Talk:Aryan race: Difference between revisions

Critical race theory needed

In light of the genuine Indo-European migrations, an emphasis on the Aryan race as 1) limited historically only to Indo-Iranians and 2) not constituting a distinct biological group *in the context of critical race theory* is needed. This article has a lot of work left. Zagreus99 (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source stating that critical race theory has anything to do with this? Generalrelative (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The entire concept of the article is based on critical race theory in psychology. Not in the legal sense. I can’t revert my changes on the app for some reason but could somebody actually read what I changed before reverting it themselves. Would appreciate if somebody could revert those changes back. Zagreus99 (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Anybody reading this is going to see bias with the recent aDNA evidence. I made changes to avoid that Zagreus99 (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, you need to present sources and state specifically what changes you are seeking. I cannot even parse this request. Generalrelative (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m removing claims that *aren’t* sourced. Onus is to source claims. Zagreus99 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Debunked theory

@Ficaia: I suggest that you do your due diligence by visiting the sources at Aryan in reference to the "racial" interpretation of Aryans. Explain this edit. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 19:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@WikiLinuz: The article is already very clear that that the category is not scientific. "Debunked and obsolete" is redundant and bad English. Caucasian race, Negroid, and Mongoloid all use the form "X is an obsolete historical racial category". Ficaia (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ficaia on this, as stated in my recent edit summary. Generalrelative (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Aryan race theories were major propellants in Nazism, Nordicism and scientific racism works by various writers; current lead doesn't give WP:DUE prominence to those details, given that "aryan race" predominantly used for such purposes. That's something distinct to be addressed in this article compared to Negroid or Mongoloid. Nevertheless, I will try to work on this if I could squeeze in some time. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 21:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is right and proper to mention these things in the lead, especially since there is a section in the body about them. We can even just borrow from the main article Aryan, which does a good job discussing this aspect of the topic. But that's entirely separate from whether we use the term "debunked" in the opening sentence. Generalrelative (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

"Obsolete" and "debunked" do not have the same meaning. "Obsolete" means the term/concept is no longer in use or out of date. "Debunked" means that its falseness has been exposed/proven. (Definitions adapted from Google definitions from Oxford Languages.) Mirriam-Webster website says "Debunk itself often suggests that something is not merely untrue but also a sham; one can simply disprove a myth, but if it is debunked, the implication is that it was a grossly exaggerated or foolish claim." None of these shades of meaning are implied by the word "obsolete" so I don't see any reason why we shouldn't include both words.— Diannaa (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I agree. It's more accurate to include both terms. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 21:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Do any of the sources use the word? It was added to the first sentence recently without adding any new reference. Ficaia (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ficaia: I'm almost certain that you haven't looked over the sources. Let me quote the source that was already cited:

The myth [Aryan race] was the creation of German linguists and philologists, who confused language relationships with racial stock relationships [...] we cannot date the origin of the myth earlier than the nineteenth century because it was not until 1788 Sir William Jones [...] more enlightened philologists, Muller, in 1888, explicitly retracted his doctrine and admitted emphatically that language affinities are no evidence for racial relationships. By this time, however, the impetus which Muller's endorsement had given to the Aryan myth had carried it so far that his retraction could not undo the damage. In this book, he [De Gobineau] adopted the myth of the ancient Aryan race and attributed superiority to those descendants of the Aryans whose blood was least degraded by a mixture with inferior stock.
— Knight Dunlap (October 1944). "The Great Aryan Myth". The Scientific Monthly. 59 (4). American Association for the Advancement of Science: 296–297.

Scholars repeatedly used the word myth. This accurately fits with the definition of "debunked". WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 01:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the word was added recently, has been fought over in edits, and isn't in the sources. "Debunked" is an unusual and highly charged word. Without a direct reference I don't think it's encylopaedic to include it. Your defence of the word is the result of your personal interpretation of sources which do not actually use it. Ficaia (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Just because that very word is not used in the sources, doesn't mean we cannot use it, if it is le mot juste. There's sourced content in Aryan, starting at Aryan#Origin that is relevant.— Diannaa (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems like the word might be better placed in a section discussing the history of the term as a "theory", but opening the article with "X is an obsolete and debunked..." is bad English and I don't think Flaubert would approve of our prose style. Ficaia (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

