Talk:Indo-Aryan peoples/Archive 1

Related ethnic groups

Please also include Tajiks (Persians from Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) and Pathans (ethnic Afghans) in the related ethnic groups section. They are also Indo-Europeans. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.67.79.186 (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indians-are-not-descendants-of-aryans-study/1/163645.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.216.39 (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Pictures:

In this section no one looks indo-aryan except Benazir Bhutto, all other pictures do not deserve to be shown on this page. Please add only pictures of people from Kashmir, Kalash, Gilgit, Chitral etc, not your gandhi or tagore who surely look indans but not aryan.

what? what the hell are you on about? how do they 'look aryan'? what does that mean? do you have a picture? did you go back in time to 3000bc to find what "aryan" looks like? Look mr.racist,there are no people called aryan. If you bothered to read the article:

"Several recent studies of the distribution of alleles on the Y chromosome,[6] microsatellite DNA,[7] and mitochondrial DNA [8] in India have cast strong doubt for a biological Dravidian "race" distinct from non-Dravidians in the Indian subcontinent."

There were indo-europeans who intermingled w/ Indians and created what we know as Indians. Later on there were greeks and other European tribes that conquered north India and the mix resutled in the variety of white/foreign looking people we see today (to my knowledge).

To the moderators, I thought it was agreed that there was no such thing as "aryan" peoples? I thought there was an Indo European peoples that came to India (just like Indo-Iranians) and created a sub-culture. Using Aryan to describe this subculture seems to cater to (and give power to) to the racial connotations. Can we change that somehow?

Section Origins

No sources are given for this section. Who said this and when? The information is also not given in a neutral way. (There are differing views and theories regarding dates, places and other things.) --Machaon 21:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

there is no section "Origins"; you mean the "pre-Vedic" section? details of this discussion go to the main article, Indo-Aryan migration. What do you mean "no sources are given"? I count about a dozen references in this short paragraph. You'll have to be specific about what you don't like. Obviously everything is disputed in this area. What this section is supposed to do is summarize the mainstream scholarly view. 23:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The comment was accurate when it was made. Check the date. Paul B 23:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about this article as it represents an underresearched view of who the Indo Aryans were and their religion and language. Urdu to my knowledge is 'arabised/pathanised/mughalised hindi. This article does not mention the conquest of the Dravidian lands and diputes the fact that the original indo aryans were indeed very fair, possibly blonde and blue eyed. Recent DNA research amongst the northern indians who tend to be fair show strong links to Eastern european DNA.

I know of no good evidence that the "original Indo-Aryans" were "very fair". Please provide references. I'm not sure what you are getting at with your comment about Urdu or how it is relevant. Paul B 12:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What's with the picture of the Roma?

Granted they speak an Indo-Aryan language, but many of them don't and genetically they've mingled substantially with other peoples. Not the best representation of Indo-Aryans. As this article is about the Indo-Aryans as a people rather than as a linguistic group, I think the picture of the Roma needs to come down and be replaced with one of say the Punjabis or Bengalis instead. Tombseye 10:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

-Well,race has kind of lost it's factor for determining the Indo-Aryans, as they have mixed with other groups so much as to be deemed racially heterogenous. But, I do guess using the Roma for a picture of the Indo-Aryans is a bit ridiculous as they are only a smaller group of a larger branch of Indo-Iranian people who mostly different from the Roma. I do think we should use a picture of a more common Indo-Aryan cultural group, such as the Rajputs, Punjabis or some other North Indian people. -User: Afghan Historian

Vedic Aryans vs Kurus

Aren't Kurus also Vedic Aryans, which is an umbrella term? deeptrivia (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the article disputes that. It says I-A culture expanded "with the Kurus..." I don't think that would normally be read to mean that I-A people expanded in "alliance with the Kurus". It means that the culture expanded in part because the specific Kuru realm, which was part of it, expanded - a comparable sentence would be "Greek culture expanded with the conquests of Alexander the Great". Paul B 09:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at it again, I agree that the first half of the sentence ("Together with indigenous cultures...") could lead to the reading that "Kurus" were "indigenous" allies of Indo-Aryans, though I'm fairly confident that no-one actually intended to imply that. The previous sentences also contained some confusing bracketed material, with brackets in brackets in brackets. Paul B 11:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I was referring to the list (Sec. 5.1) It has Vedic Aryans, Kurus, Shakyas, etc as separate elements. 14:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh right, well that's just a list of related articles. They aren't inteded to exclude eachother. Some are inclusive, some more specific. Paul B 18:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The words 'gypsy' and 'negro'

I know we're instructed to be bold, but since those two words have been in the article for so long (I tried to go back and figure out when they'd been added, but gave up after looking back to about September 2005), I hesitate to take them out since so many people who've been working on the article seem to think they're OK.--Anchoress 11:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with negro, which even has inverted commas around it. Do you have a better word? I've changed gypsies, but the problem with "Roma" is that it excludes "Sinti" and the problem with "Roma and Sinti" is that it leaves the reader wondering why these two names are conjoined. "Gypsy" has the advantage thsat it's an inclusive term. Paul B 11:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the change. As for your concerns, 1. what about negroid for 'negro', and (just to be consistent) caucasian for 'white race'? 2. And just as a guideline (especially for 'gypsy'), I think Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) and Wikipedia:Style_guide#Identity should be considered.--Anchoress 14:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "caucasian" is that it is an anthropological category that has also included quite dark-skinned people, especially in the variant "caucasoid". Maybe it would be best just to say they range from light to dark skin. Paul B 15:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

just use black and white, anything else is geographically tinted PC. "caucasian" for "white" in particular is US parlance, anywhere else Caucasian means "from the Caucasus". I don't see a way to avoid gypsy, since the Roma, Sinti, Gitanos are separate articles. dab (ᛏ) 17:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

template

I have doubts about the appropriateness of the Ethnic group template. Indo-Aryans are a linguistically defined super-group, not a single ethnic group. In any case, the image should show people, not a city. dab (ᛏ) 16:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

-It is arguable that most if not all the Indo-Aryan speakers have some or most ancestry to the original Indo-Iranian immigrants. Gene studies demonstrate proof of West Eurasian genes in Indo-Aryan populations through the paternal line. Their ethnic heritage should and will be acknowledged. -User: Afghan Historian

Indo-Iranian vs Indo-European

Its well known that Indo-Iranian is a sub-branch of Indo-European and Indo-Aryan is a sub-branch of Indo-Iranian. But to say that Indo-Aryan is the Indic branch of Indo-European makes more sense. We use Indo-Aryan to refer to people living in modern day northern Indian subcontinent or to differentiate between ancient Iranians (or Persians) and Indians (or Hindus) and Indo-Iranian to differentiate Vedic aryans and ancient Iranians from ancient Europeans. So if I say that Indo-Aryans is the Indic branch of Indo-Europeans make sense right. Its not about being ingnorant, its about common sense! --Spartian 22:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

To Paul: you say that I-A is a subbranch of II and IE. So by using common sense it is more accurate to say IA is the Indic branch of II and IE and since II too is a subranch of IE, IA is the Indic branch of IE. But I guess your common sense says something else or I am just too ignorant. --Spartian 22:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, fortunately, we don't have to use too much of our own common sense, but just have to use the scheme linguists have made. It shows Indo-Aryan as a sub-branch of Indo-Iranian. I don't quite understand the logic behind this classification, but that doesn't matter. deeptrivia (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Spartian, your common sense makes no sense to me. I-A is a sub-branch of both I-E and I-I, but it is more useful to say that it is a branch of Indo-Iranian than to say that it is a branch of Indo-European. Both are correct, but the former is far more precise. Short of anti-Iranian sentiment of some sort I can see no reason for trying to change this. Paul B 23:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your comments but may I know exactly why it is more precise to say IA is subbranch of II than to say IA is a subbranch of IE. Besides my version said IA is the Indic branch of IE. By saying that I have an anti-Iranian sentiment, you are trying to deviate from the topic. The reason why I want to mention IE and not II is becasue IE is a much more broader and precise term and gives the reader an idea from where these people came (i.e. Central/Eastern Europe). --Spartian 02:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this illustration would explain the point. In Case A, there's no ambiguity in hierarchy, while in case B, there is ambiguity since it can mean both (a) and (b). So it is more precise to say Indo-Aryan as a sub-branch of Indo-Iranian since that statement has more information content. Again, I am not making a statement on whether i is right to call IA a subbranch of II in terms of history and linguistics, because I think we should simply trust what linguists say. They know it better. deeptrivia (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks deeptrivia for the illustration. It makes more sense now. I've made some changes to Indo-Iranians.. so please go over it. Thanks --Spartian 10:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

ethnic group template

the ethnic group template is a bit inappropriate. this is not an ethnic group, it is an ethno-linguistic supergroup. We don't label Germanic peoples as a single ethnic group either. IA languages are not mutually comprehensible, and it is difficult to postulate an ethnic unity if people cannot even engage in verbal communication (without the help of some lingua franca). dab (ᛏ) 19:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well dab, Hindi or Hindustani acts as a lingua franca for IA speakers. I daresay many non-Hindi IA speakers can relate to most of the words and its much easier for an IA speaker to pickup another IA language than for a non-IA speaker to pickup an IA language. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

yes? how does using a lingua franca make them a single ethnic group? As for 'picking up' related idioms, the same holds for Germanic languages, and for Slavic languages, and still the Norse and the Germans, or the Poles and the Serbs, are separate ethnic groups. Case in point, the Roma left India 1,000 years ago; they are Indo-Aryans, but they certainly do not belong to the Hindustani community. dab (ᛏ) 13:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

-The Iranian peoples have a template, why cant the Indo-Aryans. And also, the Indo-Aryans and Iranians, though both are diverse so as to be like the cateogrization of Germanic and Slavic peoples, are actually sub-groups of a larger people, the Indo-Iranian/Aryan peoples. The template stays.

The Iranian peoples article hasn't had the template for awhile. --Khoikhoi 21:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

dear anon, as you say, they are peoples, not a single ethnic group. Iranian peoples doesn't have the template, but a kindred spirit of yours appears to insist on including mugshots. Slavic peoples doesn't have the template. Germanic peoples doesn't. Celts doesn't. Go and add your template to Hindustani, which can be argued to form an ethnic group. dab (ᛏ) 13:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Khoikhoi and Dbachmann. This article should not have a template or that picture of 'Indo Aryans' either. This is a linguistic family group and the discussion should be about ancient tribes that morphed into various disparate peoples in many cases. Treating them as an ethnic group is completely inaccurate. Tombseye 17:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The Iranian peoples has a picture template at least. That's what I want to keep on the Indo-Aryans page as well. -User: Afghan Historian

I think the only people whose photos can be used to show how the early indo-aryans looked are people in norther pakistan and the vale of kashmir. I think only the pictures of fair skinned chitralis ,gilgitis and kashmiris from the valley should be given as how the ancient indo-aryan looked like after they intermingled with the greate indian population. chitralis, gilgitis and kashmiris of the valley speak dardic languages which are classified as highly abberant indo-aryan dialects. This abberancy is because the people of dardic designation reaced in norther pakistan few centuries earlier than the main vedic group along the indus banks.

Iranian peoples

There is not a single mention of Iranian peoples in this article, are they not Indo-Aryans? -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No. They aren't. See Indo-Iranians and Indo-Iranian languages (ignore my seemimgly bizarre edit-summary. It got added accidentally). Paul B 22:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wehn did Dravidians become Indo-Aryans?

Dravidian cultres do not have same Indo-European roots of Indo-Aryans cultres. I wonder why they are added here in contemporary cultures. Unitedroad 06:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

which ones? the Unnithan? that may be a mistake. dab (ᛏ) 06:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Dravidians should not be mentioned in this article obviously but I dispute Unitedroad claim that "Dravidian cultres do not have same Indo-European roots of Indo-Aryans cultres" and I find it incredibly misleading and assumes a lot of unproven theory. This assumption is made by many Indo-Aryan peoples and many left leaning historians but according to most facts CULTURALLY and phenotypically(for most Indo-Aryans) Indo-Aryans actually have more in common with Dravidian peoples than neighbouring Mongoloids or Iranian or in fact any European peoples apart from language of course, and both language families have influenced each other and share a few common features. Occasionally high-caste Dravidian peoples(such as Unnithan)will try and falsely put their community names on the list because of their closer ancestry to Indo-Aryans (North Indians specifically) as a result of more recent immigration of their communities to South India than other Dravidian peoples, or historical association with North Indian culture, or from simply phenotypes, though this hold some truth, they are Dravidian if they are communities known to natively speak Dravidian languages as that is the most accurate description of Dravidian peoples and likewise Indo-Aryan languages for Indo-Aryan peoples. B Nambiar 13:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Infobox should not be used here

The infobox is for ethnic groups and a series of ethnic groups who happen to speak languages from the same linguistic family. I don't understand why people don't get that. Tombseye 05:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC) ?

