation. The page then will jump to the entry in the Bibliography section. This does not happen only with reference "[2]", but all references that use a cite template. –Austronesier (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Basically, the WP app is not fit for any use beyond reading the bare text of an article. --Khajidha (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Opening content is racist/Indophobic

The third paragraph of the opening content reads "Support for the IAT mostly exists among a subset of Indian scholars of Hindu religion..." and ends with "it has no relevance, let alone support, in mainstream scholarship." First of all, who decides what is mainstream? Second, the sentence implicitly states that being an "Indian scholar" is somehow opposed to "mainstream" scholarship. Why does the qualification "Indian scholars" need to be added? Why not just say "a subset of scholars"? This article pushes subliminal authority bias on the reader, not to mention conflating race/nationality with scholarly ability. Besides it is inaccurate because Bryant and Brennan are not Indian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalvedantin (talk • contribs) 16 june 2021 (UTC)

Mainstream is what falls within almost universally accepted borders of scholarly methodology. Indigenous Aryanism does not, as very explicitly stated by a number of accomplished scholars. Indigenous Aryanism has only support in India, and among a few western Hindutva fellow travellers. To suggest that it has some support elsewhere on the world is misleading; it is Indian nationalism disguised as "science." Most Indian scholars don't seem to buy it either; therefor the qualifier "a subset." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 01:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

'accomplished' is another weasel word. There are 'accomplished' scholars who do not support Aryan Migrations. You also seem to paint a stereotypical picture of those who support Indigenous Aryanism by using the word Hindutva. What does that word mean to you? Have you personally checked on the political leanings of Bryant and others to make this conclusion? Besides, you admit here that it is not just Indians and so that wording in the article should be changed based on your own admission here.Liberalvedantin (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

BTW, because you have mentioned here that "a few western Hindutva fellow travelers" also espouse this stance, you have no locus standing to revert my changes by getting rid of the word Indian. The qualifier 'subset' also has no relevance now.Liberalvedantin (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Bryant does not support Indigenous Aryanism. Singh (2008), A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India, p.186: "Another view, advocated mainly by some Indian scholars, is that they were indigenous to the Indian subcontinent." See aslo Bryant (2001), p.292-293. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Bryant might not support it, but he also doesn't support the Indo-Aryan migration theory. And yet is sympathetic to the perspective behind the Indigenous Aryanism theory. Read Bryant, 1999, last paragraph "I hope the arguments presented here have been useful in revealing how the logic behind... the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis, appears when seen through the perspective of some who do not share the same religious, political, and intellectual history as their western peers" and also Bryant, 2001 says the way people view opponents of migrations as "a type of Indological McCarthyism creeping into areas of western, as well as certain Indian, academic circles, whereby ? anyone reconsidering the status quo of Indo-Aryan origins is instantly and a priori dubbed a nationalist, a communalist or, even worse, a Nazi". This segues into my point, which seems to have been lost, that this paragraph has used the qualifying term Indian and then proceeded to negate that from "mainstream" scholarship. That is not something Singh had said. In fact, one of the sources cited in this sentence (Bresnan, chapter 1) mentions in a much more restrained tone "...the majority of scholars worldwide accept the plausibility of the Indo-Aryan Migration Theory, but certainly not all do. As mentioned, within India itself the majority of scholars reject the migration theory in favor of what is known as the Indigenous Aryanism Theory." To imply that these majority of scholars are opposed to mainstream (read: Western/colonial) scholars is Indophobic. The word "mainstream" is not used by Bresnan either. He instead says elsewhere in the same chapter that it is "a majority of non-Indian" scholars that accept the migration theory. So in fact, you are giving this "improper synthesis" as per Wiki's language. But given how you broadly brushed Hinduism as oppressive on the Aryan migration talk page, your neutrality, and of others on this matter is suspect. BTW, to clarify, I am not a Hindutva proponent, nor am I attached to Indigenous Aryanism. I believe the reality is likely more complex than what is borne by our current understanding of migration>bring in 'new religion and culture'>displace indigenous culture and subvert existing ones. I have no interest in furthering this, as it seems to fall on deaf (and might I add bigoted) ears. Perhaps one day we will look back and shake our heads at how racist this entire discourse has been.Liberalvedantin (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Calling other editors "bigoted" fell afoul of WP:NPA. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Liberalvedantin's argumentation; I brought up similar points recently. As I emphasized earlier, the page is currently promoting the POV of the AIT/AMT. It is plainly discernible how many Western Indologists have biased analysis, and the ideological determinants for which they are biased are often conspicuous. The current Wikipedia page is racist (implicitly and explicitly). This Wikipedia page is elevating the ideas of certain biased scholars, while blithely dismissing the prominent OIT. It seems that some editor(s) here may be violating Wikipedia:Ownership of content.Shakespeare143 (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the word almost all is more appropriate than certain. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the two of you can offer some WP:RS that support your analysis? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Maybe you meant: almost all is more appropriate than certain biased—otherwise you'll get "almost all biased scholars" :)