If you believe having those two terms within a single sentence makes it bad English, I can have "debunked" on the opening sentence and move "obsolete" below. I think that would resolve your concern, as the former best resonates with the sources and the article subject itself. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 04:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The stylistic problem is only one concern. I still think "debunked" is an unusual word: it's not used in any of the other wiki articles on racial categories, and it's not in the sources. The second sentence of the lead already makes it clear that racial categories are unscientific so introducing a new adjective is unnecessary and repetitious. Ficaia (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Other historical race concepts does not lade the same weightage as that of "Aryan race", be it 'obsolete' biological racial groupings such as Negroid, Mongoloid, or Caucasian race - because Aryan was strictly an ethnocultural self-designation of Indo-Iranians. The linguistic lineage of German and Sanskrit (and other Indo-European languages) were historically misemployed to construct a mythical race of "Aryan". That is something to be contrasted and articulated distinctly. And, "debunked" seems to be the only felicitous word that articulates the detail, as mere "obsolete" doesn't modulate that. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 07:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The mythologising of "Aryan" by the Nazis and their antecedents is only one aspect of this article. You added a paragraph to the end of the lead summarising this history, which is good. Perhaps you can work "debunked" in there; although the word itself still bothers me. If it's so "felicitous", you should be able to find a scholar who uses it. Either way, the article as a whole covers more than just the Nazi co-opting of the term so the word is inappropriate in the opening sentence. Ficaia (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The mere meaning of "obsolete" is inaccurate in this article. According to Lexico, obsolete is defined as no longer produced or used; out of date. For instance, travelling on the horses are considered obsolete because we now have cars. Or, we don't send postal letters to talk with our friends and families because it's obsolete and we use IMs. The nuance is that, being obsolete doesn't mean it is necessarily incorrect; rather, it's just out of fashion. Whereas debunk is defined as expose the falseness or hollowness of an idea or belief), which seem to fit here. Or, if you want less charged, confute, which is defined as prove (a person or an assertion or accusation) to be wrong, seems apt (which I'm considering). This is also something Diannaa mentioned previously. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 07:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"Debunked" implies something sinister or deceptive about the idea. The Nazi use of the term is especially sinister, as you point out. But the broader misapplication of Aryan to the Proto-Indo-Europeans and their descendants as a racial grouping (long before the Nazis) is no different to the other obsolete racial categories. Ficaia (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Aryan isn't a racial grouping. It never was - the Aryan article clearly unfolds that. So I don't understand how using "debunked" is a broader misapplication. Also, where do you find Aryan as a racial category attesting to Proto-Indo-Europeans and their descendants? WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 08:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

To correct myself, the term was applied to the Germanic or northern European "strand" of the Proto-Indo-Europeans by Max Müller. His theory was disputed even in the 19th century. Ficaia (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Sorry, but in fact, I fear your understanding of Aryan is fallacious here. The Sanskrit word "ārya" had been used by Indo-Iranians for 1000s of years as their self-designative identity; that fact doesn't change if a few well-known racists, antisemites, and pro-slavery writers misemployed the word during the 19th century for their vicious ideologies. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 08:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

To clarify my position: All race concepts are "debunked", yet not all are "obsolete". "Black" and "White", for instance, are still very much in use because their socially constructed meaning is very much a lived reality. "Aryan race", on the other hand, is only used today by FRINGE race realists who persist in an outdated conception of human race. That's why this is a "historical race concept" and why all our articles on such concepts refer to them as "obsolete". Generalrelative (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: The nuance that you're waving away is that, the term was already used by the Indo-Iranians, and it isn't a 19th-century invention like other historic racial groupings like I already pointed out previously. And, this edit of yours left out the important nuances. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 13:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The term "Aryan" was indeed used for thousands of years (and still is) in India and Iran. But that's why we have a separate article on the term Aryan. This article is about the historical race concept Aryan race, which was invented in the late 18th century.

Regarding my recent edits, I'm not sure what "important nuances" you're referring too. It seemed to me that I was sorting out garbled language, repetition, and excessive detail that did not belong in the lead of this article. Generalrelative (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It's significant to explicitly mention that Aryan race is an erroneous racially-oriented interpretation of Aryans—originally an ethnolinguistic category—[...]. Aryan race is also used in justification (see Genocide justification#The Holocaust) of the Holocaust. These were important nuances that were edited out which I want to be added back. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 13:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The first bit that you want re-added simply repeats what is already stated quite clearly in paragraph 2. The second bit is simply too specific a link to go here. The "Aryan race" itself was not a justification for the Holocaust; rather it was part of a whole constellation of ideas surrounding white supremacy and "racial hygiene" which in turn served that purpose. If readers are interested in diving deeper into this topic, better to supply them with the main link for the topic, which in this case is Holocaust. See e.g. WP:PYRAMID. Generalrelative (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The very intention of "racial hygiene" is to not intermix "pure Nordic Aryans" with inferior "non-Aryans" - they thought the "pure Aryans" were responsible for various "advanced ancient civilizations" (eg The Passing of the Great Race), thus master race. The Aryan race formed as the principal base axiom of white supremacy and Nordicism. Nevertheless, the 2nd paragraph should be refined further, maybe for another day. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 14:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We do not appear to disagree on matters of fact here. Simply about what good writing structure for an encyclopedia article looks like. I suggest we wait for some others to weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Pattanaik restoration