I don't understand what you are saying. Why does that make the box inapproppriate here? Paul B 10:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is for a single ethnic group and not a series of ethnic groups who may or may not be 'related'. In fact, then the even more confusing issue of related groups come into play as there is a limited relationship between for example, Persians from eastern Iran and Bengalis. It's usage here is incorrect and lacks any credibility other than to promote pan-Indo-Aryanism (just as pan-Iranists may want to do likewise on the [[Iranian peoples]). Indo-Iranians aren't an ethnic group and neither are Iranians etc. These are linguistic categories and that's all they are at times as there is no evidence of any further 'close' relationship at all, cultural or otherwise. thus, it's incorrect to use it here other than to set-up a false picture of Indo-Aryans as an ethnic group, which they are not. The Punjabis are an ethnic group as are Bengalis etc. Not Indo-Aryans. At the very least, the related groups section needs to go as the only relationship there is linguistic in most cases. Tombseye 15:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no such thing as "pan-Indo-Aryanism", though who knows? Ironically, if there is such a movement then that would make I-As an ethnic group, since ethnic groups are self-defined. They do not all have to be closely related. "Ethnic group" is a loose concept which has no rigid definition. Paul B 16:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, ethnic groups are self-identified and the question is do all Indo-Aryan speakers view themselves as a single ethnic group? I'm pretty sure the Romany do not and I would not be surprised if smaller groups like Hindkowans would identify more with Pashtuns than with 'Indo-Aryans'. The usage in the infobox should at least be limited and not attempt define 'related' groups as the relationships are strictly linguistic and not 'ethnic'. Regardless, it's all problematic. Tombseye 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic identities do not have to exclude one another. Paul B 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, yet nothing related to ethnicity?

Ok, I'll prepare to be attacked for lack of political correctness here, but there was indeed a racial group which originally imported the indo-aryan languages to india and go by the same name. If not a disambiguation for the types of indo-aryan then perhaps a section on the indo-aryan ethnicity rather than the language body?Cold polymer 17:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That is because the peoples that speak Indo-Aryan languages(i.e Indo-Aryans) vary in ethnicity and ancestry. A Bengali/Sinhala/Punjabi can vary significantly in ethnicity/ancestry. Personally I think Indo-Aryan associated with an ethnicity will be misleading as it suggests the Indo-Aryans as a separate "race" in India as different from Dravidian peoples etc which based on most evidence is wrong as ancestry varies from community to community and caste to caste. This page does justice to Indo-Aryans and no further articles concerning them are required.B Nambiar 13:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Indo-Aryan kingdoms

I have removed the Chalukya, Chola, and Pallava kingdoms from the list since they are Dravidian kingdoms that were not part of the Mahajanapadas. Furthermore, King Ashoka's edicts explain clearly that the Chola, Chera, and Pandyas were outside of his boundaries and ruled independently. Wiki Raja 22:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Assamese and Iyengars

Firstly, Assamese belong to the Mon-Khmer family of ethnicities. Secondly, Iyengars and Iyers are the Tamil Brahmins in which Tamils are Dravidian and not Indo-Aryan. Wiki Raja 22:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan influence in Southeast Asia?

It were actually the Dravidian kingdoms such as the Cholas and Pallavas of the Tamils who had a cultural influence on Southeast Asia and who were the ones who had navies at the time which travelled as far as China. However, the Tamils also brought the Sanskrit language along with some of the Indo-Aryan ideas along with them to these lands. Wiki Raja 16:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true...thanks for mentioning it...I was just about to, but saw your post here. Le Anh-Huy 13:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes to template

I removed the rajput photo and added four pictures of notable Indo-Aryans from as diverse backgrounds as possible.
Piara Singh Gil: Physicist of Sikh descent
Benazir Bhutto: Female figure, Muslim Pakistani politician
Freddie Mercury: British musician of Farsi descent
picture- http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:Hannover7909.jpg Amartya Sen: Bengali Nobel laureate economist and academist
picture- http://www.icrw.org/html/specialevents/07-tinker-bouraoui.htm

Identification of the figures on the template itself is certainly a nice feature.Qazws11 (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please restore template without Benazir Bhutto, of half Iranian Kurd descent, and Farrokh Bulsara, a Parsi and non Indo-Aryan. There are many examples of notable Indo-Aryans. I shall proceed to delete the misleading template.KBN (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bhutto was also half-Sindhi. I agree with Mercury though, the Parsis are historically Persian and thus Iranian. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 07:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hindustani-speakers an ethnic group?

Are the Hindustani-speakers an ethnic group? How come there are no articles on the Hindi people, Hindis, Hindustani people or Hindustanis? The closest is Muhajir (Pakistan). If the Hindustani speakers are an ethnic group, why don't they have an article? Because if they where an ethnic group, they would surely be the largest in India. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 07:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Indian Diaspora to be included in the list?

Fijian Indians, Indo-Mauritians, Indo-Trinidadian, Indo-Guyanese, Afro-Indians etc, who are mostly composed of descendants of Biharis and Uttar Pradeshis and form a significant percentage in their countries. Opinions? Trips (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The "anti-genius" that used the term "coolie" to describe the Indian diaspora living in the above-mentioned countries has little on no idea as to the real regional origins (within India, such as Punjab, Gujrat, Bihar, Tamil Nad, or Madyapradesh) of the Indian diaspora and further underscores his lack of knowledge by using the pejorative racial slur "coolie" to describe the diaspora; Consequently I have corrected the above section heading in this discussion page by deleting the racial slur and inserting the technically correct and Neutral term "Indian".66.130.154.212 (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic and regional groups instead of ethnic groups

Assamese, Lhotshampas (can be any Nepali ethnic group), Lahnda, Hindustanis, Divehi, etc. are not ethnic groups. There should be no links to ethnic groups unless they have actual articles. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Is Nepali even an ethnic group? I doubt it --Maurice45 (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• • To clarify: an article that says that they're Indo-Aryan. Lhotshampas can be of any ethnic group originating in Nepal, although they're mostly Indo-Aryans, Lahnda-speakers are ethnic Punjabis, Divehis have no article, and the Assamese article says that they're a regional identity, not an ethnic group. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 09:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan Origins

There is a debate on Indo-Aryan origins and there is no evidence that justifies a specific origin, I agree that there is academic consensus on the aryan origin that alleges that they originate from outside of India, however it is still heavily debated and deserves greater weight other than a simple non-specific links. Disagreements? --Rtlevel (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this shows all indications of being a sock account, it is difficult to take your question seriously. Looie496 (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Since when was there any sort of consensus that they originated outside of India. Read up on a few of the Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.159.128 (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

why do not modern historians look at some telugu people and their language as Indo-Aryan

Many Andhra Pradesh People ie telugu people blood is European and North Indian blood. And their language, telugu, resembles more Hindi and sanskrit languages. You are looking them with different perspective because they are not on Indo-Aryan land. Some modern historians take this issue and do some research on telugu land, telugu people and telugu culture and add them to Indo-aryan group. Telugu people are loosing their identity, by being identified with Dravidian people who are basically tamil land people. I really thank if some modern historians do take research on this issue and check thoroughly on telugus. I hope to see Telugu people in this group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ureddy (talk • contribs) 20:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

as the lead states very clearly, this article lists Indo-Aryan speaking peoples. There is no such thing as a non-Indo-Aryan-speaking Indo-Aryan people. If you want to make the point that the Telugu people has Indo-Aryan roots in some meaningful sense, at least kindly present a reference to the effect. --dab (𒁳) 14:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think SineBot is true. We will look for reliable sources and let you know Jaggi81 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam make heavier use of Indo-Aryan loanwords while Tamil is puristic and rejects them more. This is analogous to the heavy use of French and Latin vocabulary in English vs. German which preferred to construct words from native elements. --JWB (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont know about Mallu and Kannada but PURE is TELUGU is nothing but sanskrit. I am not talking about the loan words. Any telugu person would agree with me.Jaggi81 (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, can you tell me what is indo-aryan language? is it devanagari script or a sanskritized lanuage? Telugu vocabulary has very few Dravidian words(you can count on your fingers) and more of sanskrit. So, I would put it this way "Telugu is a sanskritized language with few dravidian loan words". Seriously this makes more sense than saying that Telugu has sanskrit loan words. Dbachmann,Ureddy please share your viewsJaggi81 (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

Suggest we look at the Swadesh list. One for Dravidian is at wikt:Appendix:Dravidian_Swadesh_lists and at first glance it seems like many or most are similar to Tamil and the other Dravidian languages. --JWB (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

207 similarities right. In them some are sanskrit(Puvvu/pushpam etc..) well, lets look at Proper nouns. 100% of telugu nouns are derived from sanskrit Ex: Akasham-sky, Neeru-water, Agni=fire, Gruham- Home, endless.Jaggi81 (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh got you, in those 207 also, many are different. My bad .Jaggi81 (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you telugu? Jaggi81 (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Southern Indo-Aryan Languages

Marathi and Vidarbhi are the languages directly derived from the Deccani Vibhasa with minimal external influences. Old Gujarati was known as Sauraseni, and was later displaced by Gujjari ( Khazari or Middle Gujarati ). Later this language was Sanskritized to become Gujarati ( Modern Gujarati ). Andhri is included in this family, and not the Dravidian family for the following reasons :

  1. Andhri contains a much higher percentage of Sanskrit loans than the other Dravidian languages.
  2. Andhras follow the Aryan Vaishnavite religion ( cf. the Tirupati temple ), in contrast to the Dravidians, who are Shaivite.
  3. Anthropological surveys indicate that the Andhras are preponderantly mulatto ( mixed white Aryan and black Dravidian ). It thus would be natural to consider Andhri to be a creole which was gradually Sanskritized. 

Source : http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1335/Lang/prakrit.html#decc .Jaggi81 (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

True

Sanskrit writings from the 7th century BC describe the Andhra people as Aryans from the north who migrated south of the Vindhya Range and mixed with non-Aryans.

Ref:http://www.e-greenstar.com/India/Andhra-Pradesh-info.htm

Ref:http://www.archaeolink.com/gadabas_asian_minority_studies.htm

Ref:http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580539/andhra_pradesh.html

Ref:http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Andhra_Pradesh_-_History/id/4792596

Ref:http://books.google.com/books?id=i4pvVOd2L0cC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=Andhra+people+as+Aryans+from+the+north&source=bl&ots=uPNGeGU6At&sig=rxeRTkEMNrk4yARrE69tu2NSqrw&hl=en&ei=3JbKSr4EjOeUB4bZqJID&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=Andhra%20people%20as%20Aryans%20from%20the%20north&f=false

and many more 

Jaggi81 (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) There's nothing wrong with being Telugu. You should be proud of it. There is no doubt that Telugu is an Indian language and not an Indo-European langauge. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that there is no distinct "north" and "south" indian races. They are all the same people. That should make you feel better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.224.225 (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

please stop tring to conflate this with race. Also, mind WP:NOR. We will not compare swadesh lists here. If you find a linguist who classifies Telugu as Indo-Aryan, by all means cite them. Otherwise please stop spamming this page. --dab (𒁳) 07:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Relation of this article to "Indo-Aryan Migration" article

I was reading the article on the Indo-Aryan migration theories, and according to that article, there is no conclusive evidence for an invasion or migration of Indo-Aryans into the South Asian subcontinent. The article goes through very methodically and discounts previous linguistic, genetic, archaeological, and documentary (Rig Vedas) evidence.

But, how does that make sense with this article here? My understanding of this article is Indo-Aryans have existed in South Asia for thousands of years, and their descendants live on to this day.

Is there something that I am missing here? Where did the Indo-Aryans come from? How can they be so central to Indian history if they also never migrated into India in the first place (according to the other article)? Or, is the implication that the Indo-Aryans actually originated in South Asia itself and then migrated westwards into Iran and Europe?