And yeah, name-calling like "bigoted/racist" just because one disagrees is a non-discourse that triggers head-shaking even today. Btw, why doesn't this topic fall under DS? –Austronesier (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

When I mentioned "certain biased scholars", I meant to use the word "certain" to denotationally mean "specific but not explicitly named or stated", and not "known for sure; established beyond doubt". I am not "name-calling" any specific editors to be racist. Regarding RS, there are many in the archives. Shakespeare143 (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid for you that the vast majority of authors on this topic fall within your subset of "certain biased scholars." Regarding Regarding RS, there are many in the archives: no, there are not. There are only repetitive rants by biased, closed-minded editors who perpetually refer to the same limited set of biased non-reliable sources; sources which have over and over again been shred to pieces, as the blurb you brought up at Talk:Indigenous Aryanism#Mainstream Scholarship. You're refusing to name reliable sources that support your analysis, because you know there ain't such sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't know anyone here so I cannot make character judgments. So editors might not be racists.. but saying Hinduism, a peaceful religion followed by nearly 1/8th of the world's population, is oppressive like Joshua Jonathan has on the Aryan migration talk page, and then defends racist qualifiers to Indian scholars here, is by definition, a comment that shows bigotry. Imagine if someone said Islam is a terrorist ideology. Catholicism promotes pedophilia. So when someone makes such comments, it makes their objectivity questionable. Liberalvedantin (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Why can't the two of you enlist (say) ten peer-reviewed sources, authored by specialist scholars and published by reputed academic presses within last 30 years, which claim both OIT and IAM to be equally plausible or OIT to be more plausible? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Liberalvedantin: you wrote a rant at Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations#Changing it to a theory, in which you wrote:

I responded, stating (among aother things) "and therefore Hinduism is oppressive that's an Indian narrative, though fact is that the system is not very kind for Dalits, is it?" You conveniently missed the main point: "that's an Indian narrative." This equation is not proposed by authors on the Indo-Aryan, or Indo-European migrations; it's your equation, pulled from a different discourse. And I purposedly wrote "system," since I don't, and won't, argue that Hinduism is oppressive. Your editing is WP:TENDENTIOUS. See also the quote with which you started this thread:

"Support for the IAT mostly exists among a subset of Indian scholars of Hindu religion..." and ends with "it has no relevance, let alone support, in mainstream scholarship."

The full paragraph is as follows:

Support for the IAT mostly exists among a subset of Indian scholars of Hindu religion and the history and archaeology of India, and plays a significant role in Hindutva politics. It has no relevance, let alone support, in mainstream scholarship.

Notes

References

You skipped the middle part, and omitted the note, suggesting a link which is misleading. See, again, WP:TENDENTIOUS. We can add the Witzel-text from Indigenous Aryanism#Rejection by mainstream scholarship:

According to Michael Witzel, the "indigenous Aryans" position is not scholarship in the usual sense, but an "apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking":

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 Purāṇas. 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".

References

Let's summarize it for you: mainstream scholarship, that is, scholarship as practiced in the academia worldwide including most Indian scholars (see Narasimhan) is not driven by Indian nationalism. The bigotry you perceive is telling for your perception and personal opinions, and the discourse you're engaging in. As a comparison: where are the Pakistani authors who object against the idea of Indo-Aryan migrations? Virtually absent. So, let's get back to TrangaBellam's request:
Why can't the two of you enlist (say) ten peer-reviewed sources, authored by specialist scholars and published by reputed academic presses within last 30 years, which claim both OIT and IAM to be equally plausible or OIT to be more plausible? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

So, "rant" is a civil word to use? You're grasping for straws here. In the context of the discussion, you had equated "the system" with Hinduism and now you are trying to (poorly) backtrack.

As for the academic sources - you and the other fellow must be naive to assume that a more than century's old narrative among academics in the West (who you solely equate with "mainstream") would change their stance about migration of culture and language into India, especially with the Hindutva boogeyman? The same results can yield different interpretations, and as history as shown, the interpretation of western scholars and western journals still carry weight in global academic promotions. That is why Lavanya Vemsani, Meenakshi Jain and others don't get published- they don't toe the line.

