Talk:Aryan

In the original article: ....in colloquial English, and according to Nazi racial theory

Aryan is a Rigvedic-Avestan word for a Race nothing to do with Caucasian. Caucasian word does not exist in Rigveda or Avesta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.14.67 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What a pity that "colloquial English" usage of the term Aryan is that of Nazi racial theory! No better evidence perhaps of the failure of the UK and US educational systems to teach people that Nazi racial theories were pseudo-science, pseudo-history and an abomination to human culture. Or perhaps the US and UK world view of the US and the UK are tacitly dependent on a similar view of mankind, which preaches the supremacy of one "race" above all others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.225.73 (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Erm...I think you've misunderstood the term 'colloquial'. You seem to be implying that this means most English speakers support the Nazi idea of an Aryan race. Colloquial simply means casual or informal useage. Essentially it means if an English speaker who is not a linguist or historian uses the term Aryan or Aryan race without clarifying you can assume they are refering to the Nazi ideas and possibly aren't even aware of any of the other definitions, just like colloquial useage of the word 'cool' is 'good' instead of 'not warm'. They don't have to support it any more than you have to be an ice hockey fan for people to guess that when you say hockey you mean ice hockey rather than field hockey. Danikat (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Aryan is an Arabianic Semitic word which means companion please change the article, folks often get named by their neighbors

Given the racist and anti-Semitic uses to which this name has been put,it is wonderfully ironic that the word “Aryan” has an Afroasiatic origin. According to Szemernyi It is a loan from Semitic into Indo-Iranian. In Ugaritic, the name >ary was used as a gentilic (name of a people), but the word >ary “companion” is clearly related to the Egyptian ˆrˆ with the same meaning.

Humanbyrace (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Aryan is a word that originates from the ancient Persians (Indo-Aryan people, as well as the Medes, etc.) It is not semitic. Indo-Europeans/Aryans came from the Ukraine region (Caucus Steppes), invaded Northern India, and spread throughout Europe and Iran. Where are you getting your false information? Oldest written evidence has been attributed to Darius the Great. The Iranian tribes, Germanic tribes, Celts, Greeks, Slavs, Northern Indians are all Indo-European and Aryan. Another revisionist. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

aryan is from the avestan old persian and sanskrit language the indo-iranian branch is the aryan one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.66.142 (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious!?

Proto Indo-European as well proto Indo-Hittite urheimat is southern Anatolia-northern Syria due to demographical , empricial reasons as well sumerian-egyptian and semitic loanwords in Proto Indo-European.

Ukraine steppes at those times were poorly inhabitated and anyway were inhabitated from folk waves from Anatolia the homeland of neolithic revolution (discovery of agriculture) and consequent demographic explosion.

Indo-Europeanisation of Europe was only a language shift with few genetic input of Anatolian Indo-European (for example Indo-European component amongst French is about 15%)

Please read some books: Gimbutas, Renfrew, Mallory, Anthony, Gamkrelidze, Dolgopolsky etc...

If you want more informations as well as references you can visit some of the threads here below:

As for Aryan etymology, there is no Indo-European nor Indo-Aryan etymology for it but a Semitic one (since earliest Indo-Aryans such as Aryani and Mitanni were neighbors of Semitic peoples)

http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6022

http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?p=86523#post86523

Humanbyrace (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Aryan comes from Iranians not Arabic culture. Scholars and historical documents support this. You seem to be a historical revisionist. This article will not be changed. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

why you all keep writing this Aryan a tribe..is there eny culture where the word is used it is a Indian word that just mean the nobel man.German first link it with Europe and white people the term indo-aryan before ww2 was indo-garman and after British took it where nazi left it.no other culture has the word arya expect india.comparing ariya or ara kind of word to Arya is like Roman with ram,--125.19.35.226 (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC) smith with sayam etc.

ABOUT ARYA BY Rajkris

The word Arya written & pronounced in this way is Sanskrit (see below: Encylcopaedia Britannica, refs 2 to 9). In the Persian/Iranian culture, literature there are a few refs to words such as 'Airya/Ari(i)ya/Ari(a)oi(n)/etc.'. Scholars agree that the Indian 'Arya' and the Persian 'Airya' must have a common root but their definition seems different: whereas the Persian definition may have an ethno-linguistic connotation (but there is no agreement among scholars on that, contrary to what is claimed here), the Indian Arya means Noble/Lord/etc. The most ancient reference to the word Arya occur in the (Rig) Vedas and there is no any ethnical, racial or national connotation... It was used to designate those who developed & adhered to the Vedic culture, religion, more specifically those who worshipped the Devas and especially Indra (see below: Encyclopaedia Britannica, ref2 to ref6) and, at later time, the Hindu religion/culture and more generally the Arya Dharma (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism). Those who belonged to this community were called Aryas (Noble/Civilised), those who did not, were called Anaryas (Non noble/Barbarians/Uncivilised). Inside this community, the high castes were considered as Aryas whereas the lower ones were Anaryas. Among the higher castes, the perfect Aryas were the Kshatriyas (Hindu aristocraty). The place where Hinduism was practiced in its most orthodox way was called Aryavarta (the abode, [sacred] land of the Arya(n)s), Aryadesha (see below ref9); the borders of Aryavarta may have changed throughout times but Iran, Afghanistan, Eastern Pakistan and other central asian areas have never, never been part of Aryavarta ... One more important precision: in the ancient Iranian/Persian culture, in the Avesta, the Devas used to be considered as devils!...