Someone who is knowledgeable about this, please help! How can these two articles be reconciled? Or, am I totally missing something?IonNerd (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the article speaks to much of Indians, and there is very little evidence supporting their claims. The Indian sanskirt language has many burrowed words from the ancestor PIE language, making it not the home of the "Aryans" or PIE's. This is associated with the steppe theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Telugu

Telugu cannot be Indo-aryan language at all... (Extended content)

Telugu cannot be Indo-aryan language at all... 1.All Indian languages no matter how developed they are do use Sanskrit words,even for that matter Tamil! 2.Most of the so called Modern Indo-aryan languages like Hindi,Marathi,Punjabi,Bengali,Gujarati,Oriya,Konkani,Urdu,Sinhali,Asamiya and the other sub-dialects have evolved from Sanskrit,to be precise the Prakrits and the Apabhramshas. For instance: Shaurseni:gave birth to modern Hindi,Punjabi,Urdu Maharashtri:Marathi.Sinhali,Modern Konkani(again which is highly influenced by Magadhi) Magadhi family:Bengali Nagari:Gujarati and so on,most of the modern languages also have many words which are Apabhramsha (corrupted Sanskrit words) or sometimes original Sanskrit words without any change or sometimes even from tribal languages like Gondi,Kunkna,Santhali etc.All these modern languages were again highly influenced by foreign languages like English,Arabic,Portuguese,Farsi,Greek,and Dravidian languages. 3.Sanskrit has got myriad words which are not of Indo-aryan origin and such words find it roots in Dravidian or Austric languages Let me give some examples of some Sanskrit words that do not have Indo-Aryan origin Tandulah:Rice,comes from the word tandul used by the Konk people Pujan or Puja:Comes form the tamil word Pujai or Pushai ( as so called Ayrans adopted the flower offering and for that matter idol worship from the Dravidians),Pu--flower,Shai--Offer and lots more Vanika or the trader coming form the native Indus valley word Panika or Pani Panya meaning cash or commodities again having Dravidian origin Sanskrit word Dravida itself has been derived from the word Thervidam! And names of various modern Hindu gods and goddesses do not have Sanskrit origin! 4.Coming to Telugu State any single verb from Telugu many be new or old that has got its roots in Sanskrit,Prakrit,or Apabrahmsha!Excluding those which have been adopted later for literary purpose. eg: To do: In all the so called Indian aryan languages ,the word for the verb to do is kar ,which again means hand in ancient and modern Sanskrit and related languages.On the other hand its Cheyyi in Telugu,which can again means hand in Dravidan languages To eat:Indo-aryan--Khad or Kha or similar word starting with Kha whereas in Telugu and Dravidian languages -- Tinu ,Tinnu and so on To see:Indo-aryan--Pashya,Dekh,eg in modern languages:Dekh,Paha,Palay, and so on whereas in Telugu its Chudumu or Chudu Few more examples: Telugu Sanskrit Modern Indo-aryan languages Ra,Rammu,Randi(come) Aagaccha Aa,Ye,Yo,Asa Po,Vellu(Go) Aj,Ach, Ja,Jeebo,Vach Tragu(drink) Peeb Pee in almost all aryan conterparts Kurcho(sit) Upavish,vish Baith,Beso,Bas Gelavu(win) jit,jay Jeet,Jit,jey Enti(what) Kim Kya,Kay,Kite,Ke,Kee Peru(name) Naam Nam,Nav,Namo,Naa and thousands of other words... Do you see any similarity between both the languages? Can you derive the word chudu from Sanskrit Pashya or Dekh or Tinu from Khad or Bhakshya? Not offending anyone!! Telugu is a very sweet and beautiful language,Namaskaramu,bhojanamu sound really sweet why are you guys trying to spoil its beauty by confining it to a space where it ll never fit? Nijgoykar (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC) please -- nobody ever tried to classify Telugu as Indo-Aryan. There is just Jaggi81 (talk · contribs) who appears to have a bee in his bonnet about "Aryan" racial mysticism. Nothing to do with linguistic classification. --dab (𒁳) 07:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC) I understand now that verbs are different than sanskrit but why are all nouns in telugu similar to sanskrit? Just curioity. Jaggi81 (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC) I understand that a language can have loan words but why is telugu sanskritized to the extent where there are more sanskrit words as nouns than dravidian words as if there are no Dravidian nouns.Jaggi81 (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Even the words you mentioned - Tinu-eat-bhujinchu , peru-Name-Naamam , Gelavu-Win-Vijayam-Jayam , Chudu-To See-Veekshinchu All these have synonyms derived from sanskrit. All that I say is that modern researchers should do more research on this.Jaggi81 (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Jaggi, if you have sources establishing the "Prakrit roots of Telugu" come to Talk:Telugu language and present them there. But please stop spamming this page with unreferenced chatter about Telugu. --dab (𒁳) 08:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Telugu language Talk doesnt seem to be active like this one. So I came here. I believe Telugu should be classified as Indo-Aryan language. Telugu has more sanskrit words than dravidian and that is undeniable. I am presenting few facts here . In page 14 of the book- A History of Telugu Literature By Chenchiah, Bhujanga, he states -" Telugus (may) have been in the remote past a Dravidian people possessing a non-Aryan culture, but they seem to have lost their Dravidian identity very early in their history. In historical times they were so completely Aryanised in religion, language and literature, that for all purposes they may be treated as Aryans. In page 16- Telugu is Vikriti , that is a language formed my modification of sanskrit and prakrit. It would appear that Andhras adopted a form of Prakrit which, in course of development, became the immediate ancestor of Telugu. Now there are more sanskri words in telugu than Dravidian. Sanskrit is the oldest next comes Telugu. The logical proof is.. The linguistic prakriya (Game) of Sanskrit Avadhana is existing only Telugu. From this the immediate next language of Sanskrit is Telugu. In other languages Avadhana disappeared. Obviusly son possesses more features of father than grand son , because son is more immediate. I wish to see more telugu people here than Tamils(No Offense). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggi81 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC) (1) B.C. 200 -- A.D. 500 : During the first phase, we only come across names of places and personal names of Telugu in Prakrit and Sanskrit inscriptions found in the Telugu country. Telugu was exposed to the influence of Prakrit as early as the 3rd century B.C.' From this we know that the language of the people was Telugu, although the language of the rulers was different. The first complete Telugu inscription belongs to the Renati Cholas, found in Erragudipadu, Kamalapuram taluk of Cuddapah district and assigned to about A.D. 575. Source: Revenue Department (Gazetteers) Jaggi81 (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC) As Velcheru Narayana Rao states in page 3 of his book Classical Telugu Poetry: "every Sanskrit word is potentially a Telugu word as well, and literary texts in Telugu may be lexically Sanskrit or Sanskritized to an enormous extent, perhaps sixty percent or more." As C.P Brown states in page 266 of his book A Grammar of the Telugu language: "Every Telugu rule is laboriously deduced from a Sanskrit canon". As David Shulman states in page 3 of his book Classical Telugu Poetry: "The enlivening presence of Sanskrit is everywhere evident in Andhra civilization, as it is in the Telugu language". Based on all these facts Telugu should be classified into Indo-Aryan group. Jaggi81 (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Nannaya Bhattarakudu’s Andhra Mahabharatamu produced around the 11th century is commonly referred to as the first Telugu literary composition (Aadi kaavyam). Although there is evidence of Telugu literature before Nannaya, he is still referred to as Aadi Kavi (the first poet) because he was the first poet to establish a formal grammar for written Telugu. 'Nannaya meticulously laid down the ground rules and semantics of writing in Telugu by borrowing from Sanskrit grammar and inventing original rules'. Telugu literature until then was Prakrit based and devoid of a grammar. Jaggi81 (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Inscriptions containing Telugu words dated back to 400 BC were discovered in Bhattiprolu in Guntur district. English translation of one inscription reads: “Gift of the slab by venerable Midikilayakha. Primary sources are Prakrit/Sanskrit inscriptions found in the region, in which Telugu places and personal names are found. From this we know that the language of the people was Telugu, while the rulers, who were of the Satavahana dynasty, spoke Prakrit. Jaggi81 (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Some other scholars associate Telugu as originating from a frequently used Sanskrit word Kalinga or Kling, which in Puranas and Ashok's inscriptionsdepicted people of Continental India as it is even today in the Malay language. Onamaalu, or the Telugu alphabet consist of 60 symbols - 16 vowels, 3 vowel modifiers, and 41 consonants have almost 1-to-1 correspondence with Sanskrit alphabets, yet another proof of its influence on its evolution. Though no inscriptions in Telugu language (as it is written/ spoken today) have been found prior to the period 200 BC 500 AD, inferences to the existence of Telugu during that time can be made from the frequent use of words of that period found in the Telegu region found on Parakrit (Sanskrit)inscriptions and also in anthology of poems in Parakrit language, collected by the Satavahna dynasty King all point to existence of Telugu and Telugupeople in that period between the Krishna and Godavri rivers basin. Thus, we can safely presume Telugu to have originated earlier than 200 BC. (Source:Ostom Ray - Telugu The Language, People And The Land Through Ages) Jaggi81 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC) “The country will not survive if the language and culture are not protected. Sanskrit, which is mother of Indian languages, Telugu and other languages are unique in the world in the sense that they are inter-twined with life. Whatever said in the literature like Satakams written in the olden ages determines our life. The Indian literature helps in personality development and determines the life” Among the Indian languages, Telugu was the only language having closest relationship with Sanskrit and this was the reason for it continuing to be strong even now - Vedula Subrahmanya Sastry(Telugu and Sanskrit scholar) Jaggi81 (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Important Things: 1. Telugu and Tamil don't belong to the same group. 2. Telugu split from Proto-Dravidian between 1500-1000 BC. So, Telugu became a distinct language by the time any literary activity began to appear in the Tamil land. This is a universal fact but (No offense) but some Tamils language fanatics always try to categorize Telugu with Tamil leaving no room for discussion. Jaggi81 (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC) All your personal agenda jaggi81,your personal oinions and your own research,and it is not at all significant nor will it make any difference.Telugu and Tamil belong to the same language group no matter what you say or write! This article is not for discussing history and evolution of any language! Nijgoykar (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC) well only this one I found in a discussion forum. All the facts stated above are true. But Telugu definitely has different language structure than Tamil whether you agree or not. Jaggi81 (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Not evolution but I provided those facts to prove that telugu can be listed under Indo-Aryan. Jaggi81 (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC) References

Article

The article clearly says that the indo-aryans originated outside of India and then migrated into the subcontinent even though there is no evidence supporting this fact. Can someone make the required changes to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.34.176 (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 11 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

I'd like to request a removal of the term "European Aryan" as they are not a real ethno-linguistic group and furthermore the Andronovo culture is only related to Indo-Aryan and possibly Indo-Iranian branches not the European branch of Indo-European.

Thanks

"The spread of Indo-Aryan languages has been connected with the spread of the chariot in the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE. Some scholars trace the Indo-Aryans (both Indo-Aryans and European Aryans) back to the Andronovo culture (2nd millennium BCE). Other scholars[8] have argued that the Andronovo culture proper formed too late to be associated with the Indo-Aryans of India, and that no actual traces of the Andronovo culture (e.g. warrior burials or timber-frame materials) have been found in India and Southern countries like Sri Lanka and the Maldives.[9]"

122.107.164.91 (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about this edit-request, so I'm going to cancel the request for now, and request another opinion below; if consensus is shown, we could change it. Thanks for your understanding,  Chzz  ►  22:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

{{3O}}

Definition and Concept of "Indo Aryan" appears to be Wikipedia POV

I am not sure where the Categorization and Definition of Indo-Aryan came from, but the concept in its current form does not appear to exist outside of what has been created here on Wikipedia. Can we have more non-wikipedia sources on this term? My understanding is that the earliest written evidence of a anyone refering to themself as 'Aryan' in ethnicity is from the Behistun Inscription of Darius the Great who was Persian, and his successors. Whereas here, we have now changed the concept to distinctly "Indian". This entire content on Wikipedia, as well as the related articles, sounds like POV to me and needs revisiting and edited with actual non-wikipedia-derived sources. PenningtonClassical (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Persians are also from the same family, they are Indo-Iranians so I don't know what you're talking about, this does not refer simply to Indians (who are a nationality not an ethnicity) you're mistaking the two concepts. Anyway Iran should be included on the significant population section. Iran has over 50m Indo-Aryans living in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.133.46 (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Aryan Invasion Theory was a myth!

The Aryan Invasion Theory was a myth spread by the britishers.New study have found it wrong.Reference: http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html and http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-09-25/india/28107253_1_incidence-of-genetic-diseases-indians-tribes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturn HT (talk • contribs) 07:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. We've heard this nonsense a million times. Paul B (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not nonsense it's proved.

By who? David Frawley? A man with no qualifications who repeats the baloney of P. N. Oak. Anyway the "theory" was not created by the British at all. It was German scholars who had no ideoloiocal stake in the origins of Indo-European who proposed an ancient migration into the north of India. Please remember that such ancient migrations happened in all European countries too. Paul B (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I never said that british created the theory.Ya I know mirgation occurs but i wanted no say that Aryan Invasion Theory is wrong and no mirgation occured that time in India!60,000 years ago people from africa settled in South India and 25,000 years later people from europe came and settled in northern part of india.Initially the north and south population met creating a different set of people.In present day Indians are a mix of north and south.I think now this topic is clear.