@Diannaa: Regarding this edit, Devdutt Pattanaik is neither a scholar nor an expert in this subject. Given mid-day.com isn't reliable, to begin with, we tend to base these articles on academic scholarships. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 15:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment. He has a degree in of Comparative Mythology from Mumbai University, and has an extensive biography on Indian mythology topics.— Diannaa (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:HISTRS. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 15:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Quotation marks

This article is now so full of quotation marks, in many places I'm not sure if they indicate a quotation or editorial sarcasm. Ficaia (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ficaia: The quotations were used to quote the authors directly from the inline-cited sources. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 07:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This for example, is a direct quote and the translation of "Herrenrasse". It is to be in accordance with MOS:PMC and WP:SUBSTANTIATE. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 07:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure those parts of the MOS apply here, but I'll let the particular case of master race stand so others can discuss. I've removed quotation marks from the various historical race categories though. Ficaia (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the removal of quotations from historical race categories; those were probably added by other editors in the past, which didn't catch my attention. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 08:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Further reading materials

Any long-existing errors don't translate to their existential relevance in articles, and can be WP:CHALLENGED anytime. The 3 works at the sections aren't academic scholarships, rather pseudohistorical works of Nazi-era authors from 1907 (see Race Life of the Aryan Peoples); additionally, they violate Wikipedia:Further reading#Topical. The section is ought to list reputable publications (see the relevant policies). Any further revert from your end is a violation of WP:3RR (and I hope we don't take this to drama-boards). WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  00:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

courtesy ping @Ficaia: WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  00:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

As currently written, this article is mainly about the history of the theory, so the books are appropriate as "historically important publications" per Wikipedia:Further reading#Topical. Perhaps we could include a sentence explaining that the books are historical rather than scientific, but I think that's already obvious given the wording of the article. Ficaia (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with WikiLinuz here. The book provides the reader with no information on the concept that is of encyclopedic value. It is also super random to have 3 links to this one book when many were written about the concept. If we link to anything here it should be modern secondary sources that will actually inform the reader. See e.g. Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link, which encourages us to consider whether the content we're linking to is useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc. This book is clearly none of these things. Generalrelative (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The article is about the history and literature of the theory, so the links are useful and informative. Wikipedia:Further reading#Topical allows for "historically important publications" if they're topical. Ficaia (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, it allows for it, but Wikipedia:Further reading is an essay. On the other hand, MOS:FURTHER reminds us that Any links to external websites included under "Further reading" are subject to the guidelines described at Wikipedia:External links. So what does Wikipedia:External links (which is a content guideline and therefore more authoritative than the previous two) have to say? Well, as I stated above, it encourages us to consider whether the information provided in the link is useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc. It also states that we should avoid Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. That last clause means that factually inaccurate books like the one we're discussing here are not absolutely out of the questions for an article like this one, but there is still a burden of proof to show that the link really adds something especially informative and I'm not convinced in this case that this one does. Generalrelative (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

My main point is that this article is directly about the viewpoints expressed in the links, especially Race Life of the Aryan Peoples. Given the large number of works and authors in this article, I think the further reading section was useful and informative, and should've been expanded not removed. We're not at risk of misinforming anyone, because the article makes very clear that these ideas are historical not scientific. But I seem to be alone on this, so I'll leave it be. Ficaia (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ficaia: You've effectively violated WP:3RR here. Please be mindful of our WP:EDITWAR policies, again, I'm repeating, I really don't want this to be escalated to the drama-boards. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  07:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@WikiLinuz: Ficaia self-reverted. And they've agreed in their comment just above to abide by our rough consensus. There is no need for drama. Generalrelative (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I find this to be a flippant regard for the policies, even though I stated them prior. Honoring WP:BRD would be more constructive. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  07:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that the more collaborative thing to do would be to accept both gestures (the self-revert and the agreement to drop the stick) gracefully. Generalrelative (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Can we remove the above 4 comments, so whoever else wants to can respond to the arguments for/against the further reading section and not to WikiLinuz's well-poisoning? Ficaia (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

large number of works and authors in this article - which large number of works are you talking about? The author Joseph Pomeroy Widney isn't even mentioned in the article, and his work barely had any reception per GS index. If you're talking about the article subject as a whole, there are multiple recent scholarly dissertations available on the topic that has had a more prominent reception than Race Life of the Aryan Peoples. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  07:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I mean that the main subject of the article is the history of the theory in the writing and thought of 18th, 19th and early 20th century authors - I count at least 12 Ficaia (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are you two still arguing? Generalrelative (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