Even if it has a common root, the Persian/Iranian equivalent is written & pronounced differently: airya, ari(i)ya, arioi(n), etc., and this historical difference must respected so as not to make any confusion. Above all, there are few refs to this word in the whole persian literature; so telling that this word was significant in the Persian civilisation is not true. The best example are the Parsis from India: they are scions of the ancient persians in term of ethnicity and religion but they have never called themselves Erya (Airya); why ? Just because this word was neither significant nor a real self designator. Ethnically speaking, Parsis are much more related to the ancient Persians than nowadays inhabitants of Iran (thanks to, because of the caste system in India). Iran has never been a populous area and it has been invaded a lot by different nomadic tribes (Indo Europeans, Semite Arabs, Turks, Mongols).This word became significant in the persian world only recently (last century) by the will of Reza Shah Pahlavi and its supporters who were certainly influenced by the Nazis when they decided in 1935 to rename the country after the ancient Sassanide empire name Eran (see link 1); Only from this period the word Arya (written & pronounced in this way) started being used in a very significant way (iranian people started using arya as name, restaurants, garages started bearing arya name, arya cities, universities were created, etc.). The problem is only a minority of the people were attracted by this new mode.The Iranian people did not understand anything to this so called Aryan myth and pathetic shows such as:[1]. This is one of the reason for the failure of this government: Shah of Iran and its government ultimate goal was to get rid off Islam but they did not realize that the Iranian people were very attached to this religion. These links, articles give a good description, explanation of the Iranian Aryan myth: link 2, link 3 & link 4.

Some Iranian (nationalists) prefer, nowadays, to use the sanskrit word Arya because (this is my opinion) it is more closed to the word Aryan (which derives from this sanskrit word) than Iranian Airya/Ariya. For that purpose, they are using refs from books written by (western)scholars who mix sanskrit arya with persian erya/ari(i)ya. The pb is since nearly 2 centuries, many (so called) scholars have written many wrong things concerning this word; these so called scholars have a clear responsibility in the development of the Aryan racial theories in Europe (see below ref1 and ref10) and consequently, they have a clear (moral) responsibility for the extermination of 6 million jews (Nazis killed them because of this one word)... This is clearly an history falsification, manipulation.

The other pb is that some people are trying to link arya with an ethnical connotation which is wrong:

1) The most ancient refs to the word Arya occur in the Rig Veda and contains no ethnical connotation, national connotation
2) Notions such as Ethnicity, Nationalism, Race are modern concepts which dates back to the 18th century. Applying them to describe the ancient world is very doubtful.
3) Iran has always been a mixture of people of different origin even at the time of the Persian empire... How can some people try to associate an ethnical purity to this country especially nowadays, at a time when more & more scholars tell that the civilisation which has played the most important role in the development of Iran was the Elamite civilisation. Some Iranian are working on Wikipedia to give a fake image of Iran based on a fake ethnical identity...

The references given by Iranians to support their claim of an Iranian Arya are wrong:

-“…Iranian arya [with a short a]…” --> Arya, even with a short ‘a’, is a Sanskrit word (see: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Ref2, Ref4, Ref8); even if nowadays some Iranians prefer to use the word Arya (because more closer to Aryan) instead of their own words Airya/Ari(i)ya, the roots of Arya are Sanskrit.
-"ARYA an ethnic epithet in the Achaemenid inscriptions and in the Zoroastrian Avestan tradition” --> the problem here is that in the Achaemenedid inscriptions it is written ‘Ariya’ and in the Zend language ‘Airya’. It is the author himself who prefer to use the term Arya & therefore, it is author POV and does not correspond to historical reality. The other point is “’ariya: ariyaciça’…The phrase with ciça, “origin, descendance,” assures that it is an ethnic name” --> The translation “Noble from Noble lineage” would also fit (really curious that a king does not mention his noble origins; only 'peasant' background people can think that a king would be prefer to mention his so called ethnical identity instead of his noble, aristocratic origins...)…

Here are the main problems with this article:

- “Arya is an old Indic and Iranian…” --> very wrong: Arya (written & pronounced in this way) is clearly, without any doubt a Sanskrit, Old Indic but NOT (Old) Iranian word or so called Indo Iranian… In the Iranian/Persian history, literature we find similar words: Airya/Ari(i)ya/Ari(a)o(i) suggesting a common origin…
- "Significant to Zorastrians" --> not true (see Parsis who never called themselves Airya/Ari(i)ya)
-"In its oldest recorded forms, Indo-Iranian arya is a national name, i.e. the name of the ethnic group of Indians and Iranians themselves" --> very wrong; the most ancient refs to the word Arya occur in the (Rig) Veda and there is no any etchnical, national, racial connotation!... Were considered as Aryas those who developed, adhered to the Vedic culture, religion. None of the given refs support this sentence.

Some sentences, parts, writes in this article does not correspond to proper academical sources and above all to historical reality, that is: Arya is Sanskrit, Airya/Ari(i)ya Iranian & Aryan is an English (loan) word derived from Sanskrit Arya meaning ‘Noble’.” Iranian Arya” is a POV made by some scholars and does not correspond to historical reality.

Concerning the Iranian chapter, its presence is useful but some corrections need to be done; ex: “Iran means ‘Land of Arya” is not correct, a correct translation would be ‘Land of Airya’ because Iran comes from Eran --> Airan --> Airyan --> Airyanam… As user Fullstop (who has rejected articles from Encyclopaedia Iranica shown by some users) already mentioned, some Iranian editors do not correctly translate their sources; for ex, on Gerardo Gnoli articles, the author uses the historical Iranian terms Airya or Ariya whereas in the wiki articles it is written “(Iranian) Arya”. I have also the strong feeling that ‘Encyclopaedia Iranica’ (at least some articles) gives a biased image of Iran based on a fake ethnical purity… I think this it is financed by some Iranians based abroad and who are close to the Shah of Iran ideology…

As a conclusion: Arya is a Sanskrit, old Indic self designator meaning ‘Noble’ (see Encycopaedia Britannica, refs 2 to 8). The term is significant to Hindus, Buddhists & Jains. In the Iranian literature, there are a few refs to similar words: Airya/Ari(i)ya, suggesting a common origin.
In its oldest recorded forms, Sanskrit Arya was used to designate those who developed, adhered to the Vedic culture.
Some sentences of this article must be rewritten in concordance with proper academic sources and above all historical reality.