Besides, this only confirms the bias on Wikipedia, which it's own founder (!) is aware of and has called out.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-says-online-dictionary-scrapped-neutrality-favors-lefty-politics

What can be more hilarious?! This platform is a joke. Good bye. Too bad this site won't go to the trash of internet history where it belongs. Liberalvedantin (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

https://www.allsides.com/blog/wikipedia-biased

Another link. Confirms what I have noticed.

Just forgot to mention hinduphobic, too. This site has zero credibility, especially on political/religious issues. Liberalvedantin (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Lastly, asking for western academic Indology sources to counter western academic Indology is circular reasoning. Indology and Hinduism studies have a lack of Indian and practicing Hindu scholars, it is well accepted. Instead, it has people like Audrey Truschke, a missionary Christian, disparaging Hindu deities and practices. These are the people you consider reliable? No thanks. Liberalvedantin (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Larry Sanger, he has the same style as you. In this blog he quotes the Jesus article:

“the quest for the historical Jesus has yielded major uncertainty on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the Jesus portrayed in the Bible reflects the historical Jesus.”

but omits the first part of the sentence (quoted from the version of 13 may 2020):

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,

Why's that sentence there? Because of the tireless pov-pushing by Christ Myth theory believers. That's what happens with an open project: fringe-adepts can edit it too.

The statement

“the gospels are not independent nor consistent records of Jesus’ life.” A great many Christians would take issue with such statements, which means it is not neutral for that reason.

quotes from a section on historical views. Same prpblem applies to you: confusing religious views with scholarly views, and quoting out of context.

Lavanya Vemsani has a long list of publications; so has Meenakshi Jain, who's work has been severely criticized. Both authors, and their reception, seem to fit your stance, and your inability to take a critical look at your convictions. Never heard of Audrey Truschke, never cited by me, not cited at this page. Straw man arguments; so, where are the ten sources? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Vemsani has a lecture on this locus, which was supposedly presented at Jawaharlal Nehru University in 2020. How on Earth can these people be taken seriously? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Nice. The lecture totally ignores the workd of Reich and Narasimhan. Here's another nugget: Lavanya Vemsani (2014), Genetic Evidence of Early Human Migrations in the Indian Ocean Region Disproves Aryan Migration/Invasion Theories. In: Nalini Rao Ed., Sindhu Saraswathi Civilization: A Reappraisal, DK Print World and Nalanda International: LA, USA, 2014. Not even indexed at Google Scholar. I think I prefer Romila Thapar (2019), "Multiple Theories about the 'Aryan'", in: Which of Us Are Aryans? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

A quote from Audrey Truschke was added to the "no support"-note:

As Tony Joseph has pointed out, the Out of India theory lacks support from even “a single, peer-reviewed scientific paper” and is best considered nothing “more than a kind of clever and angry retort.”

It appears she is a target of Hindutva harassment, and received support from people like Romila Thapar and Sheldon Pollock. (Not so) nicely supports what she says: Indigenous Aryanism is an "angry retort." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

What happened to neutrality?

• It has no relevance, let alone support, in mainstream scholarship*

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but it seems that Wikipedia has become infected with politics. The above statement is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.102.46 (talk • contribs) 15 july 2021 (UTC)

The topic itself is politics, and it's supporters treat Wikipedia as an instrument to propagate it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed biased. As for politics, you might as well say that the Climate change article is politically-charged due to the US Republican Party's denial of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Just because a political faction in any particular country may have anti-scientific views, that doesn't mean that we need to infect the rest of the world by pretending that such views have any merit whatsoever. BirdValiant (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Identifying the Vedic people with the Harappan Civilisation

Anybody else who thinks this section needs more nuance?

Most of our mainstream scholars, like Kenoyer, reject that there was some abrupt decline of IVC followed by a colonization by IA migrants. Or something similar. There was indeed a continuum which is hard to ignore even for people like me, who have a low opinion of Parpola's pioneering claims in these domains.

I am not well read in IAT literature: so if the section refers to something else, I have no objections. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

IVC decline was definitely not abrupt but hundreds of years of gradual deurbanization. We could flesh out the Historical Background section on the decline of IVC using the sources from the Late Harappan section on Indus Valley Civilization.Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Indigemists follow Kenoyer's argument, with their own twist, natuarally. No need to "flesh out" such details; there are other articles which do so. This article is just about IA. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Any particular IAT text/scholar you suggest reading to get a clue about how they are "weaponizing" these developments? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

No specific source that pops-up. But check Kak, as referenced in the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

NB: some background has already been provided, at Indigenous Aryanism#Archaeological finds and cultural continuity. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Source: "Namit Arora (2012), "Indians: A Brief History of A Civilization"

Namit Arora (2012), Indians: A Brief History of A Civilization. Excerpt here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)