No it is not. You are confusing the large-scale genetic history of Indian populations with the origins of Indo-Aryan culture. That is an issue of ethno-linguistics. Paul B (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

OK,I and the few newspapers can be wrong.But then what's the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturn HT (talk • contribs) 17:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What has been 'disproved' is the notion that there was a mass invasion in the bronze age and that the upper classes/castes in India are all or mostly descended from these invaders. That's the kind of scenario described in novels such as The Venus of Konpara, but it was never the same thing as the notion of migrations of Indo-Iranian speakers from the hypothetical Proto-Indo-European homeland (or "urheimat"). It remains the dominant view that IE languages enered India during the bronze age, bringing with them proto-"Aryan" religious idea that evolved into Vedic culture. That may have involved a small number of people and been spread by cultural dissemination. See Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses. Paul B (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

“There is no genetic evidence that Indo-Aryans invaded or migrated to India or even something such as Aryans existed” said Dr Lalji Singh, former director of CCMB and regarding the language that Hindi is a IE language.Sanskrit is the mother of all european language so it's obvious that IE language entered India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturn HT (talk • contribs) 08:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course Aryans existed, if "Aryans" is taken to mean Indo-Iranians or Proto-Indo-Europeans. And no, Sanskrit is not the mother of all European languages. That's just Hindu nationalist ideology. Read the articles. Paul B (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul Barlow, this article is totally biased when it comes to origins of the Indo-Aryan people. Such articles on Wikipedia are totally unacceptable. I agree that there are theories that claim Indo-Aryans migrated from Central Asia, but there are also theories that claim that Indo-Aryans originated in India and could have have migrated elsewhere from there. Even looking at the latest genetic research, there is clear indication that hapologroups R1a and R2 could have originated in South Asia. You need to do more detailed research before dismissing criticism. Wikipedia is not meant to profess your opinion or what you personally believe in. It is meant to report unbiased state-of-the-art knowledge. The Aryan migration theory is by all means an old theory that most people in the West prefer to stick to (for reasons of ease or other sinister reasons, I do not know). And the current state of things is that while there is a theory of Aryan migration into India there is also a theory of Aryan origin in India. The Origins section in this article needs to be modified to reflect this fact in clear terms. Regards. Apalaria (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This is just yet another example of utter confusion in which you are merrily mixing up linguistic, cultural and genetic issues. You also seem to confuse the PIE urheimat with Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan. This is typically of Indian nationalist attitudes. Why on earth is it so important to believe that a language group originated in your subcontinent? No-one else seems to mind where the P.I.E. population spread from. Paul B (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Utter confusion on my part?? It is you who is confusing the matter, sir. For the purposes of this article, I do not care where the language came from (even that can be debated though because the criterion on which Central Asia is believed to be the homeland is just a hypothesis and by no means fool-proof). This article is, however, not about the language. This article is about the Indo-Aryan people. All through ancient Hindu writings and texts, "Arya" is the title by which the people of Vedic period are addressed. You cannot present the Vedic people (aka Sanskrit/ Prakrit speaking group) as migrants from elsewhere when that is clearly not the universally accepted opinion - on the contrary, based on archaeological and genetic evidence, there is increasing debate and disbelief on this older hypothesis based primarily on linguistics. Talking of why I care - because I care for correct information and knowledge. It is the same reason for which anyone cares about any historical truth. If nobody cares, why does this article even exist? As I mentioned before, please correct the information presented herein. Apalaria (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC) To clarify the matter of language versus people, let me give you an example. English is a widely-spoken language in India today (and the second official language). Based on this evidence, do you think it would be appropriate for a historian 1000 years in the future to declare that the British migrated to India and became the present-day Indians? Widespread use of a language that is not indigenous (supposing that is the case) is not a proof of migration. Apalaria (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Boy oh boy. English is only spoken because the was a migration of English people to India, who became the ruling elite for a (short) period. That's exactly why English is spoken. No-one says that the Indo-Europeans "migrated to India and became the present day Indians". That's such an utter failure to undertand the issue that it shows you don't even begin to grasp what the argument is about. The whole point is that language only migrates if people do. They may be a small elite, or they may be a large population displacing earlier people. It depends on the circumstances. English is the language spoken in America, but the proportion of people who genetically originate from the English-speaking setters who established the language is quite small. The Indo-Aryan migration model is all about the advent of the language and the relation of the language to culture. Vedic culture emerged in "India" (though, of course "india" is itself a loose, and fundamentally artifical, concept like all national identities. Nature does not have borders). But it evolved from earlier Indo-Iranian and P.I.E. cultures. And of course the word "Arya" is at least as old in Iran as in the Indus valley. Just as all cultures evolve from earlier ones. The French language is basically Latin. The word "France" comes from the Franks, a Germnan tribe. Most of the population derived fron Celtic Gauls, who themselves probably originated outside of France. You don't find the French getting outraged by the idea that their culture emerges from a mix of influences. Paul B (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Because you mentioned, "But it evolved from earlier Indo-Iranian and P.I.E. cultures." - there is no proof of that. Two cultures can have similarities owing to their geographical proximity but stating that one culture evolved from another because they have similarities is taking a huge leap of faith. Other than that you very loosely state your personal opinions as fact in your replies (which is also what you have done with the "Origins" section of the article), you also digress from the main point here. Which peoples argue what and what not is beside the point. There is no outrage and I have no wish to change your personal views and opinions on the matter. Let us get back to the root issue here. Main point - according to state-of-the-art knowledge, the information in this article is misrepresented and incomplete. The issue is to correct that. So let us focus on getting the article corrected. Apalaria (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, I notice you mentioned "Indo-Aryan migration model is all about the advent of the language and the relation of the language to culture." Well-said. Indo-Aryan migration model is based primarily on linguistics and that is why it fails to explain archaeological and genetic evidence. You could perhaps use it to explain the origin of the Indo-Aryan language but not the Indo-Aryan people, because the term Indo-Aryans represents the people living in India during the Vedic period - they could have all been settlers from Central Asia, or they could have had a small number of settlers from Central Asia living among them or they could possibly have had no settlers from Central Asia among them at all (it is very much possible that EVEN if Indo-Aryan languages came from outside India, the languages could simply have been adopted - just like English has been adopted in so many countries around the world today) - we do not have conclusive evidence of either. So the point here is - you may be able to use the Indo-Aryan migration theory to conjecture on the origins of the Indo-Aryan languages, but you CANNOT use the Indo-Aryan migration theory alone to comment on the origins of the Indo-Aryan people. You need to correct that in this article. Apalaria (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6UDwSWxKcwk

David wood confirms brahmins weren't indo aryan and did not write the rig veda. Sakayriaz (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Proof that "Aryans" ever made it to India?

The concept of the Aryans ever being involved in India is not proven. The Aryan theory is being labeled as a "colonial invasion theory" in the early 1900s. That theory was disputed even then, since there is not a single shred of physical evidence, written or archeological to support that theory. See: Klostermaier, Klaus K., "Hinduism, a Short History", pg 37-40.

Hopefully it can be fixed with current research, and not dubious research that links all of mankind's achievements to one "supposed master" race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3400:D2:C006:3068:A036:5381 (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You're confusing "Indo-Aryan peoples" with Aryan race. Klostermaier is not the best of sources. You should read Anthony, David W. (2007), The Horse The Wheel And Language. How Bronze-Age Riders From the Eurasian Steppes Shaped The Modern World, Princeton University Press, which gives a broad overview on Indo-European migrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 01:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Images of Indo-Aryans

Images of some well-known Indo-Aryan people (as an example) should be added to this article. Like it exists for most other ethnic groups (e.g. Iranian peoples or Slavs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvansages (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Pashayi people

Pashayi people and their language is normally considered Indo-Aryan, including on Wikipedia and academic sources. I added them to the list. I have reverted a user twice who seems to assume they are not Indo-Aryan people when no source corroborates him. Khestwol (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you've been reverted for adding unsourced content. No assumptions being made. You need to support what you are adding. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am leaving it to other users to decide. As for me it was clear they are Indo-Aryan. FYI: you have violated the 3 revert rule, Scalhotrod. Khestwol (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2014

Planted_map. The Indo-Aryan (also mentioned as the Indo-European) languages are spoken over many countries. this is a fake data to divide the Aryan people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.175 (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe we should put the numbers of Indo Aryans living in the diaspora (including Romani peoples) into the box showing the number of Indo Aryan people for an accurate number of Indo Aryan Peoples. For example, in U.S.A. 3,183,063 Indians, 110,616 Nepalis, 1,300,000 Pakistanis, 45,159 Sinhalese, 147,300 Bangladeshis and 1,000,000 Romani bringing a total of 5,786,138 Indo Aryans in the U.S. IndoEuropean3000B.C. (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2014‎ (UTC)

All Indians are Ind-Aryans? Get real. Find us some very good sources. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2014‎ (UTC)

I am sorry, I saw the number of Dravidian peoples living in the U.S. and I subtracted to the 3.1 million figure you see and I got 1.2 million Indians most likely of Indo Aryan origin in the U.S. IndoEuropean3000B.C. (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Orphaned references in Indo-Aryan peoples

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Indo-Aryan peoples's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "biomedcentral.com":

• From Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia: Thanseem, Ismail; Thangaraj, Kumarasamy; Chaubey, Gyaneshwer; Singh, Vijay; Bhaskar, Lakkakula VKS; Reddy, B Mohan; Reddy, Alla G; Singh, Lalji (2006). "Genetic affinities among the lower castes and tribal groups of India: Inference from Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA". BMC Genetics. 7: 42. doi:10.1186/1471-2156-7-42. PMC 1569435. PMID 16893451.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• From Gujarati people: "Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans". Biomedcentral.com. Retrieved 9 December 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Indic

Indic is a common term for dravidian, Aryan, andamanese south east asian peoples. Refer [1]--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Pebble101 contested

Pebble101's version of the section has been contested by an unregistered IP user 117.192.199.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who proposes the following text. Both the versions are quite inscrutable to me. I stand by my earlier stance that a detailed discussion of genetics does not belong in this section. Hence, I am going to reset it back to what it was before Pebble101's edits. Both of you should discuss the content here and come to a consensus, which is understandable to the rest of us, before making any edits to this section. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

Main article: Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia According to the phylogeographic distribution of haplotypes observed among South Asian populations defined by social and linguistic criteria, the possibility arose of Y-DNA haplogroup F and mtDNA Haplogroup M might have originated in South Asia. The presence of several haplogroup F, Haplogroup M and K that are largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent is consistent with the scenario that a coastal (southern route) of early human migration out of Africa carried ancestral Eurasian lineages first to the coast of the Indian subcontinent, or that some of them originated there. Studies based on mtDNA variation have reported genetic unity across various Indian sub–populations. The expansion of populations around 9000 BP in Iran and then to 6,000 BP in India, this migration originated in what was historically termed Elam in south-west Iran to the Indus valley, and may have been associated with the spread of Dravidian speakers from south-west Iran. Subsequently, the Indo-Aryan migrations into subcontinent from Sintashta culture about 4,000 BP. and the Tibeto-Burmans and Austroasiatics via the Himalayan and north-eastern borders of the subcontinent around 4,200 BP. The most frequent mtDNA haplogroups in the Indian subcontinent are M, R and U. All major Y chromosome DNA haplogroups in the subcontinent are Haplogroup F's descendant haplogroups R (mostly R2a, R2 and R1a1), L, H and J (mostly J2). Haplogroup F itself is found mostly in South Asia.other notable haplogroups include O3 among Tibeto-Burman speakers, O2a among Austroasiatic speakers, G, P and T. Haplogroup R1a1 in particular is associated with Indo-Aryans in South Asia. In South Asia R1a1 has been observed often with high frequency in a number of demographic groups, especially among Indo-Aryans. Its parent clade Haplogroup R1a is believed to have its origins in the South Asia or the Eurasian Steppe, whereas its successor clade R1a1 has the highest frequency and time depth in South Asia, making it a possible locus of origin. However, the uneven distribution of this haplogroup among South Asian castes and tribal populations makes a Central Eurasian origin of this lineage a strong possibility as well. References