Thank you for your attention; i will also add my comments & arguments on the Aryan wiki page asap.

Rajkris (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

REFERENCES

Encylopaedia Britannica [2]

(This article is a summary of what is said about the word Aryan by nowadays proper scholars)

Former name given to a people who were said to speak an archaic Indo-European language and who were thought to have settled in prehistoric times in ancient Iran and the northern Indian subcontinent. The theory of an “Aryan race” appeared in the mid-19th century and remained prevalent until the mid-20th century. According to the hypothesis, these probably light-skinned Aryans were the group who invaded and conquered ancient India from the north and whose literature, religion, and modes of social organization subsequently shaped the course of Indian culture, particularly the Vedic religion that informed and was eventually superseded by Hinduism.

However, since the late 20th century, a growing number of scholars have rejected both the Aryan invasion hypothesis and the use of the term Aryan as a racial designation, suggesting that the Sanskrit term arya (“noble” or “distinguished”), the linguistic root of the word, was actually a social rather than an ethnic epithet. Rather, the term is used strictly in a linguistic sense, in recognition of the influence that the language of the ancient northern migrants had on the development of the Indo-European languages of South Asia. In the 19th century the term was used as a synonym for “Indo-European” and also, more restrictively, to refer to the Indo-Iranian languages. It is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages, a branch of the larger Indo-European language family.

In Europe the notion of white racial superiority emerged in the 1850s, propagated most assiduously by the comte de Gobineau and later by his disciple Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who first used the term “Aryan” for the white race. Members of this so-called race spoke Indo-European languages, were credited with all the progress that benefited humanity, and were purported to be superior to “Semites,” “yellows,” and “blacks.” Believers in Aryanism came to regard the Nordic and Germanic peoples as the purest members of the “race.” This notion, which had been repudiated by anthropologists by the second quarter of the 20th century, was seized upon by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and was made the basis of the German government policy of exterminating Jews, Roma (Gypsies), and other “non-Aryans.”

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, many white supremacist groups adopted the name Aryan as a label for their ideology. Because of this usage and its association with Nazism, the term has acquired a pejorative meaning.

Ref 2: Aryans and British India By Thomas R. Trautmann [3]

"Aryan is from Arya a sanskrit word..."

“… by a name taken from Sanskrit Arya or Aryan” page 2

"Although the word arya is a sanskrit one," page 6

“…name of the race that immigrated from Central Asia into Aryavarta, opposed to an-arya, Dasyu, Dasa (although here we would have to say that the use of the word race and the reference to Central Asia comes from European ideas and not from Sanskrit texts)” page 12

"The Aryan concept is the central idea of the twentieth-century fascims, and the fact that it was developed by scholars raises the question of the role shcolars have played in preparing the way for these appropriations..." pages 14/15

Ref 3: Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions By Wendy Doniger,Merriam-Webster, Inc page 79 [4]

“Aryan (from Sanskrit Arya, ‘Noble’)”

"... In Vedic literature the term arya is used to distinguish privileged members of society from others"

Ref 4: Imperial encounters: religion and modernity in India and Britain By Peter van der Veer [5]

"The sanskrit term arya which means 'honorable man'" page 138

Ref 5: The Indo-Aryan controversy: evidence and inference in Indian history By Edwin Bryant,Laurie L. Patton [6]

"Here, perhaps, it needs to be clarified that in the Vedic texts the word "Arya" was not used in any racial sense..." page 52

Ref 6: A survey of Hinduism By Klaus K. Klostermaier [7]

"... Making the self-designation arya (noble) a racial attribute of the putative invaders,..." page 18

Ref 7: Encyclopaedic dictionary of Vedic terms, Volume 1 By Parmeshwaranand (Swami.) page 120 to 128 [8]

"The Rgvedic passages reffering to the Aryas (...) conquering Dasas or Dasyus with the help of their gods, relate to that stratum of Aryan history when two groups of people seem to have settled on the land of (...). The two groups of people might have difference in colour, but the colour was not the main cause of difference between the two cultures. The only and sole factor responsible for the difference was the instituiton of sacrifice, which one believed while the other did not. One group, which believed, in Yajna and practically performed it, constituted the Aryan, the noble class and the other which did not believe in yajna constituted the Dasa or Dasyu class..."

"The Rgvedic passage showing the Aryans as being conquered by the gods along with the Dasas or Dasyus relate to that stratum of Aryan history when Aryan people were subdivided into many clans, and a king of one clan was fighting against the other, sometimes alone, and sometimes with the help of Dasas or Dasyus."

