Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Genetics, invasion and Ria1

@Pebble101: yo've twice diff diff removed sourced info, and replaced it with other sourced info. There are several problems with this removal/insertion:

• your edit-summary says "This has already been debunked in newer studies dating from 2003 to 2014, as given in the source from sahoo to underhill to sharma to et al." What exactly is it that has been debunked:

• "Several studies rule out the possibility of a large-scale invasion by Indo-Aryans,"
• "but do show traces of later influxes of genetic material,"
• "while others have argued for the possibility of genetic influx by Aryan migrations."
• "Genetic studies also show that language shift is possible without a change in genetics."

• What exactly is it that you want to say with the info you added:

"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."

You do seem to suggest that the Indo-Aryans originated in India, but it's not clear that this is what you want to say.

• Your addition looks like WP:OR. The first sentence is unsourced: "Haplogroup R1a1 in particular is associated with Indo-Aryans in South Asia." What do you mean with "Indo-Aryans"? The present people of India? Or specific historical people?
• Check "In South Asia R1a1 has been observed often with high frequency in a number of demographic groups, especially among Indo-Aryans.(Sengupta et al. 2005)(Sahoo et al. 2006)":

• Which publication is Sengupta et al. 2005?
• Sahoo 2006:

• "The Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family." - how's that different from "no large-scale invasion"?
• "Several studies have argued that, in contrast to the relative uniformity of mtDNA, the Y chromosomes of Indian populations display relatively small genetic distances to those of West Eurasians (17), linking this finding to hypothetical migrations by Indo-Aryan speakers. Wells et al. (18) highlighted M17 (R1a) as a potential marker for one such event, as it demonstrates decreasing frequencies from Central Asia toward South India." - not exactly an argument pro Indian origins, is it?

• The section which you changed is a summary of the extended section further on in th earticle. If you want to add this info, it should be done there, at the appropriate place. But without the WP:SYNTHESIS that it is now.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Bangladesh

Regarding this edit: the question is not whether Bangladesh is part of northern India, but whether the Indo-Aryan migrations reached as far as Bangladesh. They didn't. The Vedic culture reached Bangladesh only in the later Vedic period. We're not talking then anymore about Indo-Aryan migrations, but about Sanskritization. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Weasel-wording in the lede

The last paragraph in the lede contains a lot of weasel-wording and reflects a Hindu nationalist POV. "The debate about the origin of Indo-Aryan peoples is controversial, resulting in political agitation and inflamed sentiments.[9] Some have rejected the theory of Indo-Aryan origins outside of India, maintaining that the Indo-Aryan people and languages originated in India." First, the controversy is only found in India. Second "Some have rejected the theory..." is classic WP:WEASEL. The "some" are Hindu nationalists, part of whose agenda is hide the fact that it is they who oppose the theory, and attempt to make the controversy seem more widespread and general than it is. Athenean (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The whole "in India" narrative should be classified as WP:FRINGE and treated accordingly, that is, virtually ignored, especially in the lead, IMHO. The Hindu nationalists are the equivalent of flat earthers or creationists (or "Alexander was Slavic" proponents). --Taivo (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Taivo has a possible academic WP:COI, since they dismiss any scholar that goes against their POV.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Academic COI? How so? Please elaborate with a detailed comparison of my CV, Indo-European studies, and Indian politics. You better be able to put your money where your mouth is when making such accusations. --Taivo (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Good point. I've removed it pending a better way to say 'controversial'. Also, the current text was not properly sourced (the source only says 'controversial', not the rest). --regentspark (comment) 21:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A left-over of some heated discussions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I reverted Athenean's edit as part of my routine daily check. Sorry to see that it resulted in an edit-war. Now that I re-read his text, I think it is quite ok.
  • It is controversial in India. Fact. It is opposed by Hindu nationalists. Fact. So, I am happy to go with his version.
  • Yes, it is opposed by some scholars elsewhere, like Schaefer etc. But it is a marginal position.
  • It is opposed by some normal people in India too (outside the Hindu nationalist sphere), but we are not saying that everybody that opposes it is a Hindu nationalist. It is clearly that the Hindu nationalists are the main opposition camp. So, again, it is quite ok to go with it.

- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the fact that it is controversial and political in India needs to be included. But we should work out how we say it first. In particular, the wording should make it clear that this is the mainstream theory, that the alternate 'indigenous aryan' theory is considered a fringe one, and that it is associated (mostly is fine) with Hindu nationalists. Something along the lines of A controversial view that Indo Aryan languages originated in India and then spread outward is promoted by scholars associated with Hindu Nationalism. Though this alternative theory has some traction in India, it is considered a fringe view by mainstream scholars.--regentspark (comment) 03:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a mention somewhere in an appropriate place in the article is appropriate, but fringe theories have no place in the lead, which is a summary of the main points of the article. Fringe theories, by definition, are not main points of the topic. I will oppose any mention of this fringe political theory in the lead, but not in some other appropriate place in the article. --Taivo (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree with Taivo.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the fringe "Out of India" theory need to be mentioned in the lede. However, the article has a whole section entitled "Controversy" so a brief mention that the theory is opposed by Hindu nationalist groups would be appropriate. I also think we should mention that the theory is broadly supported in academic circles. How about "The theory has broad support among academics. However, it is opposed by Hindu nationalists on ideological grounds." Athenean (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

That's good and sufficient wording for the "Controversy" section. (I'm hoping that you mistyped when you said you agreed that it needed to be mentioned in the lead. The agreement actually seems to be that it should not be in the lead.) --Taivo (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The 'Indigenous Aryans' view is not a "theory", much less an "alternative" theory. (A theory has to explain all the available facts.) There is just political debate. Athenean's wording is quite accurate. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)