That person is me, I couldn't long in at University but yes, I have removed Hgr9 and Hgr3 variants as i wasn't sure weather its related it Haplgoroup H or Haplogroup L but Sengupta 2006 connects that migration to Haplogroup L, see page for more info. User LouisAragon also brought it to my notice yesterday, hope that clears things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem about not being able to log in, but your edit really is very hard to understand and I can't see it as useful to our readers. Most of it doesn't even seem to relate to this article, which isn't surprising as it was copied from another article. But we could use sources and perhaps revisions to the earlier section. Doug Weller (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It does relate to this article as it's part of early migration into subcontinent. Genetic studies gives a clear picture of these migrations, each haplogroup found in subcontinent further explains these migrations, time period and origin. And link to Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia also further provides resourceful information regarding these migrations. Pebble101 (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I've posted this to Pebble101's talk page: Besides the fact that I doubt that the average reader could understand your edits, the problems with the English and doubts about how relevant it all is, we have a guideline for era style at WP:ERA. This is a BCE article and you are using an era style that I don't recognise, YBP. There is of course BP, but that can only be used if the source does and candy be translated directly into calendar years. Please fix this as I don't plan to check your sources. I presume you have actually read your sources and only used material from the summary or discussion spect ions. If that's not the case then you shouldn't be using them. Doug Weller (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I've asked people at the most relevant wikiprojects (not the ethnic group one but also the genetics wikiproject) to review Pebble101's edit. Doug Weller (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Good, I would like genetics wikipoject to review the edit as well considering previous existing edit was immature, while my edit provides all basic information regarding early human migration into subcontinent that shaped modern south asian population. Every ethnic page on wikipedia gives basic information on genetics and haplogroups, not racial science. Pebble101 (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• As far as genetic study is concerned I think we can add this type of study in more suitable manner. Genetic study can be part of ethnic article. @Pebble101: You reverted me, its ok, I will not revert you back, I don't want to do edit war. But if someone else reverts you then do not revert him/her again because you will break 3rr rule and you may get blocked for few hours/days. Your edits seems not disruptive, genetic study can be added. But it can be written in better way for sake of common public. Have patience.--Human3015^TALK  20:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - I agree. Pebble101 (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Contested edits

All my sources regarding my edit. It provides all basic information regarding early migration into subcontinent and major haplogroups in South Asia. Every ethnic page on wikipedia gives basic information on genetics and haplogroups, not racial science. If there is something you disagree with in the edit, then point it out. Pebble101 (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Pebble101: First of all I want to say that you may get blocked soon, when you will come back that time come with some patience. Anyway, you have written in more genetic language which may not serve public purpose. You have written that " the possibility arose of Y-DNA haplogroup F and mtDNA Haplogroup M might have originated in South Asia", but which people belong to "Y-DNA haplogroup" or "mtDNA"? Lower caste? Upper caste? tribal? or else? Earlier version was more simpler one. --Human3015^TALK  20:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Each haplogroup is linked to it's specific page where it provides enough information on that topic, I have added information about R1a1 haplogroup and it's affiliation with Indo-Aryans since it's found at high % among Indo-Aryan speakers due to its founder effect. All major haplogroups are found in all linguistic groups to some existent. I've also linked Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia which provides further information regarding modern south asian population. If they want to block me for proving sane informative edit then i can't be bothered with this page anymore. Pebble101 (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Pebble101: Those things have separate articles so it doesn't mean that you should not elaborate on it. Specially you keep on writting people of "XYZ" haplogroup belongs to this region etc without mentioning which people belongs to that group. These concepts are uncommon so it needs some explanation. Whatevr you are writing we can write it in more simpler manner and it can be added in separate subsection on "Genetics" in which we can link parent article regarding genetics of south asian people without removing current matter. And anyway, getting blocked is not the end, I have been blocked for 5 times for edit warring, it happens with new or less experienced editors. You can contribute in better way once your block gets over. --Human3015^TALK  21:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Pebbles, I hope you first acknowledge the issue WP:LISTEN. The problem is not the quality of your references but 1) there is a better section in that article to present information on genetic populations; and 2) the mashed style, and heavily technical language you quote is useless in Wikipedia, even if it is referenced, because you are not translating for the readers the meaning of the research you quote.

I read in the edit history that you stated a few times that there is nothing difficult to understand in your text and you seem to assume that the reader is well versed in genetics. Please remember Wikipedia is not a scientific WP:NOTJOURNAL and the summary you are proposing should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in molecular biology. Your challenge as a Wikipedia editor is to make the information understandable. And of course, to collaborate. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree witht he criticisms above: genetics need explanations. Lonks to other articles won't do. Also, simply copy-pasting the text again into the talkpage won't do either. I'll try to give a more detailed critic, and also include two of Pebble101's removals. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dravidian speakers

• diff 21:27, 9 October 2015. Edit summary: "Removed extremely WP:FRINGE information after User:LouisAragon brought it to my notice, adding reliable study from Sengupta et al paper."

In essence, the following information was removed:

"The genetic analysis of two Y chromosome variants, Hgr9 and Hgr3 provides insightful data. Microsatellite variation of Hgr9 among Iranians, Indians and Pakistanis indicate an expansion of populations to around 9000 YBP in Iran and then to 6,000 YBP in India. This migration originated in what was historically termed Elam in south-west Iran to the Indus valley, and may have been associated with the spread of Dravidian speakers from south-west Iran"

and replaced by:

"Two Y chromosome variants L and H is associated with Dravidian speakers."

So, what's fringe about this? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

NB: this info was reinserted at 16:51, 10 October 2015 by Pebble101, so I guess it's no longer problematic? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The text above was deleted by an unregistered user 117.192.199.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is probably using a dynamic IP address. We have no idea when he/she will come back to discuss. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Basu

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_peoples&type=revision&diff=685257963&oldid=685254864 diff (among others).

So, why was Basu removed? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that Basu's bullet-list needs re-ordering, and may be merged with info provided by Pebble101, such as the Drividian origins. NB: this is an intriguing sentence: "there is an underlying unity of female lineages in India, indicating that the initial number of female settlers may have been small." Thes ame is being said about the Indo-Aryan migrations. For those among us living in western Europe: we're witnessing the same phenomenon now with the Syrian refugees. It's like looking at the history-books coming alive in front of our eyes. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Addition of genetical studies

I've split Pebble101's addition. Please try to answer our questions seriously; pretend you're the teacher at a schoolclass mixed with highly gifted students and common people, who are very interested, but need some introductions. The answers must be understandable for the common people; the highly gifted students will give you a hell of detailed questions when the explanation is not clear. Succes! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Haplogroup F and M

• "According to the phylogeographic distribution of haplotypes observed among South Asian populations defined by social and linguistic criteria, the possibility arose of Y-DNA haplogroup F and mtDNA Haplogroup M might have originated in South Asia."

References

So? What's a haplotype? What does it mean that haplogroup F and haplogroup M may have originated in South Asia? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Recall that the Y-chromosome and mtDNA are directly passed down from the parent to the child. There is no crossover, only mutation. So, once a mutation has occurred in one individual, it is carried through in all of his/her descendants, essentially forever. The Haplogroup F (Y-DNA) (a group of related nucleotides in the Y-chromosome) arose from the mutation that occurred in one male individual 48,000 BP, and that individual is believed to have been in South Asia. Likewise the Haplogroup M (mtDNA) arose from a mutation that occurred in one female individual 60,000 BP, and that individual is believed to have been in South Asia. That is as far as I get. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Coastal (southern) route

• "The presence of several haplogroup F, Haplogroup M and K that are largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent is consistent with the scenario that a coastal (southern route) of early human migration out of Africa carried ancestral Eurasian lineages first to the coast of the Indian subcontinent, or that some of them originated there."

References

Emphasize the coastal (southern) route; that's understandable. When did this happen? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

According to Genetics and archeogenetics of South Asia, that was 60,000 years BP. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice that it was around the same time that the mitochondrial Eve of the Haplogroup M occurred. So, it is possible that she lived somewhere along the coastal route from Africa to South Asia, but the majority of her descendants ended up in South Asia. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Genetic variation

• "Studies based on mtDNA variation have reported genetic unity across various Indian sub–populations."

References

What's the consequence of "genetic unity"? Which sub-populations? Which time-range? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dravidian speakers

• "The expansion of populations around 9000 BP in Iran and then to 6,000 BP in India, this migration originated in what was historically termed Elam in south-west Iran to the Indus valley, and may have been associated with the spread of Dravidian speakers from south-west Iran. "

References

Okay, interesting. Fit for addition, I'd say. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan migrations

• "Subsequently, the Indo-Aryan migrations into subcontinent from Sintashta culture about 4,000 BP. and the Tibeto-Burmans and Austroasiatics via the Himalayan and north-eastern borders of the subcontinent around 4,200 BP."

Clear. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

mtDNA haplogroups

• "The most frequent mtDNA haplogroups in the Indian subcontinent are M, R and U."

References

So? What does that mean? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Major Y chromosome DNA haplogroups

• "All major Y chromosome DNA haplogroups in the subcontinent are Haplogroup F's descendant haplogroups R (mostly R2a, R2 and R1a1), L, H and J (mostly J2). Haplogroup F itself is found mostly in South Asia.other notable haplogroups include O3 among Tibeto-Burman speakers, O2a among Austroasiatic speakers, G, P and T."

References

So? What does that mean? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Haplogroup R1a1 associated with Indo-Aryans

• "Haplogroup R1a1 in particular is associated with Indo-Aryans in South Asia. In South Asia R1a1 has been observed often with high frequency in a number of demographic groups, especially among Indo-Aryans. Its parent clade Haplogroup R1a is believed to have its origins in the South Asia or the Eurasian Steppe, whereas its successor clade R1a1 has the highest frequency and time depth in South Asia, making it a possible locus of origin. However, the uneven distribution of this haplogroup among South Asian castes and tribal populations makes a Central Eurasian origin of this lineage a strong possibility as well."

References

This belongs to the next subsection, doesn't it? The core info is that genetics may suggest Indian origins, but Central Eurasian origins are more likely, given the higher frequency in the north. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK

Peopling of India seems to me to be the proper place for most of this info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

At further reflection: this whole article is unnecessary. The "Earliest migrations" section duplicates "Peopling of India"; and the migration-section doubles Indo-Aryan migration theory. I suggest we strip it of all but the lists. And I'll just do so, per WP:BOLD. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Approved! But noting that the Peopling of India article is in terrible shape.--regentspark (comment) 15:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Early migrations edits by Pebble101

Copied from User talk:Kautilya3

Kautilya, I have enough knowledge about this subject, it's important to explain how ANI and ASI came to be as South Asia are product of ANI and ASI admixture which is known as 'Indian cline'.

It's not good to having early 20th century racial-type categorization in topic, it's out-dated. Genetics gives much more detailed understanding of the topic.

Is there any reason it was revered? Today, I added how ASI, Proto East Asia and Andamaese split with the appearance of Y-DNA CF haplogroup and later F haplogroup and it's decedents. M mtdna is oldest Haplogroup in South Asia and related to Andamanese M mtna, as are all M mtdnas in the world. However all Y-DNA AND R U mtdna in South Asia are not found in Andamanese due to their isolation after the split some 50,000 to 40,500 ybp. They are ASI related group through M mtdna.

Here is chart of splitting of Eurasians, I'll try to get this chart in Wikicommons in the future after getting permission from Reich et al but at movement it gives a basic idea on how 'Indian cline' was formed. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2010/11/reich1.png - The chart is from Reich et al study, Reconstruction of Indian population. Pebble101 (talk)

I understand your concern, i'll be removing ANI and ASI topic from the Indo-Aryan page atm as one can find more detailed information in Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia.

I will only add this for now - as it will give basic information about Indo-Aryan people, migration and Indo-Aryan associated haplogroup R1a1

article text

The genetic analysis of two Y chromosome variants, Hgr9 and Hgr3 provides insightful data. Microsatellite variation of Hgr9 among Iranians, Indians and Pakistanis indicate an expansion of populations to around 9000 YBP in Iran and then to 6,000 YBP in India. This migration originated in what was historically termed Elam in south-west Iran to the Indus valley, and may have been associated with the spread of Dravidian speakers from south-west Iran Subsequently, the Indo-European migration into subcontinent from Sintashta culture about 4,000 ybp. and the Tibeto-Burmans and Austroasiatics via the Himalayan and north-eastern borders of the subcontinent. The most frequent mtDNA haplogroups in the Indian subcontinent are M, R and U. All major Y chromosome DNA haplogroups in the subcontinent are Haplogroup F's descendant haplogroups R (mostly R2a, R2 and R1a1), L, H and J (mostly J2). other minor but notable haplogroups include O3 among Tibeto-Burman speakers, O2a among Austroasiatic speakers, G and T. Haplogroup R1a1 in particular is associated with Indo-Aryans in South Asia. In South Asia R1a1 has been observed often with high frequency in a number of demographic groups, especially among Indo-Aryans. Its parent clade Haplogroup R1a is believed to have its origins in the South Asia or the Eurasian Steppe, whereas its successor clade R1a1 has the highest frequency and time depth in South Asia, making it a possible locus of origin. However, the uneven distribution of this haplogroup among South Asian castes and tribal populations makes a Central Eurasian origin of this lineage a strong possibility as well. References

Would this be okay? it gives all basic information Pebble101 (talk)

@Pebble101: I am glad you are knowledgeable about the subject. However, you are still new to Wikipedia, and you need to better understand the policies and protocols here. First of all WP:BRD tells you that if a "bold edit" is reverted, you should discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Re-reverting constitutes edit-warring and it is frowned upon. Your contribution is not lost. It is still in the edit history, and we can go back and retrieve it after consensus is reached.