Ref 8: The British quarterly review, Volume 36 [9]

"Airya which is the equivalent in the Zend language for the Sanskrit arya,..." page 23

"This word ârya, with long a, is derived from arya with a short a, and this name arya is applied in later sanskrit... " page 24

"If it was 'originally a national name', of which, however, there is no proof, we confess we cannot well understand how,..." page 24

Ref 9: Essays on ancient India By Raj Kumar [10]

"I-tsing refers to India generally as the West, but he tells us that it was known as Aryadesha (...), the noble region" page 172

Ref 10: Performativity and belonging By Vikki Bell [11]

"It is difficult to deny the complex imppact that some ideas in Vedic Hinduism did have in the reformation of some versions of German and French nationalism." page 74

"There is considerable debate about whether or not the Vedas and subsequent literature contained concepts that led directly to ideas of phenotypical 'race'" page 75

"One can accept that the word arya in the Rig-Veda (airya in the Avestan literature), referred to a quality that is usually translated as 'noble', rather than an ethnology, and certainly not an 'Aryan race'." page 75

LINKS

Link 1: [12]
"The suggestion for the change is said to have come from the Iranian ambassador to Germany, who came under the influence of the Nazis."

Link 2: [13]
“However, all attempts by the Pahlavis in engendering the Aryan myth, Persianization of Iran and the Farsi language (…), were attempts from the top, lacking any real popular foundations. Except for a group of upper middle-class and descendants of a cluster of feudal families, Pahlavism was a joke, especially the theater of spectacle that the Shah put on to celebrate the 2500th anniversary of Achamenid dynasty.”

Link 3: [14]
“The false equation of language and race was widespread in the west between around 1850-1950, and some Iranians influenced by Western racist thinkers, took pride in being Indo-Europeans, or "Aryans"”

Link 4:[15]
“It surprises us when we realize that just barely over half of all Iranians are actually ethnic Persians”; “We, who pride ourselves for being so closely related to the Hansels and Gretels of Europe, after all look too suspiciously similar to our Arab conquerors and brothers and cousins to the south, dark hair, dark eyes, big noses and all.”

Rajkris (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

please respect WP:TALK. Article talkpages are not for posting counter-articles. --dab (𒁳) 13:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not at all a counter article. This is discussion on what is wrong on the actual article. I want to change some sentences of this article, that's why i have posted my comments and refs before changing. [[User:Ra

fine, I have restored your text. But I hope you don't expect anyone to read it.

if you want to point out a problem with the article, why don't you that instead of posting a giant essay. It isn't clear what you want, it isn't clear why you quote random Persian nationalist websites, it isn't clear whether you want to address etymology or modern racialism, and you aren't helping an already confused issue. --dab (𒁳) 07:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is long but i wanted to be as clear and give as much refs as possible in order to do the necessary changes on this article. If people like you do not read what i wrote, my work is useless. Some parts may not be interesting but some others really are. The references I have found are really good. Please just take 5min to read it.

I want to address etymology, the original meaning of the word Arya. Here are the changes I want to bring in this article (see above for my explanations, arguments & refs): In concordance with (proper) academical sources, this article must distinguish Sanskrit Arya from Iranian Airya/Ari(i)ya; (part) sentences like 'Iranian Arya', 'Indo Iranian Arya' are not correct. Sentences such as "In its oldest recorded forms, Indo-Iranian arya is an ethnonym, i.e. the name of the ethnic group of Indians and Iranians themselves..." are wrong. I will give the necessary refs for all the changes I'm going to do (with links to check). Rajkris (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That was simply random websites, selective scholarship possible (I think anyone knows we don't use random websites with non-expert authors in Wikipedia), WP:OR,WP:Synthesis combined with I don't like it.. One can do the same with google books. Here is Wieshofer a major historian:"Iran" was derived from the Sassanian concept of Eranshahr ('Empire of the Aryans'). [16] Someone else can for example get 1000 references from google books and make up their own story. All of it simply WP:OR. Websites are not WP:RS sources not are simple Britannica (which actually defines it as a group of people)/Merriam webster. It has no effect on Wikipedia. Please do not confuse the German Nazi concept with the etymological roots in Iranian literature of Arya. Also Encyclopedia Iranica is well recognized source unlike the random websites, merriam webster dictionary, Britannica and etc. which are considered teriatary sources. Please find some scholars of ancient history that are living in the modera era and are at recognized universities who claim what you claim. Here is a modern article WP:RS by Gnoli. The "Aryan" Language, Gherardo Gnoli, Instituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, Roma, 2002.". See page 86 of that article and also the many other books/references by Gnoli. I do however agree with you that the term "Arya" was not used in the ethno-linguistic sense in the Indian literature. That is exactly what Gnoli states as well[17]: "There can be no doubt about the ethnic value of Old Iran. arya (Benveniste, 1969, I, pp. 369 f.; Szemerényi; Kellens).". The Indic term Arya probably had a different different connotation and lacked an ethnic connotation all together. So that is why the Iranian Arya should be separated (even have its own article), then the Indic arya should have its own article and also the Nazi/Germani racialist concept it own article. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Read Britannica. Arya is Sanskrit, Airya/Ari(i)ya is Iranian. My refs are clear, please do not use Wikipedia rules to threaten me simply because you are not able to counter me. If you want you can create

Airya wiki article. Rajkris (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Britannica is now like Wikipedia where anyone can edit. It is a teriatary source which lacks value WP:RS. For example its authors are not even known. Gheraldo Gnoli, Mallory, etc. are well known Professors of Academic universities. Actually, we go with what is the English usage. When Airya/Ari/Er..are interchangeable with Aryan in English scholarly usage. Britannica (which looks like the article has had many edits and revisions, none of whose authors are scholars) also states:"former name given to a people who were said to speak an archaic Indo-European language and who were thought to have settled in prehistoric times in ancient Iran and the northern Indian subcontinent." Random website sources or outdated sources are not really WP:RS. For example look here: [18] "As an ethnic designation, however, it is properly limited to Indo-Iranians (most justly to the latter) "

