Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Indigenous Aryanism

This whole article is based on flawed and dated assumptions held by "mainstream scholarship"

First of all, there is no such thing as Aryan people or Aryan race. The article Aryan states:
Max Müller, who had himself inaugurated the racial interpretations of the Rigveda,[97] denounced in 1888 those who spoke of an "Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair" as a nonsense comparable to a linguist speaking of "a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar".[98] But for an increasing number of Western writers, especially among anthropologists and non-specialists influenced by Darwinist theories, the Aryans came to be seen as a "physical-genetic species" contrasting with the other human races rather than an ethnolinguistic category.[99][100]
Why are we holding to this dogmatic conviction that linguistics prove the existence of a fictitious race? "Mainstream scholarship" has maintained this 19th century assumption without challenge for nearly 150 years. This article outright dismisses any criticism of this fundamentally flawed assumption:
"linguistic dilettantes who either ignore the linguistic evidence completely, dismiss it as highly speculative and inconclusive,[note 10] or attempt to tackle it with hopelessly inadequate qualifications"
Nice gatekeeping! As if someone needs a PhD (ostensibly from a white Indology professor) to question a tenuous assumption tracing back to the era of colonialism and scientific racism. This is unacceptable in the 21st century, and it certainly wouldn't fly in the hard sciences. Why is the standard for scholarship so low in South Asian studies?2603:8001:1A07:2561:E5BE:3B76:35D6:1FC7 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is that mainstream scholarship has determined that Hindi, Odia, etc. are part of the Indo-Aryan language family and that the latter is a branch of the Indo-European language family. The precise location of the Proto-Indo-European homeland is not yet known, but by far the most dominant hypothesis is the Kurgan hypothesis, followed distantly by the Anatolian hypothesis. The out-of-India hypothesis, which is the basis of this article, has been entirely discredited within mainstream scholarship.
When linguists, anthropologists, archaeologists etc. talk about Aryans, as you can see in the Aryan article, the term discusses the ethno-linguistic group of Indo-Iranians. They are not talking about the Nazi-era Aryanism, so any comparison there is irrelevant.
One may claim that it is due to colonialism that the Kurgan hypothesis is more popular in the mainstream scholarship when compared to the Out-of-India one. This is a claim which would need to be supported somehow, for it to gain any traction in mainstream academia. However, in the realm of politics within the context of nationalism, politicians can find success by using such arguments, regardless of their merit, so long as their voters "feel" that it must be right. Thus it is repeated endlessly, and it endlessly appears here on this Talk page. BirdValiant (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm not saying that the "Out of India theory" is correct, but that the mainstream academia goes to great lengths to silence any indigenous voices that question the academics' base assumptions. Almost by default, mainstream academia dismisses outright the ideas put forth by modern Indian scholars and instead continue to promote ideas built on Victorian-era European scholars. We can construct as many ethnolinguistic groups as we want, but that tells us nothing of the mixing of cultures and genes that took place c. 2000 BCE. If anything, such an ethnolinguistic framework only biases the genetic and anthropological discussions in favor of a specific narrative (AIT). For example, the Cell and Science papers present genetic evidence for mixing among people across the subcontinent, beyond the north/south linguistic borders. This goes ignored by AIT proponents, who point to the north Indian genotype as coming from the Steppe (though the Science paper says it's no more than 20%). Because "Aryanism" is no more than a linguistic construct, the scope of this discussion should be restricted to language. For example, any discussion of Vedic culture is irrelevant due to the existence of non-Vedic cultures speaking Indo-Iranian languages (e.g., Zoroastrianism). 2603:8001:1A07:2561:E5BE:3B76:35D6:1FC7 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the mainstream academia goes to great lengths to silence any indigenous voices that question the academics' base assumptions: no, mainstream academia does not make such an effort; they just ignore obvious nonsense generated by people who are unable to operate within those scientific parameters. Science stimulates discussion, research, theories that can be falsified - not articles of faith, promoted by people who attack criticasters as 'leftist radicals' and 'Marxists'. Your rant is indeed yet another example of the vicious 'debate' carried by non-scholarly minded people. Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OIT is not the indigenous voice. It's the politically supported voice, and quite to the contrary, local (thus equally indigenous) scholars who do not embrace the OIT ideology are the ones who are silenced in the current repressive public discourse of India. –Austronesier (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The basic thing that is missing from the data given, is that there are no mentions of 'Central Asian Horse' in Rigveda. The 'Ashva' mentioned in Rig veda has 17×2 ribs, which are absent in Central Asian horse. This 17×2 ribbed asva is also mentioned in Yajur Veda. This certainly means that till the late vedic times, the so called 'Aryans' were not aware of the central asian breed of Horses. Funnily, this 17×2 ribbed horse, is only found in Arabia since last 4500 or so years(Arabian Horse). Moreover, 'Mainstream scholars' have totally stonewalled and ignored the argument of Chronological gulf between new rig veda and older rigveda, as discovered by Shrikant Talageri through careful, efficient scholarly linguistic research. This is because once we acknowledge presence of new rigveda and old rigveda, and the words present in them, the System of this dumb imaginative myth of Aryan Migration will come crashing down the nonsensiscal pedestal it has been provided to retain the reliability of an inefficient Academia which also doesnt like dissenting voices with appropriate arguments. Once we realise that the presence of word 'Ratha' as chariots is only present in the new rig veda as well as the distinction between chariot(Ratha) and Cart(anas), the theory of aryan Migration starts to seem funny. Combined with that, the words 'ratha' is only present as an ambiguos term defining wheeled vehicles in Old rig veda. –Vizads Jha (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vizads Jha (talk • contribs) 08:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vizads Jha: "Academia which also doesnt like dissenting voices with appropriate arguments" See, that's where you're wrong. Academia is open to dissenting voices, and it's what drives science forward. The trouble is that with Indigenous Aryanism is that there are mountains of linguistic evidence which discredit the idea that the Indo-European languages originated in India, or that the Indo-Aryan languages are not Indo-European, etc. Meanwhile, whatever the Indigenous Aryan camp puts forward, it never even comes close to overcoming those mountains of evidence. This is without even mentioning the developing mountain of genetic evidence. Furthermore, the links between Indigenous Aryanism and religious/political ideology are well established, and so the whole effort cannot even be said to be scientific as it consciously tries to push a specific pre-defined conclusion.
Vizads Jha, I would additionally recommend that you stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox in the way you have for your 4 contributions. Please see What Wikipedia is Not. You are on the path to being a Single purpose account which is not allowed. BirdValiant (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crap source