As for the matter at dispute, I have three concerns: (1) The section you are editing is not about genetics. There is a separate section for it at the bottom. So that is where any new material on genetic evidence should go. (2) The section titled "Early migrations..." is a quick summary of what people might have lived in India before the arrival of Indo-Aryans. It should not be expanded to become an entire article of its own. (3) The material you add in this section should be understandable by a non-specialist, and it should relate to people rather than DNA markers. Do you think you can do that? - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note also that the material you removed from the first section is sourced to Basu et al (2003), except for the first sentence. I find nothing wrong with it. So please state clearly what your objection is. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I do try to fix basic information on here as most people get their first-hand information from wikipedia before doing any major research work. Early Migrations - The current version we have covers it as "Haplogroup F and it's descendant Haplogroups" which makes up modern South-Asians from 40,000 ybp, link to F covers this. Previously existing Y-DNA haplgoroups (Pre-F Haplogroups) does not exist in South Asia anymore. M mtdna is oldest linage in South Asia, link to M covers this as well. So, we have all basics covered here that makes up modern South Asians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry. I don't understand. I am not interested in your version yet. The old version that you overwrote [2] is sourced to Basu et al (2003). What is wrong with it? Why is there a need to change it? - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

1) Y-DNA F and mtDNA-M represents the oldest linage in South Asian, as modern population are decedent of these two specific haplogroups and it's sub-clads. 2) Basu et al is good but some of those have been debunked (no mention of time-period of major migrations either) in newer studies as earliest arrivals are Adivasi F and M, we do not know what language they spoke before adopting Dravidian, Indo-European or Austro-Asiatic languages but there is 'Vedda langauge' in Sri Lanka which is linguistic isolate and they predominantly carry Haplogroup F like Adivasi tribals so they could have spoken a language related to that. 3)Rice-farming appears during Late Harrapa period and is associated with Austro-Asiatic speakers (Y-DNA O2a) in South Asia, so they are not earliest arrivals.

I have simplified the reich et al study for easier understanding in Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia, According to the study "ASI" is not found in South Asia since split happened 40,500 ybp but mtDNA-M represents this old linage in South Asia.

article text

According to the phylogeographic distribution of haplotypes observed among South Asian populations defined by social and linguistic criteria, the possibility arose of Y-DNA haplogroup F and mtDNA Haplogroup M might have originated in South Asia. The presence of several haplogroup F, Haplogroup M and K that are largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent is consistent with the scenario that a coastal (southern route) of early human migration out of Africa carried ancestral Eurasian lineages first to the coast of the Indian subcontinent, or that some of them originated there. Studies based on mtDNA variation have reported genetic unity across various Indian sub–populations. Conclusions of studies based on Y Chromosome variation and Autosomal DNA variation have been varied, although many researchers argue that most of the ancestral nodes of the phylogenetic tree of all the mtDNA types originated in the subcontinent. Recent genome studies appear to show evidence in support of the notion that modern south Asians (both Indo-Aryans and Dravidians) are a hybrid population descending from two genetically divergent populations referred to as the 'Ancestral North Indians' related to western eurasians and the 'Ancestral South Indians' who are not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent. References

This covers all basics of early migration and making of modern South Asians. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs)

I'll be adding this part in earliest migration in Indo-Aryan peoples.

article text

According to the phylogeographic distribution of haplotypes observed among South Asian populations defined by social and linguistic criteria, the possibility arose of Y-DNA haplogroup F and mtDNA Haplogroup M might have originated in South Asia. The presence of several haplogroup F, Haplogroup M and K that are largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent is consistent with the scenario that a coastal (southern route) of early human migration out of Africa carried ancestral Eurasian lineages first to the coast of the Indian subcontinent, or that some of them originated there. Studies based on mtDNA variation have reported genetic unity across various Indian sub–populations. References

It should explain basic information about earliest migration into South Asia during Paleolithic era. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs)

@Pebble101:Sorry, none of your versions are as informative as the Basu et al (2003) version. They are still couched in genetic terminology and don't speak of populations. I am not sure why you are so bent on deleting the Basu-based text. You haven't answered that to my satisfaction. Please expect further objections if you replace the text. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pebble101: My objection still stands. This introductory section is not about genetics. We need to talk about populations as the old version did. Please feel free to put genetic information in the appropriate section. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Genetics gives basic and accurate idea about early migrations unlike concept of "Oids", my previous version is accurate, you can't explain migrations through racial science. Have you come across any page that gives such silly race-type based information regarding ethnic or linguistic group? It's immature.

Regrading use of racial types in Balgir's 2004 and 2006 CFSL study -

article text

Balgir (2004) designates tribes as Australoid or Proto-Australoid according to language family. A 2006 CFSL research article which assessed "3522 individuals belonging to 54 endogamous Indian populations, representing all major ethnic, linguistic and geographic groups for genetic variations to support such classifications found no conclusive evidence. It further summed that "the absence of genetic markers to support the general clustering of population groups based on ethnic, linguistic, geographic or socio-cultural affiliations" undermines the broad groupings based on such affiliations that exist in population genetic studies and forensic databases.

As stated above, it's simply not logical in terms of South Asia to characterize migrations into racial type. Genetics gives a basic idea of shared heritage through migrations across sub-continent. I have given every basic reliable information for basic understanding regarding early migration into Indian-Subcontinent. We should keep the previous version instead of promoting concepts of racial science.

P. S - I've also linked Indo-European migrations in {{Main|Indo-European migrations|Indo-Aryan migration}} - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs)

If your problem is the mention of "oids", that is only in the first sentence, which you are free to rewrite. There is no need to replace the rest of the section which is sourced to a recent research article Basu (2003). I notice that I have told you this on 9 February, when I also warned you about edit-warring. But edit-warring is what you are doing right now. While the matter is in dispute, the pre-dispute version should stay. Do you get that? And, for heaven's sake, please sign your posts! - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concern but i have included over 5 studies, it gives a clear picture of early migrations into subcontinent through genetic studies, and link to Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia and each haplogroup found in subcontinent further explains these migrations and origin. I have already given source against the use of 'oids' when it comes to explaining these migrations into South Asia. Pebble101 (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Pebble101 - your text uses gentis.ru which fails WP:RS. It also uses a backup website of a Scottish clan, the McDonalds. Why did you think that was suitable? If you want to copy material from other articles it's your responsibiity to make sure the references meet our criteria and actually back the text they are used for. Doug Weller (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Some copyvio

There is probably more, and I think these have been in a while, but here's what I found looking at an edit in another article:

"According to the phylogeographic distribution of haplotypes observed among South Asian populations defined by social and linguistic criteria, the possibility arose of Y-DNA haplogroup F and mtDNA Haplogroup M might have originated in South Asia." is copyvio from the source with a possible pov change: "On the basis of the combined phylogeographic distributions of haplotypes observed among populations defined by social and linguistic criteria, candidate HGs that most plausibly arose in situ within the boundaries of present-day India include C5-M356, F*-M89, H-M69*"[3]

"The presence of several haplogroup F, Haplogroup M and K that are largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent is consistent with the scenario that a coastal of early human migration out of Africa carried ancestral Eurasian lineages first to the coast of the Indian subcontinent, or that some of them originated there" cf with "The presence of several subclusters of F and K (H, L, R2, and F*) that are largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent is consistent with the scenario that the coastal (southern route) migration(s) from Africa carried the ancestral Eurasian lineages first to the coast of Indian subcontinent (or that some of them originated there)."[4] Doug Weller (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Contemporary people

Are there criteria for inclusion of a group in this list? I note that a few castes are included but hundreds are missing and that some subgroups (Saraiki people, for example) are included while others (Pahari people) are not. --regentspark (comment) 02:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: A bit late but the lead of the article speaks of ethno-linguistic groups so we should restrict it to those groups. Caste groups have therefore been removed. As far as I know Saraiki people are a distinct ethno-linguistic group whereas Pahari is a language family. Individual Pahari groups like Garwhalis etc should be included. Damien2016 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead map

I believe the main map used on the info box should be deleted as in my opinion it is not very accurate. For example many distinct languages are classed under the banner of Hindi such as Marwari and Maithili neither of which are dialects of Hindi. Damien2016 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the map is useful. If it is not accurate, please generate consensus and get it modified at the Graphics lab. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of consensus, an editor going by a different name (Axomika), who seems to be politically motivated, has deleted the map, which I restored, with recommendations for redress given on their Talk page. They have ignored and deliberately misinterpreted my recommendations. An edit war is brewing, as they have again deleted the map, and not followed my request that they discuss the issue on this Talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Filpro: I am contacting you to let you know that your Indo-Aryan languages map that is used on Indo-Aryan languages and Indo-Aryan peoples is incorrect as it displays Maithili as a dialect of Hindi. The constitutions of both India and Nepal recognise Maithili as a distinct language:

http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/EighthSchedule_19052017.pdf

Ethnologue also includes Maithili as a separate language and not a dialect of Hindi as well:

https://www.ethnologue.com/language/mai

Could you please edit the map and include Maithili as a separate language which almost all sources recognise it as. Thanks.Axomika (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I am seeing that you are not assuming good faith that's why I have reverted you. Allegations like "I have contacted the map creator on his talk page but he refuses to respond. Admission of anti-Maithili bias by Indian users on Wikipedia",[5] will require strong evidence. Why don't you draw a new map and allow us to review? D4iNa4 (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

All about theories and nothing about archaeology and anthropology

This article only mentions aryan theorists who posit that there was migration but little is written about the viewpoint of the archaeologists, the refutation of horse, chariot etc by the archaeological evidences of horses from the indus valley and the recent excavation of bronze chariot. What about archaeologists like mark kenoyer and german anthropolists who refuse to accept that there is any aryan migration. This article seem to present one sided eurocentric view of indo aryans and completely lacks any opinions which are against it, whether it be nicholas kazanas who has shown that indo aryans are atleast 4500 BC and native to the indus valley. What about indo aryan inscriptions of mitanni which contradicts the theory that indo aryan separated from indo iranian in 1900 BC etc? Rameezraja001 (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Kazanas c.s. are not WP:RS; you are WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

mark kenoyer is not a reliable source??, where is the archaeological source for any of the indian vedic history being covered here, where is the counter argument that there is cultural continuity from the archaeological sources stated here, these articles clearly seem agenda driven, otherwise why these articles fail to mention one single archaeological development which has taken place? any history should be first and foremost backed up by science and archaeological evidence which is considered the best direct evidence.

regards Rameezraja001 (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about Kazanas c.s.; Jonathan Mark Kenoyer is a credible source, yet not the only one; so is David Anthony. Kenoyer argued for a continuity between IVC and post-IVC; if he denies the Indo-Aryan migrations, he's WP:FRINGE. Yet, what he says (in 1998) is that "There is no archaeological or biological evidence for invasions or mass migrations into the Indus Valley between between the end of the Harappan phase, about 1900 B.C. and the beginning of the Early Historic period around 600 B.C." (Bryant 2005, p.328). It probably escaped your attention, but the Aryans supposedly moved into north-western India, and from there further east; not en mass into the Indus Valley. And, times have changed: DNA research (biology) does show migrations of steppe-people into South Indua after 2000 BCE. Which is corroborated by archaeological evidence. The continuity Kenoyer is proposing is in line with Narasimhan (2018): IVC mixing with Indo-Aryans. You're cherry-picking, and narrowly interpreting, the sources which (seem to) confirm your worldview. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan myth is debunked - why this article exist?