Anyhow, you need some serious scholars like Gnoli, Witzel, Mallory and etc. to state your position. Gnoli, Beneviste..etc. partially agree with your position that Arya/Aryan (however you want to write it and pronounce it) is not an ethnic term in Indic literature. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Britannica is the most reliable sources in English language. Stop your POV on Britannica. in [19] you have provided above, it clearly tells Iranian ariya and Sanskrit Arya. Why do you prefer to use Arya instead of your own words Airya/Ariya (even Gnoli uses Ariya) ??. The refs I have given are from serious scholars no pb.Rajkris (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The usage of Arya is because that is the common term used in English. See Harold Walter Bailey and his article on the subject here: [20] "ARYA, an ethnic epithet in the Achaemenid inscriptions and in the Zoroastrian Avestan tradition". Gnoli also uses Arya [21] "There can be no doubt about the ethnic value of Old Iran. arya (Benveniste, 1969, I, pp. 369 f.; Szemerényi; Kellens).". Gnoli uses it in his books two: [22]

In the Old Persian it is "ariyâ", Av. "airya", Greek "Arioi", "áreion", Bactrian "ariao", .. given the various spellings, Gnoli states: "All this evidence shows that the name arya “Iranian” was a collective definition, denoting peoples "[23] So the common spelling for all these terms s "Arya" in English language. I believe you know the credentials of Harold Walter Bailey and Gheraldo Gnoli [24]. Britannica is hardly a reliable source. It has no author, and it is teriatary source (with no author). With the new features that anyone can edit it, it has also become less reliable. However, I do not see where it conradicts Gnoli/Bailey (which if it did, it would not be used since Gnoli, Bailey.. are well known scholars and secondary sources by Wikipedia definitions). It is the only source that you mentioned that has some wiki value (youtube, random websites do not..). But it is hardly on par with Gnoli, Bailey, Mallory, Witzel and the rest of the scholars. Britannica in has no author for its articles. Wikipedia should use scholars in the field.

I do agree however, that the sanskrit/indic term lacks an ethnic meaning (this is the opinion of Gnoli/Beneviste..). Gnoli states:"Emile Benveniste is thus quite right to assert that, unlike the various terms connected with the Aryan arya- in Old Indian, the Old Iranian arya- is documented solely as an ethnic term.." [25]--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC) So I think what the article fails to address is the difference context these words are used in Indic and Iranic literature. My main point is that you cannot delete the section that has such well known authors as Bailey, Gnoli, Mackenzie. As per the etymology online, it is correct but as you see , the English term is Arya/Aryan for the "ariyâ", Av. "airya", Greek "Arioi", "áreion", Bactrian "ariao", .. So one must use the English term. However my idea is this: 1) Separate article for the Indian context of the word Arya (Indic literature) 2) Separate article for the Iranian context Arya (Iranian term) 3) Separate article for Arya/Aryan in the Nazi/Racialist literature Aryan (racialist misusage). I believe this will solve a lot of problems and divorce the political abuse and even some psuedo-scholarly abuse (giving an ethnic meaning to the Indic literature). What do you think? If DAB and others agree, it would be a good way to proceed. Then we can make a DAB page.

As per the references you gave, I am sorry, but random websites/youtube are not references. The other scholars you mentioned are not experts of ancient history in Western universities (Gnoli, Mallory, Witzel, Bailey, etc). However, Gnoli as I showed you agrees with your concept in the Indic literature (lack of ethnic meaning for Arya). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop telling that the scholars i mentionned are not experts... This is your POV. Trautmaan and others have as much reputation as Gnoli and other scholars you have mentionned. Whether you like it or not, historically Arya is Sanskrit, Airya/Ariya Iranian (this is what most scholars tell), Aryan an English word. I agree with 3 separate articles but do not think the use of Arya for Iran is good. I need a 3rd neutral opinion and why not an expert opinion on that. One question: why Parsis who 'ethnically' are more closed to the ancient Persians, never called themselves Airya/Ariya ??Rajkris (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

BtW, see also OED: "Aryan from Sansrit Arya 'Noble'"... Arya is a Sanskrit word whether you like it or not and therefore should not be used for Iran. Please use your own words Airya/Ariya, even Gnoli uses mostly Ariya.Rajkris (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Gnoli uses Arya/Aryan and various other formulations of the same word. There is also Sanskrit "ārya", "ā́rya" but one does not go on to make an article with the diacritic signs. One uses the most common spelling in English (and that is why the Encylopaedia Iranica has it that way as well). So that is why one cannot use Sanskrit ā́rya,ārya for a title as well as one cannot use Old Persian ariyâ as a title for an article. Wikipedia works by using the term as the way it has entered the English language and how the English speakers use it. As per the author you noted (Trautmaan), he can be said to have the same level of expertise as Gnoli (but the random websites, youtube and etc. you have quoted do not). However you did not quote him on page 13: "What made "Aryan" seem appropriate was it was not only the name Sanskrit speakers gave themselves, but it was also used by the speakers of Old Persian; indeed the name Iran is derived from a genitive plural of the word, meaning: "(land) of the Aryas".

So he is stating it was used concurrently and in parallel in Old Persian and Sanskrit. However, whereas one can firmly state that Old Persian is 2500 years, one cannot state how old is Rig Veda (oldest Sanskrits) simply because it was transmitted by oral transmission, and its oldest written testament is later than 2500 years ago. However, based on linguist grounds some scholar date it to 1700-1100 BC (per the wikipedia article), however that is about the same age that some scholars date the Old Avesta. My main problem with this argument (which does not mean I can change the Wikipedia article since it would be Original Research) is that German and English are both from the same family, however if German was a dead language, one would think it was spoken 1500 years, since English would be a more modern form of it. Same with Pashtu and Persian, where Pashtu has basically conserved many grammatical rules of Old Iranian, making it a much more difficult language to acquire than modern Persian.