@Vanamonde93: This[1] is a good rationale, thank you. I agree with it. It's definitely a better one than indiscriminate deletionism. What do you think, TrangaBellam. –Austronesier (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, precisely. Using the deprecated source as an example to say in wiki voice that there was bad sourcing is prima facie WP:OR, which is against hard policy. Edit-warring in a deprecated source is really not how we do sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. From WP:RSPUSE:

Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves.

Republic World's stance is not presented as a fact ('the IAmt has been proved wrong'); on the contrary, it is presented as an example of news-sources which misrepresented the Shinde-publication, a point which was brought up by several news outlets, and by a number of Sinde's co-authors. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but did any other source note this misrepresentation? If not, we have no business doing so. That RepublicWorld publishes misinformation is not surprising; that's why we deprecated it as a source. Including incidents of misrepresentation here requires editors to be identifying them as such, which is contrary to WP:NOR. If a different source has analyzed this incident, we should be citing it instead. Either way, a citation to RW does not belong. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The fact of a deprecated source saying something is literally beneath Wikipedia's notice, unless it was a noteworthy event per a reliable source - at which point we can just use the reliable source - David Gerard (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can you have a point of view and still be NPOV?

It is very loud and clear that this article considers only the so-called "mainstream" POV truthful, and the indigenous aryanism hypothesis a nationalist ideology claimed to be part of Hindutva. I cannot understand how that stand is NPOV. If this article is considered worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, then by core tenets of policy, it must be NPOV. If that's not possible, remove the article. Sooku (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sooku, NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
BBC Trust's policy on science reporting (2011) quoted within our NPOV policy states, When there is a consensus of opinion on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of 'due weight' can lead to 'false balance', meaning that viewers might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is [...] Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.
All emphases are mine. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, I understand. Based on my reading, this article misrepresents the "degree of credibility". However I need to compose and submit for discussion specific and properly sourced edits to the text. Sooku (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sooku, such claims of "misrepresentation of the degree of credibility" are routine on this talk page. They were raised only six months back where I (and JJ) requested ten peer-reviewed sources, authored by specialist scholars and published by reputed academic presses within the last thirty years, which claim both OIT and IAM to be equally plausible or OIT to be more plausible. Please work towards such an end.
Time to throw this challenge to the FAQs. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This whole article and the inherent biases are such a mess and so shoddy, it actually makes these so-called "mainstream scholars" seem unbiased.
"BBC Trust's policy on science reporting (2011)" - why on earth should we follow BBC's policy on anything? Again, a westerner's set of rules are being applied to merit the credibility of a western viewpoint! BBC is itself hypocritical in its application of balance - the recent reports of the Leicester violence against Hindu families being glaringly evident. When there is considerable opposition to a model, which relies on hyperbolic assumptions (migration = complete displacement of language, culture, and religion), it is not a "false balance". An example - proteins were considered the genetic material for the longest time, and those who considered DNA the biomolecules of inheritance were considered the "lunatic fringe". "Almost all" scholars thought proteins were indeed genetic units, but unlike western indologists and Wiki editors, they were willing to discuss the opposite view without ad-hominem attacks.
Wiki editors like JJ and Tranga continue to propound racist, elitist views by pitting Indian scholars vs "mainstream" scholars.