Indo-aryan was a theory propagated by British to control and divide the colonial India. Its debunked by archaeological proof and genetic proof. Another big debunk comes from the fact, that those theories were based on Indus valley and now Dwarka has been found and its ardcheological proof clearly shows civilization in India older than indus valley. This page needs to be deleted, because this theory is Propagated so much without correction, that there are lot of articles linking this currently and creating misinformation. Please let me know what proof you guys require and ill be glad to provide you, but propagating a myth is dangerous and wrong. I would like to resolve this at earliest, thanks I am placing this in talk page before editing as its better to create consensus and ready to provide enough proof. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.112.147.56 (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You got it wrong. The article is about Indo-Aryan speakers(people) not the migration theories. For that visit the relevant articles: Indo-Aryan migration theory and Indigenous Aryans. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Did you not read your own wikipedia article. It claims that it was debunked by mainstream scholarship but only cites Indologists. Indologists are linguists who use Hermeneutics to make-up their own opinions on a language. That's literally all they do. This controversy was debunked in 2015 by Indian Archaeologists and Indian Geneticists.

Sources:

Indian Archaeology:

• Nithin Sridhar, No evidence for warfare or invasion; Aryan migration too is a myth: B B Lal, NewsGram
• Nithin Sridhar, Vedic and Harappan are respectively literary and material facets of same civilization: B. B. Lal, NewsGram

And by Genetics: Anubhuti Vishnoi, Harappan site of Rakhigarhi: DNA study finds no Central Asian trace, junks Aryan invasion theory

Western Indology seems to have a lot confused too. I've been reading the Oxford Handbook of Indian Philosophy and they don't even seem to know that Adivasi is a 1930s term. Superfriend223 (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You're living in a fantasy-world. B.B. Lal is as trustworthy on this topic as an agitprop-officer; and the comments of Neeraj Rai are just plain wrong, as noted before at Talk:Indo-Aryan migration#Ancient DNA study of skeletal remains of IVC.. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Indo-Iranian-speaking countries and territories

It is currently being proposed that Category:Indo-Iranian-speaking countries and territories be deleted. This article is related to that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The deletion discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Indo-Aryan peoples. Krakkos (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

"Indo-European" "ethnolinguistic groups"

An IP editor and the registered user Scarsdale.vibe want to change the first sentence of the lead to:

• "The Indo-Aryan peoples, or Indic peoples, are a diverse Indo-European ethnolinguistic group speaking Indo-Aryan languages..." (emphasis added).

I have reverted the first change, and will also reverted the second change back to the stable version (again, with added emphasis):

• "The Indo-Aryan peoples, or Indic peoples, are a diverse collection of ethnolinguistic groups speaking Indo-Aryan languages..."

The first objections regards the incorrent use of 'ethnolinguistic group'. An ethnolignuistic group per definition (= an ethnic group distinguished from other ethnic groups by having its own language) speaks one language. Indo-Aryan peoples speak dozens of distinct languages, so they can't be described as one 'ethnolignuistic group'. If the term is incorrectly used in other pages, this is not of our concern here (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS).

My second objection is about the use of 'Indo-European' as a qualifying feature of these peoples, even before the actual defining feature "speaking Indo-Aryan languages" is mentioned. It suggests that 'Indo-European' is defined by something other than linguistic affiliation, whereas it is not. We know from countless studies that Indo-European-speaking peoples indeed share certain genetic markers with some amount of correlation, but none of latter are exclusively in a one-to-one relation with the present distribution of the language family, due to language shift and continuous admixture. If we want to include the term IE in the opening sentence, it should rather read "...a collection of ethnolinguistic groups speaking languages of the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-European language family...". –Austronesier (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Romani and other associated groups

Should the Romani, Dom, Lom, Domba, and other similar groups also be listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.12.207 (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Cite someone who actually uses the term "indo-aryan"

This article is very bad. The main source is an article by Davis Reich (2006). This article doesn't even mention the term Indo-Aryan, so you cannot cite it for statements about the word Indo-Aryan. (On the other hand it uses the term info-european)

Furthermore Indo-aryan is a linguistic term and David Reich who is a geneticist, so even if he used the term he would still be bad source. The article needs a complete rewrite based on sources that actually use the term "indo-aryan" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.23.239.68 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair point. "Indo-Aryan peoples" seems to refer to the historical Indo-Aryans, while present-day South Asian Indo-European language speakers are not "Indo-Aryans." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

By that logic the Dravidian peoples are not "Dravidians" either since moderns received gene flow from Indo-Aryan speakers and others. Same can be said that modern Germanic peoples are not ancient Germans, since they mixed with the Celtics, Slavs and Finno-Ugrians in the past. The Germanic peoples article also have a similar Germanic languages article, mostly dealing with modern languages. Ditto for Iranian peoples and Iranian languages. Languages seem to guide the ethnic identifier of the people groups. I don't understand why this particular article have to be a special case. Agreed that the article can be expanded and properly sourced. Pinging @Austronesier, Anupam, and Kautilya3:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I have voiced my position on this in umpty similar discussions: indivdual ethnic groups often are defined by the distinct language which they speak – that's the concept of an ethnolinguistic group. However, a commonplace fallacy is then to employ the linguistic affiliation of the language of this ethnic group as a tool to assign the latter to a bigger grouping. E.g., the Germans are a "Germanic people" by that reasoning because they speak a Germanic language, even though culturally, they more closely align with their neighbors to the west (e.g. French) and the east (Czechs/Poles) than with Icelanders. Many "FOO peoples" (FOO being an established language family or subgroup) here in WP are spurious and have become a dumping ground (or WP:COATRACK) for all kinds of material once the topic has been vaguely defined. Cushitic peoples is a prime example. And what makes me fly through the roof is when such a spurious collection of diverse ethnic groups is called an "ethnolinguistic group"; that's abysmal terminological revisionism.

My suggestion is: per default, there is no such thing as "FOO peoples" only because they speak languages of the FOO family. Unless modern reliable sources cover "FOO peoples" as a coherent topic (and NB not just as a convenient tool for categorizing without deeper implications). It's a completely different thing when shortly after the diversification of a parent language their speakers still formed a recognizable cultural entity: that's the historical Indo-Aryans which Joshua Jonathan referred to and which of course are a well-defined topic. But after three millenia of cultural convergence and language shifts in South Asia, ethnicities cannot naively be lumped together just based on a language family.

Some concepts of wider groupings are genuine, such as the Iroquois, who spoke related languages and also were culturally/politically aligned; some are at the borderline between genuine ethnic proximity and ideology, such as the Slavs (ask Czechs and Croats, and then Russians and Serbs, and you will see that such concepts aren't necessarily mutual). Sometimes such concepts are adopted by marginalized ethnicities as a tool for self-empowerment (e.g. modern Celts, or Uralic-speaking peoples in Russia). But in every case, it is not WP editors who decide the "FOO peoples must exist because there's FOO languages"; only reliable sources from modern scholarship can do the job. And even in the presence of such sources, there is the question of NPOV and due weight. We had endless discussions about this in Talk:Germanic peoples or in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romance peoples. –Austronesier (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me here User:Fylindfotberserk. I agree with your comment. Individuals who speak Indo-Aryan languages can be said to be a part of an Indo-Aryan ethnic group. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This debate illustrates precisely why I have templated it as WP:OR. Unless there are some decent sources coming within the next month or so, which frame the topic as described here, I intend to nominate it for WP:TNT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's the significance of the concept "Indo-Aryan peoples" in scholarly sources:

• Indo-Aryan people (353 results)
• Indo-Aryan peoples (204 results)
• Indo-Aryan ethnic group (95 results)
• Indo-Aryan ethnic groups (27 results)

against

• Indo-Aryan languages (about 11.200 results)

The results for "Indo-Aryan peoples" lie in the magnitude of those for Romance peoples (479 results), a page which was redirected to Romance languages after an AfD.

And then there's

• Indo-Aryans (5.660 results) Wow. That's WP:N. But then, if you browse through the results, you will find that most sources that discuss ancient Indo-Aryans. This might hold for the above results too. Let's filter -ancient:
• Indo-Aryans - ancient (974 results) Still a lot. And the majority of them seem to cover modern "Indo-Aryans". I see a lot of medical papers there which use "Indo-Aryans" as a shorthand for "Indo-Aryan speaking ethnic groups" for bookkeeping purposes, but without deeper implications. And I see a source which lists "Dalits, Indo-Aryans and Tibeto-Burmans" (oops, honi soit qui mal y pense). That's my input.

Proposal The primary topic of this page is the historical Indo-Aryans. The lede should reflect this, and maybe Joshua Jonathan can volunteer for a text proposal. In a second paragraph we could say:

• In a wider sense, speakers of modern Indo-Aryan languages are also (occasionally) referred to as "Indo-Aryan peoples".

The list of modern Indo-Aryan speaking ethnic groups could remain here, or split out into a page List of Indo-Aryan speaking peoples. –Austronesier (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support the proposal. The term "Indo-Aryans" is only used for the historical people of the Vedic era. No more after that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Mention both, and done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree: The term Indo Aryan is definitely still used for the modern Indo Aryan language speaking populations of South Asia[6], this is a whole mess, we could mention the historical Indo Aryans in a section given to them in this article. I would rather restore to status quo and recommend you guys to create an RFC for a huge and significant change like this which will surely create a lot of controversy Xerxes931 (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Are you confusing this page with Indo-Aryan languages? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • But we do say that "Indo-Aryan" can be used as a term for present-day speakers of Indo-Aryan languages. But for a topic, there should be more to it. Where are the sources which attribute exclusively shared common characteristics to these contemporary ethnic groups beyond shared linguistic affiliation? –Austronesier (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Where does this EB-article on Indo-Aryan languages speak of IA-speaking peoples as "Indo-Aryan peoples"? It rather illustrates Austronesier's point: conflating lanuage and ethnic identity. I speak Dutch, but it does not mean I belong to a "Germanic people." My father is Gronings (Dutch Saxonian), my mother partly Frysian; the language-border run between their childhood homes, which were only two kilometers apart. Believe me, Frysians and Groningers strongly cling to their ethnolinguistic identity, which is not Germanic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment But "Indo-Aryan" is described as a linguistic group than actual ethic or racial group. Witzel too says that half of the clans in Vedas have no Indo-Aryan etymology but they are still presented together with Indo-Aryans in forming Vedic culture.[7] So even if we were to limit the article to historical context, still, the article would look like fork of many other articles. Majority of scholarly sources only talk about linguistic relevance and as such I don't have issue with redirecting this article to Indo-Aryan languages. Dhawangupta (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Map of Indo-European migrations according to the Kurgan hypothesis

• Oppose per User:Xerxes931's comments. The term "Indo-Aryan peoples" is used to describe people who speak Indo-Aryan languages. People of India, authored by Kumar Suresh Singh and published by Oxford University Press in 1998, states:

the Jat 'are now described as members of the Indo-Aryan people widely distributed in north-western India'...

Likewise, The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, published in 1983, references the:

Sindhi, an Indo-Aryan people living in Sind Province, Pakistan.