As per Parsis, in their own literature, the word Iran/Iranian is used which is a continuation of "Er/Ir"...ultimately leading to Arya..[26]. Also Avesta is part of Parsi literature. However, since you mentioned this point. The concept of Sanskrit "Arya".. was rediscovered by Western orientalists actually. Indians themselves never used it until the British came. According to some modern Western scholars even, it does not have an ethnic meaning. However the words "Iran", "Iranian".. have been used continously as a reference to Iranians for themselves (and also distinguished in classical Persian literature from Turks, Arabs, Indians, Romans..etc. as an ethnic group). Now Iran has also a geophrapical designation as well, so one can be an Arab of Iran or Iranian Arab. But its meaning as an ethnic term like Iranian peoples has been used through the centuries. In terms of nationality it would be a citizen of Iran (a later concept than the ethnic term Iranian). Be that it may, I think we need three articles really (bearing in mind that Wikipedia uses the common English terms not say the Old Persian or Sanskrit term ā́rya):

• Aryan (Iranian Literature)

• Aryan (Indian Literature)

• Aryan (20th century Racialst Theory).. Equating it with Indo-Europeans, the Nazi concept..

My main point is that these three things are distinct, and even the Sanskrit Arya ā́rya according to Beneviste, Gnoli does not have an ethnic meaning, whereas in the Iranian literature, it has solely an ethnic meaning. Then the page Arya/Aryan can be made into a disambiguous page. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

the same thing has been discussed many times here. It is frustrating to see how this article makes no progress whatsoever beacause people insist on going in circles. --dab (𒁳) 08:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not able to understand the discussions (1, 2) by the user Rajkris. I just want to stress that 1. there is no point of making selective and random use of stuff in the internet (for example: in the "link 3" a sentence of this has been abused. There it is written clearly that "[Iranians were called Aryan]... until Hitler discredited the term by putting racial theory into horrible practice.") This and our wiki articles make it clear that "Arya" depending on its place and time of use does have completely different meanings. Why ignoring this over and over gain? 2. If the hindus want to say that they are "real aryans", let them say so and if they can source that, they can add it to any article they want. 3. On dividing the article into "Iranian usage" and "Indian usage" and "European usage" I am afraid we have to do wp:or. after all there is a point why the term "indo-iranian"/"indo-europeans" exist. We do not know if the "Iranian Arya" and "Indian Arya" were born after Iranians and Indians got separated. This seems to be what the user wants. (I, personally, think that "Arya" was born before separation). By the way, I would like to point out that the Iranian Arya was written and we have it today (both in purely linguistic-religious meaning that Darius used in his OP language and also religious and ethnic & linguistic meaning used in Avesta -- apparently this Avesta like texts in Sanskrit was only later written up) but Old indic Arya was not written until many many centuries later.... I think having an article exclusively about the etymology of pre-19th century Arya is a good thing... Xashaiar (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

to user Xashaiar: The full sentence is "... some Iranians, influenced by Western racist thinkers, took pride in being Indo-Europens, or "Aryans" as they were also called until Hitler discredited the term by putting racial theory into horrible practice."But as Britannica states, nowadays the word Aryan is used only in the sense of Indo-Aryan languages; you can check that in one of the ref mentionned by user Khodabandeh14:[27]

to user Khodabandeh14: I repeat once again, 'Iranian Arya' is not historically correct... By telling this you are misleading people... Historically, whether you like it or not, we find Sanskrit Arya & Iranian Airya/Ariya. Your argument, reason "In the Old Persian it is "ariyâ", Av. "airya", Greek "Arioi", "áreion", Bactrian "ariao", .. given the various spellings, Gnoli states: "All this evidence shows that the name arya “Iranian” was a collective definition, denoting peoples "[30] So the common spelling for all these terms s "Arya" in English language", in this case you should mention this before writing sentences such as 'Iranian Arya' else you are lying to people who read this article. I'm not breaking any Wikipedia rules, my refs are from serious, respected, competent scholars (Trautmann, etc.), & sources (Britannica, OED). The web links I have provided are just here for information, I had no intention to use them as refs. Your opinion on Encycopeadia Britannica is pure POV. Check what is told about Britannica Online in the wiki article on Britannica ("Contributions from non-academic users will sit in a separate section from the expert-generated Britannica content (...) Official Britannica material would carry a 'Britannica Checked' stamp, to distinguish it from user-generated content.", Aryan article carries the 'EBchecked' stamp!)... It is not because it does not tell what you want, you have to rejec it. Britannica along with OED is the most respected academical source in the English/Western world.

Concerning your statement "As per Parsis, in their own literature, the word Iran/Iranian is used which is a continuation of "Er/Ir"...ultimately leading to Arya..", The ref you gave does not tell this, please provide sources concerning Parsis else please do not assert such things. The fact that Parsis did not call themselves Airya or Ariya raises serious doubts on your claim that this word was a national, etchnical name...

Concerning your statement "The concept of Sanskrit "Arya".. was rediscovered by Western orientalists actually. Indians themselves never used it until the British came", I don't know where did you find it but this is pure POV. From the earliest history till now, the word Arya has been used in a very significant way (see Aryavarta, AryaDesha [28], AryaPura [29], Aryabhata, Bhaskaracharya, Mahaviracharya, Arya Samaj, etc.). There are hundreds (maybe thousand) of refs to Arya (written & pronounced in this way) in the Indian literature; on the contrary in the Iranian literature, there are no more than 10 refs (max a few dozens) to Ariya/Airya and its derivative...