"Support for the IAT mostly exists among a subset of Indian scholars of Hindu religion and the history and archaeology of India, and plays a significant role in Hindutva politics. It has no relevance, let alone support, in mainstream scholarship." (emphasis mine).
I don't understand in what ignorant, self-righteous universe Tranga and JJ live that the quoted sentences above are not considered a racist framing of an ongoing area of research. Why even make the distinction of "Indian" scholars? Especially considering that Elst and Bryant question the AMT (at a minimum)? Aside from them, there are a considerable number of scholars opposed to AMT - Lavanya Vemsani and Vikram Sampath to name just a few. Somehow, they are not "mainstream". Their work is ignored or trivialized by this "mainstream". I had called out this divisive language earlier and JJ kept repeating his tired tropes of "mainstream scholars say so". JJ has also implied that Hinduism has historical been casteist, only to sloppily backtrack when called out.
This article then conflates IAT with Hindutva and its demonization of Muslims - siding with western and western-trained Indologists to discredit IAT. If anything, this article demonizes opponents of the AMT by giving undue weight to the slurs used by white colonialists Didn't it occur to anyone that IAT is attacked by western Indologists because a set of individuals use it for political purposes that don't align with western Indologists' political leanings. This is not a matter of "incompetence", having "similarities to intelligent design discourse" or being on the "lunatic fringe". These are all smoke screens for emboldening a political agenda. That Romila Thapar has political biases is not a secret. She denied Ram Janmabhoomi even though multiple Indian historians and the Archeological Survey of India showed evidence for ruins of a temple before Babri, which the Supreme Court upheld in favor of the temple.
How can we trust these "mainstream" scholars if they are not objective? Liberalvedantin (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you'r crazy. you're another nationalist. get out of this website if you can't handle this article. 99.27.106.23 (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller and RegentsPark: do we accept these accusations of racism by User:Liberalvedantin? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, do you accept accusations of me being a "crazy nationalist"? I have no intention of a Hindu nation-state. You guys are barking up the wrong tree. The truth is hard to swallow, so you can't accept that you are a racist. And Wikipedia being largely white in both demographic and thinking, will probably side with you. Have a good life. Liberalvedantin (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP and account blocked for 31 hours. Doug Weller talk 08:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand [..] that the quoted sentences above are not considered a racist framing of an ongoing area of research. Why even make the distinction of "Indian" scholars?
You need to read up on culture. TL:DR: Different countries have different cultures.
When someone points out that scholars from one country currently tend to have a false point of view, they do not mean that people from that country are stupid (which would be racist), but that the false point of view is currently popular in that country. For example, Hindutva opinions are currently popular in India, leading to scholars there often having crazy ideas. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
crazy ideas? its like saying there are more non indians in the world who historically hv been trying to either appropriate or undurmine indian culture since ages..latest prime example is hitler because of whom the holy symbol swastika became a terrifying symbol..made noble aryan people as germainic supremacists who thought themselves as aryans because og crazy european ideas of taking and appropiating things which dont belong to them.and please dont use term npov... u guys literally take bbc as reliable source for indian history..its crazy and scary..u people are scary 223.190.95.47 (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, because Hitler used the swastika as a symbol, all western views and ideas are biased, and Indian views are right? And, since modern scientific methodology was mostly developed by westerners, such methodology has to be rejected, in favour of a right not to be questioned about your beliefs? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2021