Since we have reliable sources that use the term for modern-day ethnic groups who speak Indo-Aryan languages, there is no reason to redefine the scope of this article. If we did that, then related articles such as Iranic peoples would have to be rewritten. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 14:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead now mentions both, the second sentence being "The term is also used for contemporary ethnolinguistic groups speaking modern Indo-Aryan languages, a subgroup of the Indo-European language family." Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how the oppose-!votes state anything that is contrary to my proposal and Joshua Jonathan's implementation. They seem to oppose the strictly narrow definition by Kautilya3, which is not realized in the current version. We could definitely say more about modern Indo-Aryans rather than just that they speak Indo-Aryan languages, if there are reliable sources that present such material. Are there entries "Indo-Aryans" or "Indo-Aryan peoples" in People of India and EB, and what to they state? A cataloging device alone does not a topic make. –Austronesier (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Austronesier. I think that the lede looks much better now as both historical and contemporary definitions are discussed. Keep up the good work you're doing. I might suggest that the lede of this article, when compared to other Indo-European ethnolinguistic groups, such as the Iranic people or the Slavic people, all of whom descend from the Indo-European migrations, is very short. It is certainly worthy of expansion. If others here aren't up to it, I can try to help. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 17:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Anupam: Sounds good, maybe you can work "bottom-up", i.e. expand it in the "History"-section first (summarized from the main article Indo-European migrations), and then condense it to the lede. It's a rather short article, so we don't have follow MOS:INTRO slavishly, but the more substance we have in the main sections, the better we can defend a consensus version of the lede against drive-by changes. –Austronesier (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how he can. The term "Aryan" changed meaning in 700 BC. It stopped being an ethnic term. There were no "Aryans" afterwards, until the British came and reinvented them. So, yeah, maybe the Encyclopedia Britannica continues to propagate colonialist fraud, but nobody else does. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Since Anupam mentioned Indo-European migrations, I thought he meant to expand it backwards on the time axis. That's feasible. But not in the opposite direction. –Austronesier (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Xerxes931. It would be unwise to treat the subject as more of a historical phenomenon than the current one. The article has remained this way for more than a decade and the scope shouldn't be changed overnight. As such, I also agree that article should be reverted to this version and we should start an RfC before we get to change the scope of the article. Sanjoydey33 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If the page is reverted to the status quo ante, we must address Kautilya3's OR-issue first and provide reliable sources first which cover contemporary Indo-Aryans not just as a definition, but as as a topic. This is the homework to be done prior to an RfC (WP:RFCBEFORE). –Austronesier (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The scope hasn't changed; there's no need to revert. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Anupam's citations make it clear that this is a topic, being applied to the people of the northern Indian subcontinent. Now, the current lead is clearly misleading as described by both Foxhound03 and Xerxes931. Where we can find "reliable sources that refer to the Indo-Aryan speakers of Central Asia as Indic"? Did all of the "indo-aryan" people moved from Central Asia to South Asia? The current lead really makes no sense and does not rely on facts. Read this source for the problems associated with this term as a whole. I am absolutely in support of restoring this stable version and conduct RfC is needed. But unilateral edits go against the spirit of WP:CON. Sanjoydey33 (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sanjoydey33: No, Anupam's sources have aptly documented that the term "Indo-Aryan peoples" is used to mean "modern ethnic groups speaking Indo-Aryan languages", which is we why include this defintion in the lead. But it's nothing more than that. Show me a modern scholarly source (yours is a century old) that treats them as a full topic beyond a handy defintion for practical indexing purposes (as e.g. in some medical papers from Anupam's survey). Present me source that mentions just one single non-linguistic defining feature shared by all ethnic groups speaking Indo-Aryan languages to the exclusion of all ethnic groups speaking other languages. And then we have topic. –Austronesier (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Xerxes931. It would be unwise to undermine the contemporary population under this ethnolinguistic group. The classification of these languages as Indo-Aryan is not controversial at all and does not require us to use words such as "were" in the first sentence of the lede. A change like this could be done to any other articles and this can have a bad effect, especially when considering Turkic people, for example, it wouldn't make sense and would confuse everybody by talking about North/East Eurasians in the past tense in the lede from Siberia whilst mentioning the modern day people from Turkey and Central Asia right at the bottom. This isn't at all helpful. Won't work there, doesn't work here. Foxhound03 (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide sources which explicitly define the present-day IA-language speakers as "Indo-Aryan people": "Indo-Aryan people are...", akin to the definition at Turkic peoples? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Indo-Aryan peoples are an ethnolinguistic group of people that speak diverse Indo-Aryan languages and currently live predominantly in the South Asian region." [8], also simply using the dictionary, "a member of one of the peoples of the Indian subcontinent speaking an Indo-European language" Merriam-Webster, Indo-Aryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhound03 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Twitter? Serious? Who's Dragunov? A dictionary definition is also sub-standard. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there's a dictionary definition. We already acknowledge the usage. But where's the source that presents a longer story which we can tell here? Otherwise, we have a dictionary definition without content, which is the classic case for a redirect to a main topic. –Austronesier (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't know how I managed to copy and paste the wrong link but here is the actual: [9] Foxhound03 (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks but this is not a scholarly source. It starts with the wrong usage of "ethnolinguistic group"; that's a red flag and reeks of WP:CITOGENESIS, since WP (and maybe Reddit) is the main place where this nonsense terminology is rampant. And hey, there's JJ's map in there LOL. An ethnolinguistic group is an ethnic group (NB: singular) that is defined by a common language (NB: singular; language, not language family). Indo-Aryan speaking peoples comprise dozens of ethnolinguistic groups.

And the article cites Reich: "Everybody is mixed in India without exception", which clearly does not come in support of the simplistic concept of speakers of modern Indo-Aryan languages being the descendants of the ancient Indo-Aryans. –Austronesier (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - at second thought, while the term "Indo-Aryan people" arguably is being used for both the historical Indo-Aryan people and the present-day Indo-Aryan speaking ethnolinguistic groups, there already are two articles on the historical Indo-Aryans, namely Aryan and List of Rigvedic tribes. Yet, Aryan directs back to Indo-Aryan people, under the label "Indo-Aryan speakers" (which might be an appropriate name for this article, "Indo-Aryan people"). List of Rigvedic tribes overlaps with the section "List of historical Indo-Aryan peoples," but is probably not exactly the same. I'm fraid we're stuck in a circle here... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Could we consider moving the article for contemporary Indo-Aryan speakers into a page simply titled "Indic peoples"? Foxhound03 (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Why "Indic peoples"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Harder to find reliable sources that refer to the Indo-Aryan speakers of Central Asia as Indic, can be an easier way to differentiate them to a degree. Foxhound03 (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Another Comment: There is a heavy oppose here by multiple users, furthermore the solution suggested which would mention that it refers to the current inhabitants of the Subcontinent(who speak the according language) by Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! was also removed for whatever reason. I am genuinly asking you guys to restore to the initial version per WP:Status quo and open an RFC.--Xerxes931 (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What exactly was removed? The lead now says

Indo-Aryan peoples refers to both the pastoralist Indo-Aryan people migrating from Central Asia into South Asia in the second millennium BCE, introducing the Proto-Indo-Aryan language,[1][2] as to contemporary ethnolinguistic groups speaking modern Indo-Aryan languages, a subgroup of the Indo-European language family.

Both referents can be supported by WP:RS, but Austronesier and Kautilya3 are correct about their objections against using "Indo-Aryan people" as an ethnic marker for present-day people. The historic Indo-Aryan people ceased to exist a long time ago, and I'll bet that the present-day usage is of a very modern origin, and preferred by nationalists. That is, there was no 'shared identity' between these groups before the 19th century. As far as I know, jati is the primary identity-marker for Indian people, not "Indo-Aryan" versus Dravidian. Note also that the historic designation is sourced, and can be sourced by even more, very solid, WP:RS; there's absolutely no way that designation will be removed. If the association with present-day people is so obvious, it should be easy to find WP:RS which explain this categorization, rather than just apply it. Maybe Romila Thapar (1996), The Theory of Aryan Race and India: History and Politics? On a related note: Romila Thapar, Michael Witzel, Jaya Menon, Kai Friese and Razib Khan (2019), Which of Us are Aryans? Rethinking the Concept of Our Origins.

NB: Austronesier correctly noted that "Indo-Aryan" (together with Dravidian, Dalit and Tibeto-Burmese) is used in medical research; would be interesting if we can find a source which explains the usage of these labels in this context. And the methodological soundness; it reminds of the biological associations of "Aryan" with "race," an outdated usage as we all know. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Indigenous Aryanism

Indigenous Aryanism does have mainstream scholarship and only some support is ideologically driven (just like how some support for the Indo-Aryan migration theory into India is ideologically driven). Can I delete the following statement:

"Contemporary support for this idea is ideologically driven and has no support in mainstream scholarship." Shakespeare143 (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

No you can't, for all the reasons explained before. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The other 3 editors on the Indo-Aryan Migrations page and I elaborated on how the Out of India Theory (OIT) is supported by mainstream scholarship. Describing the OIT as a conviction would not be accurate. Describing the OIT as a conviction implies to the reader that the OIT is just an unsubstantiated claim; rather, the OIT does have significant evidence in support of it, and often sources criticizing the OIT are themselves the ones that are ideologically biased. The sources that describe the OIT as a "conviction" have been heavily criticized as being biased against the OIT; much of these sources are simply polemics.

Another example of a mainstream scholar who rejects the AIT is Michel Danino.

The Aryan Migration Theory should be described on Wikipedia as a theory that is widely agenda-driven and has proponents that support it often for ideological reasons. Even proponents of the AIT have described how prominent proponents of the AIT are ideologically motivated to be biased against the OIT. Shakespeare143 (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You're turning the world upside-down. This is an encyclopedia, aiming to present an accurate summary of mainstream scholarship, not a free website to promote fringe views. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

No I am not. I already explained how it is mainstream scholarship and is not a fringe view (as have dozens of other editors). There is an abundance of evidence for the OIT. It is not in the best interests of Wikipedia to represent the opinions found within some sources written by AIT apologists and polemicists as "fact". Wikipedia adheres to a policy of neutral point of view with an impartial tone and also has a policy of no original research.Shakespeare143 (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "AIT" says it all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I am not being biased if that is what you mean by "The phrase 'AIT' says it all.". For the purposes of discussing the AMT, the AIT and AMT are essentially the same theory, with only slight variations in them according to some scholars. I am not making up the "AIT". It is used today in research journals. The AIT and the AMT are very vague and many scholars say they are the same thing. Each scholar has their own interpretation of a so-called "AIT" and an "AMT", but the fundamentals are the same: Indo-Aryans brought Sanskrit and Vedas etc into India from a migration from the Middle East/Pontic steppe/Central Asia/Anatolia which was the origin of the PIE languages. To clarify, I was referring to the AMT/AIT in my previous comment. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for the promotion of a controversial viewpoint when there is an opposing viewpoint equally as prominent; having the Wikipedia page show the other viewpoint as "fringe" is antithetical to the quintessential ethos of Wikipedia being NPOV. Shakespeare143 (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

...when there is an opposing viewpoint equally as prominent This is simply not the case. Maybe in public discourse in India, but not in international mainstream scholarship. We have had umpteen threads about this, and umpteen times umpteen sources from the relevant fields (linguisitcs, archaeology, genetics) in international scholarship that put Indigenous Aryanism clearly to the fringe. And it is this ideology-driven fringe which keeps alive the straw term "AIT" (2021 is not 1921; ideologically-driven support for the Migration Theory is obsolete). The very usage of the term is token of not accepting mainstream scholarship.

About WP:NPOV: WP:WEIGHT is an essential part of WP:NPOV. –Austronesier (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

And the reason why there have been umpteen threads about this is because the OIT really is mainstream scholarship (regardless of straw man arguments Doniger says - and keep in mind Doniger is only a single scholar. And any other scholars who say that are also in the minority), and many Wikipedians agree (they cite sources). You are correct that that there is a subset of scholars that no longer consider there was an Aryan Invasion; however, there is also a subset of scholars who support the AIT, and they are equally as prominent as the AMT scholars. There is ideological support for the OIT, that is definitely true; however, this is equally true for the AIT/AMT scholar proponents. More linguistics scholars support the AMT/AIT, but archaeology does not - in fact, in the relevant fields they mostly do not support it. Genetics reports in my experience support both the OIT and the AMT/AIT. Scholars are scholars are scholars. If it is true that the OIT is primarily an "ideology", then there would not be prominent American scholars who support it. In reality, there are many American scholars that support the OIT; too much emphasis is placed on Doniger (I'm not saying that she isn't a good scholar - she most definitely is knowledgeable and contributes to the field) here at Wikipedia. Doniger (and a few carefully selected other scholars that generally support her viewpoints and quote each other) are not omniscient judges of the debate (rather, they are partisan sources, and partisan sources are unbalanced), and using these few select sources on Wikipedia as the all-knowing judges of this subject is unwarranted. At the end of the day, much of the dialogue concerning this subject is in fact partisan, and treating one camp as superior over the other on Wikipedia would make the relevant articles inherently biased and unscientific in nature, considering that both theories are equally supported. The core principles of science and of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT should be supported in the endeavor to accurately summarize and portray the AIT/AMT and the OIT on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there are clear denotational and connotational differences between "fringe" and "an equally supported theory", and the OIT is of the latter rather than of the former. Keep in mind that it is the ideology-driven fringe (that promotes ideology-driven research) that includes Doniger that claims the erroneous and fallacious viewpoint that the OIT is not included in the mainstream view. And yes, I have read work by scholar proponents of both the OIT and of the AIT/AMT to have a balanced perspective. Shakespeare143 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shakespeare143:India is a country of 1.3 billion people. And 1 billion of it are Hindus. So it is obvious that large number of scholars in India may promote OIT. Number doesn’t count in science. Evidence matters. It is not some election where you win an argument based on number of people supporting an idea. I too have read work by scholar proponents of both the OIT and of the AIT/AMT to have a balanced perspective. There is no single credible evidence for OIT —Archaeological, genetic, linguistic or textual. Which is why no major university promotes it. It is been seven years since Modi came to power, still in the exams conducted for central civil services, the syllabus chosen is not OIT. Simply because All the evidences are against it. ChandlerMinh (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shakespeare143:And the reason why there have been umpteen threads about this is because the OIT really is mainstream scholarship LOL, no. The reason we have umpteen threads are because there is literally a billion Hindus. Many of them truly wants to believe that everything came from India. ChandlerMinh (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)