Concerning: "However you did not quote him on page 13: "What made "Aryan" seem appropriate was it was not only the name Sanskrit speakers gave themselves, but it was also used by the speakers of Old Persian; indeed the name Iran is derived from a genitive plural of the word, meaning: "(land) of the Aryas"", even it is written by a scholar, 'Iran, land of the Aryas' is not correct because Iran is from Eran which must be from Airyanam, so a correct meaning, translation would be 'Iran means land of the Airyas'.

Concerning your ref [30]: in this article written in 2002, Gnoli talks about Aryan languages and not ethnicity, by mixing these 2 things you are doing the same mistake as 19th/early 20th centuries scholars...

Concerning your ref [31], have you noticed what the author tells ? "... it is worth recalling that the word 'Aryan' has meaning only as a linguistic term...".

Please try to understand why so many serious sources such as Britannica, OED mnetion this: "Aryan from Sanskrit Arya 'Noble'"... You are pushing a Persian vision in English Wikipedia whereas I'm using the 2 most respected refs of the English world (OED & Britannica) to support my writtings. Thank you.Rajkris (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

To user Rajkris. Please avoid making such edits; for example this: "nowadays mostly restricted to Indo-Aryan languages". You claim to source it from [Encyclopaedia Britannica] (which is not a good source here). Even that source states " It is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages, a branch of the larger Indo-European language family." May I ask you how you got the idea that this sentence means "..scholarly usage..[of the term Aryan is] nowadays mostly restricted to [Indo-Aryan languages|Indo-Aryan]]" (this is what you have "actually" added). This is unacceptable (wp:synth, wp:nor, ..). Xashaiar (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this content for the moment... But whether you like or not, nowadays it is mostly restricted to Indo Aryan languages (see my comment to you above). It is not because the source do not tell what you want you must consider it as bad one. If you want, we can ask for a third neutral opinion on that matter.Rajkris (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI: "As an adaptation of the Latin Arianus, referring to eastern part of ancient Persia, 'Arian'..." --> This is what is written in OED.Rajkris (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead

I am concerned about this edit. It does violate wp:nor, wp:npov and many more. There was also an agreement about the lead. I propose reverting back to the older version and discuss the changes before making them. Xashaiar (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are the modifications I have done:

I have mentionned that "Aryan is from Sanskrit arya" according to OED, Britannica and other good sources.

I have replaced "Indo Iranian arya" (which was not sourced) by "Sanskrit arya" (by providing sources).

I have replaced "As an adaptation of the latin 'Arianus', referring to Iran, 'Aryan' has long been in English language use" by "As an adaptation of the latin 'Arianus', referring to eastern part of ancient Persia, 'Arian' has long been in English language use", because this is the sentence found in OED ! (the initial sentence was a clear maniputlation of OED source !).

I'm not violating Wikipedia rules, it is you on the contrary who is violating it by continuously removing sourced sentences. Rajkris (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Aryan is originally a Sanskrit word which got adopted as a loan word in the Persian language. Sanskrit language is much older than the Persian language (3,500 yrs vs 2,500 yrs). The fact that this word was adopted in to Latin / Greek through the Persian language doesn't mean that the original source (Sanskrit) is to be ignored. Anyway... with the addition of refs, this should not be a difficult issue to resolve. Axxn (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

original meaning of 'arya'

I read the following explanation by a Swami, can't remember his name or the title of his book (which was about Hinduism in general): original meaning of arya was 'to plough', it came to mean 'people of the plough', people of the plough led a settled existence and had the leisure time to develop a higher culture (in particular, exploring the nature of reality through their own consciousness), arya then came to mean cultured or noble and applied to any such group, regardless of ethnicity. From Sanskrit arya, to plough, we get Latin 'arare', to plough, and from this English 'arable'. Sorry I can't cite the source, Any comments? ashramgeezer 6 Oct2010--Ashramgeezer (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

would like to mention some already fixed in accordance fact contained in the text and there is historical evidence.

1 - The translation to indicate the root of the word, arya. 2 - The oldest attend founde in Behistun ( which accualy should be Bi Stun, Bi= With out AND Stun=Pillar),which is KrudStan. (Kurd Stan, or Kurd Stan (Stan the swidish Means Town))

3 - Kurdish as well as Persian is an Indo-European language.

4- Ary means in both Persian and kurdish (so long as I know): Free

So it's not a race but a way of being. If to be free from all the involuntary is precious so I can go with it to consider Ary as noble people. The lies in man's desire to be noble or free, or that you want to be, namely a Ary.

LyssnaLäs fonetiskt

Ordbok - Visa detaljerad ordbok Översätt över 50 språkescargotsπαραλίαआज मेरा जन्मदिन हैं.La voiturehaydi gidelimnazdar!mijn vriendWie heißen Sie?sư tử국수Es ist sehr interessant!Wie bitte?Wie spät ist es?hello¿Cómo estás?أحب كرة القدمHjelp!rougemiracolosoשמחПроститеVær så snillPardon ??Je parle un petit peu français.กาแฟhoje está ensolaradoมีสีสันχρησμόςdětiIch bin vierzig Jahre altJe ne sais pas !Wie gehts?Buongiorno Principessa! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.121.68.1 (talk) 07:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

kurds aryan

i wonder are the kurds descendents of the aryans who migraded too iranian plateu tell me why and how thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.66.142 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The talk page of an article is only meant for discussion relating to the improvement of the article. General questions about the subject can be asked at the reference desk, thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

unnecessary

Was it really necessary to write a whole article about one word. The bottom line is that it is a sanskrit word that was later adopted into the persian language and used by the Nazis. Theres no need to fuel iranian and western nationalist sentiments any more than they already have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.246.215 (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What a mess!