Please change the following in the section "Main arguments of the Indigenists":

"Identifying the Sarasvati River, described in the Rig Veda as a mighty river, with the Ghaggar-Hakra River, which had dried up c. 2000 BCE, arguing therefor for an earlier dating of the Rig Veda;"

to

"Identifying the Sarasvati River, described in the Rig Veda as a mighty river, with the Ghaggar-Hakra River, which had dried up c. 2000 BCE, arguing therefore for an earlier dating of the Rig Veda;"

since there is no word "therefor" in English. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –Austronesier (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Two new genetic studies upheld Indo-Aryan migration. So why did Indian media report the opposite?"

[2] Doug Weller talk 11:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have it among the web sources ([web 10] in the article's citation style). Btw, we have a collection of links ([web 8], [web 9]) to illustrate the point made in the Scroll article; another one got removed due to an over-stretched interpretation of our sourcing policies (s. Talk:Indigenous_Aryanism#Crap_source). –Austronesier (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'No Support in mainstream scholarship'

Moved from User talk:Sagar0311
 – Of common interest, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan What was not constructive? A sentence was just removed which was a very generalized statement without credible citation. A PDF file which is provided cannot define mainstream scholarship related to History. The paper clearly mentions at the beginning 'This paper presents the respondent's general comments'. The topic is about India and there are conflicting views in India about this. There are Historians in India with a lot of followers who are against Aryan migration theory who say that it fails to produce considerable historical evidence about the authenticity of these migrations and the article's topic is exactly about this contradictory view point. So the sentence which reflects the general comment which is in stark contrast to a historical view point was removed by not editing the rest of the paragraph which has proper citations. Sagar0311 (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably deliberately ignorant; the note cites six sources. That scholars in India - only India - deviate from mainstream scholarship on this topic tells a lot about the academic quality of those scholars. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan The first time when the sentence was removed it was only citing one James Mallory paper, these sources are tagged later to the note when the edit was reversed. Anyways, majority scholars in the sources are only presenting one side of this topic, as l mentioned earlier there are scholars from the other side with lot of followers in this country specially in recent times who produce contradictory views to Aryan migration theory which is not substantiated. This topic is related to the civilizational identity of the people of this country and is sensitive. Dismissing the other side and calling only one side of scholars as mainstream seems biased considering Wikipedia's neutral policy, that's why I edited and removed the sentence. Just for my clarity, you are an administrative editor, right Sagar0311 (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The note already had six references. But let's have a closer look: have you got some sources which argue for the indigenous theory? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan When I checked, it just had one, which I mentioned, that was the main reason to edit. Anyways following are the sources

