This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: History B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as High-importance). This article was last assessed in May 2012. Central Asia B‑class Low‑importance Indo-Aryan migrations is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have deleted all the WP:OR about 50,000 years. Please provide quotes from papers that establish these wild claims. You might also see the old discussion at Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration_theory/Archive_8#Moorjani.2C_Thangaraj_et_al._.282013.29.2C_Genetic_evidence_for_recent_population_mixture_in_India, where we concluded that the ANI DNA (male DNA) entered India in 2,200 BC. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That timeframe is the mixture of ANI's and ASI's. It has nothing to do with Aryan migration. That is your WP:OR.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a different matter. But I would like to see where the sources say populations have been in India for 50,000 years. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"both Indian ancestry components are older than the purported Indo-Aryan invasion 3,500 YBP".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You interpret "ancestry component" as "population?" How? - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The entire genetics section is WP:OR. We discussed this stuff previously HERE with even admin @Dougweller: agreeing that it is OR. WP: OR states "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." With one exception, none of the genetics studies mention Aryan Migration.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not an OR. Removal of that content (hardly 1/8th similar) from a different page has to do nothing with this article. Sources mention Indo Aryan Migration theory, and this section was written by a few editors thus its important to keep. Capitals00 (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]