I came to this article for a quick check on the derivation and original meaning of this term only to be smothered under a horribly awkward first paragraph and messy enumeration of terms. Incidentally, although the racist connotations are distateful, in my view it would be better to address them at the start with a sentence along the lines of, erroneously adopted by white supremacists and Nazis who failed to understand the meaning of the term. As most people would expect to see this at the start (sadly), isn't it better to do so but be dismissive at the same time? Blitterbug (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The best solution to this and other problems already discussed in this talk page is in my opinion: make a Disambiguation and write something like

Arya, thus adjective and noun aryan, may refer to

• Arya in Indian linguistic and other contexts (cf. Arya (Indian context))
• Arya in Iranian linguistic context (cf. Arya (Iranian context))
• Arya in European racial context (cf. Aryan (Nazi racial context))

The article has already all of these but one good editor should make the split. Xashaiar (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Aryan is a sanskrit word, not greek and it was referred to the ancient indo iranians

aryan is undoubtedly a sanskrit word, it is not a greek word and it was not referred to ariana, it was referred to the ancient indo iranians, some one has secretley changed and vandalized the page without the awareness of the admins or without concesus, please correct it, arian is sanskrit meaning noble and originally referred to the ancient indo iranians.thanks--Tabande (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is telling the contrary. Aryan has it is root with Sanskrit Arya. But according to OED, the word Arian (with i) comes from Latin Arianus refering to Ariana.Rajkris (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

How can Aryan be a Sanskrit word when it was the Indo-Iranians that used it for themselves (even today)? --Diyairaniyanim (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Etyomology

I belive that the name "Aryan" has derived from the fire worshippers or the fire cult of the Indo-Iranians. These cults are still active today, for example the Kurdish Ezidis, or the Parsian in Northern India that practises Zoroastrism.

What's the name for "fire" in Indo-Iranian languages? In Kurdish it's "Agir" or "Ar". Thus, "Arî" would indicate someone who is a fire worshipper. The name has got noting to do with Europeans, that's just Nazi bullshit. And Aryans have never been associated with Blondes until the Romanticperiod (literature) of Europe, claiming tall and blonde Vikings conquered the entire world from Scandinavia and brought upon them their language. The Kurgan theory is based on this kind of bullshit. Has nothing to do with science, cause they're not looking at the subject neutrally. The oldest IndoEuropean people are found in the Middle East, and I think they came from these areas.

One more thing about Blondes. There are many fairhaired Kurds/Persians/Afghans. This doesn't automatically connect with Europeans. Why? Answer is simple, look at their facial features. A fairhaired Kurd doesn't have anything genetic in common with a fairhaired Swede, except for the hair colour. I have seen many of these. Many Mountainers among these people have these light features. Let us also not forget that in Europe, the people with most Blondes are Swedes and Russians, because of their cold climate. And up in the mountains, the climate is cold.

The gene for Blonde hair was developed in areas with cold climate making it easier for the skin to "grab" Vitamin D from the sun.

It's more logic to accept a theory were the IndoEuropeans either originated in Iran or Kurdistan, and then moved out to Europe (and of course northern India, who is just at the corner and have been a part of Median/Persian empires) because these cultures are much older and richer than the Europeans.

--Diyairaniyanim (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

WOW, so the Elamite rats think they are Aryans, and that's why they call themeselves Iranians ??? Thank God we have R1a1 to finally prove that these filthy rats were only "conquered" and "ruled" by Aryans, but they were never Aryans themelves !!! The whole history that these Elamite rats have fabricated will fall apart very soon, thanks to genetic testing! The Sassanid kings meant these are the lands of the Aryans in a medieval sense, as a property, not in a modern nationalistic sense, meaning that the rats are Aryans !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.3.65 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What the...? Did your entire world collapse now? Being Aryan is like mentioned above, not anything that suggests blondism! Aryan is something that we, the people of Kurdistan to India have called ourselves for thousands of years. It has nothing to do with your race/identity problems! Call yourself blonde/northernEuropean/whity or whatever you want, but the name Aryan suggests a fire cult, which some of our people still belong to today! Once again Aryan has nothing to do with looks! But you use our own name, to build up your identity, what a false person!

In the Middle East, we look down on people who deny their origins like you. Shit that don't even want to recognize his own father! You "northern Europeans" have NEVER called yourself Aryans, it has never been a tradition of that word in Europe, but in the romantic period of litterature (19th century), some of you cunts discovered the connection between our languages, and thought yourselves as conquerors.

Nothing good has come ouf of northern Europeans before the discovery of America. When you discovered America, (btw, Columbus was of the Mediterrean Race, not northern European), and when you got rid of the church and christianity, that's when good things started to come out of Europe in matters of science and culture. Before that you were just a bunch of retarded apes! Science, agriculture, all these have been developed in the Middle East and later spread to the Greeks (who also are Mediterrean) who developed it even more.

Let's call northern Europeans "whitys" from now on. Whitys claim themself to be of a strong warrior race. When did a white guy ever had the guts to challange someone to a fight? We live in your countries now, and we now know that most of you are pussys and cowards. What strong race? You're all skinny and weak, full of allergies and illnes.

Tell your Nazi friends, if there is ANY "Superior race" on this planet, then it must be the Jews! They have a very high frequency of succesful scientists and businesmen, many among these are among the elite of the world! Einstein, Bohr, the list is very long.

And now you call us "rats"? I wish for the moment, when we meet face to face, and where you will call me a rat, you will see what happens! --Diyairaniyanim (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)