  • 2. Michel Danino, member of the Indian Council of Historical Research, Government of India
  • 16. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar who headed the committee drafting the Constitution in his campaign in support of the nation's dalit community noticed the racial overtones underlying the theory and described the British espousal of the Aryan Invasion theory in the following words:
"The theory of invasion is an invention. This invention is necessary because of a gratuitous assumption that the Indo-Germanic people are the purest of the modern representation of the original Aryan race. The theory is a perversion of scientific investigation. It is not allowed to evolve out of facts. On the contrary, the theory is preconceived and facts are selected to prove it. It falls to the ground at every point."

There are plenty of more sources, but the point is that historians are from both the sides. Aryan Migration or Invasion is a theory and it's not accepted completely and also rejected by many. In that article only calling one side as mainstream is not neutral. If you still want to keep the sentence and not remove it completely it can go like following

" It has no relevance and is not supported by some scholars and historians"

Similarly the title "Rejection by mainstream scholarship" in the article can be changed to

"Rejection by scholars and historians"

I just wanted to know as I asked you last time you are from the Wikipedia admin team or editors, right Sagar0311 (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] 

End of copied part
  • ad 1. Vasant Shinde made a fool of himself. He was the main author of the 2019 Cell-publication on the Rakhigarhi-DNA, which explicitly confirmed the the Indo-Aryan migrations; the day after the publication, at a press-conference, he publicly rejected their findings, and spoke out in defense of the Out of India 'theory'. The Deccan Herald mindlessly copied his statements. Scrol.in paid more attention: "On Wednesday, an Economic Times report put out a preview of those results based on comments by one of the authors, but drew conclusions that left experts scratching their heads, because they seemed to contradict the findings mentioned in the report."
  • ad 2. Michel Danino has less tha zero credibility with regard to Indian history; his writings are rambling, without relevance in academic discussions.
  • ad 3. Chavda is the perennial non-expert; often referred to by editors in support of Indigenous Aryanism, but zero academic credibility.
  • ad 4. Jadunath Sarkar died in 1958; in which publication, still relevant today, did het voice support for Indigenous Aryanism?
  • ad 5. B. B. Lal: his archaeological work from the 1950s was outstanding, but his views on Indigenous Aryanism are completely irrelevant for contemporary academic scholarship.
  • ad 6. Nicholas Kazanas (Deutsche Wikipedia - was his English page deleted? "Seit den 1990ern vertritt Kazanas die Indian Urheimat theory,[1] eine Minderheits-These, die heute neben Wissenschaftlern wie Kazanas und Michel Danino stark von hindunationalistischen Kreisen wie beispielsweise der BJP vertreten wird.[7]" But yes, he had a publication in the Journal of Indo-European Studies (founded by James Mallory, the one with the PDF you thought to be irrelevant): "Seine Position wurde mehrheitlich kritisiert, u. a. von Michael Witzel, Richard Meadow, Martin Huld, Edwin Bryant, D. P. Agrawal, Asko Parpola, Stefan Zimmer, J. P. Mallory und Elena Kuzmina.[9]"
  • ad 7. Shrikant G. Talageri, redirects to Indigenous Aryanism. "Analysing the works of Sethna, Bhagwan Singh, Navaratna and Talageri, he notes that they mostly quote English literature, which is not fully explored, and omitting German and French Indology. It makes their works in various degrees underinformed, resulting in a critique that is "largely neglected by Western scholars because it is regarded as incompetent".[165]"
  • ad 8. Swaraj Prakash Gupta. The Indus-Sarasvati Civilization: Beginnings and Development (1999) was a smash-hit: seven cites.
  • ad 9. Klaus Klostermaier, an afrticle from 1998, published at the iskcon-site. Says it all, doesn't it? Klostermaier is noted for his support for Indigenous Aryanism; it makes his works less reliable.
  • ad. 10. Sita Ram Goel, died 2003. "His work has been both celebrated and criticised for its bias towards Hindu nationalism and its controversial portrayal of other religions, particularly Islam and Christianity.[1][2] In his later career, Goel transitioned into a role as a commentator on Indian politics, aligning himself openly with Hindu nationalism." Voice of India cites from a 1982-publication.
  • ad 11. R.C. Majumdar, article from 1959.
  • ad 12. N. S. Rajaram. ".He is notable for propounding the "Indigenous Aryans" hypothesis, asserting that the Vedic period was extremely advanced from a scientific view-point, and claiming of having deciphered the Indus script.[1] Academics find his scholarship to be composed of dishonest polemics in service of a communal agenda.[2][3][4][5]"
  • ad 13. Stephen Knapp (2012), The Vedic Friends Association.
  • ad 14. Disha Ahluwalia - who? The Ranveer Show?
  • ad 15. "Research papers ranging from those claiming that information on Netaji’s disappearance was suppressed by the British and Indian governments to ones questioning the Aryan invasion theory will be presented at the conference, that began on Monday."
  • ad 16. B. R. Ambedkar, died in 1956, not an historian, archaeologist or linguist.
  • ad 17. Archaeology online...
  • ad 18. " I wish to reiterate that the successive findings from genetic researchers in the late 20th century dealt a significant blow to the 'Aryan Invasion Theory'" - the author missed-out on Narsimhan et al. (2019)?
  • ad 19. Madan Lal Goel - who?