German exclusivity of PIE

@Generalrelative: Regarding this edit; the first half of the sentence sources itself to a 130+ year old source. And, the second half is poorly sourced and written. It should be nuked to serve very little purpose, that is, German origin of PIE by Gustaf Kossinna, which is now discredited. But it hardly talks of "Aryan race" as in the subject of the article as a historical racial category. I'll copy-edit it sometime later. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  19:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Aha, that makes sense. I'll self-revert. Generalrelative (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Sidebar template

I think the "Nazism" sidebar template would be more appropriate on the Aryanism article, which is specifically about the Nazi use of the term/theory. The majority of this article is about the pre-1930s history. In adding the new sidebar, the editor also removed the "race" sidebar which was more applicable here. So I'm reverting to the original sidebar. Feel free to discuss any proposed change here.

courtesy ping @WikiLinuz: Ficaia (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ficaia's reasoning here. Generalrelative (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There is still some work pending on the article text concerning the Aryan race as a "historical racial category". "Aryan race" (not linguistic Aryan) is rooted in Nordicism (an axiomatic ideology of Nazism), whose by-product is Aryanism. Btw, Ficaia, you could use active voice during discussions. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  00:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that the Aryan race article's entry is placed at Template:Nazism sidebar under "Racial ideology" per WP:SIDEBAR#2 and #3, since we should categorize the most specific category although "Nazism" is placed as a subclass within "race". WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  00:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

IMO the Nazism sidebar should replace the "Aryan race" entry with "Aryanism". Regardless, if we do decide to add the Nazism sidebar here, I think it would be best placed in the "Nazism and racism" section; and we should keep the race sidebar at the top. Ficaia (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Poles, Czechs and Italians

@WikiLinuz: Quote from the book where Grant describes Czechs, Poles and Italians as racially inferior to Germans in the book. FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race (1916), a best-seller in the U.S., was a virulent warning against the thinning of superior American "Aryan" blood (by which he meant the British-Scots-Irish-German settlers of the original thirteen colonies) through interbreeding with immigrant "inferior races," which for him included Poles, Czechs, and Italians as well as Jews-all of whom spoke Indo-European languages (Yiddish is a Germanic language in its basic grammar and morphology)
— Anthony, David W. (2007). The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-691-14818-2.

WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 02:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, we don't use WP:PRIMARY source, which in this case, the original book of The Passing of the Great Race (1916) by Grant. We rather report WP:SECONDARY scholarships on Wikipedia articles. Please read the relevant policies. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 02:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Does Anthony provide a source? The reason I am asking is because “Czechs” is mentioned once in the whole book without any reference to racial inferiority. Also, many Poles were regarded as being Nordic and the origin of the Nordic race was said to have originated in Germany and parts of Poland and elsewhere according to Grant.

I’m well aware of how to use sources and just because something is written in a book does not mean it’s necessarily factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It's an academic dissertation written by a reputable scholar. If you think Anthony was wrong, cite a contrary source, or go ask Anthony himself. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 02:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

That’s a fallacious argument. It’s not up to me to verify the source, you have used it here so you should have no problems verifying what he wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Fact-checking academic scholarships of Anthony (or that of any other scholar) is not my job. That's what scholarly peer review is for. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 03:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language is a top-quality source: written by a respected scholar and well reviewed by the relevant scholarly community. It is very clearly reliable for WP:SECONDARY claims about Madison Grant. Generalrelative (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

In the book, the only mention of “Czechs” is the following: “These Avars and Magyars came from somewhere in eastern Russia beyond the sphere of Aryan speech and their invasions separated the northern Slavs, known as Wends, Czechs, Slovaks, and Poles, from the southern Slavs, known as Serbs and Croats.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you claim to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the notorious racist book The Passing of the Great Race and ask us to trust your expertise rather than that of David W. Anthony to tell us what the book says? Generalrelative (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)