I appreciate the time and effort you put in compiling this list, but they neatly underscore the corretcness of the statement " It has no relevance, let alone support, in mainstream scholarship." There are only three authors with publications in relevant journals or with relevant books: Shinde, Lal, Kazanas, and Klostermaier. Shinde rejected his own research; Lal's views on Indigenous Aryanism are academically irrelevant; Kazanas' publication was a one-time slip of academical standards; and Klostermaier's views on Indigenous Aryanism, despite his Survey of Hnduism, are academically rejected as well. The rest is academically irrelevant. It only supports the preceding line, "Support for the IAT mostly exists among a subset of Indian scholars of Hindu religion and the history and archaeology of India,[10][11][12][13][5] and plays a significant role in Hindutva politics.[14][15][3][web 1][web 2]." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan The reply was much anticipated. There is no point in going ahead; the narrative is already set. Whatever may come along the way, somehow to prove it wrong, reality doesn't matter, and neutrality doesn't matter. It has already been decided by a group that considers itself the final authority on who should be called scholars and historians and who should not, irrespective of neutrality. Many of the scholars and historians I mentioned in my previous reply are regarded as highly esteemed individuals. I could do the same with the entire list of so-called scholars and historians mentioned in that note. There is a large segment that questions the credibility of these so-called scholars and historians, but that doesn't matter. What matters is the narrative that must be served, let alone the truth and reality. Sagar0311 (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia summarizes scholarly research; if you don't like scientific methodology, well, not fine, but Indigenous Aryanism stands where it stands: a religious-political ideology (narrative), thinly disguised as science. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan Well, in this case, it doesn't seem like it. The definition of scholars is questionable, and I don't see any scientific methodology. There is no such thing as 'Indigenous Aryanism'; there's only the Aryan Migration Theory, which is a narrative constructed by a few far-left, politically motivated scholars labeled as mainstream. However, regardless of ideology, Wikipedia recognizes them as scholars, historians, archaeologists, or writers. This applies to both sides, which is why I suggested removing the word 'mainstream.' If someone claims that migration occurred thousands of years ago, it’s their responsibility to prove it. The Aryan Migration Theory lacks substantial evidence to be accepted as reality. Sagar0311 (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indigenous_Aryans