Talk:Out of India theory/Archive 3

Proposal for Consensus

The goal is to present NPOV scholarly theory proposed by serious scholars. Only statements made by referenced authors to be included (without editors’ bias). Clearly mention ongoing debate (provide reference/links to other theories). Source of data will conform with WP:V policy. Clearly make statement that this is a minority point of view that is not accepted by “mainstream linguistic scholars”.

No religious propaganda by OIT supporters and no claim of OIT being a Hindu propaganda by AMT supporter. This is a scholarly discussion, for religious/fundamentalist discussions go somewhere else. All bias to be removed (both for and against), if mentioned scholars did not say it, it does not count. No irrelevant details. All pro/con discussion referred to Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) page.

Wikipedia policies (NPOV, NOR, V) are not negotiable. All supporting data to be properly referenced to each specialist. Scholarly criticism of published article to be included in original form with references. No personal attacks allowed by anyone.

A well referenced criticism section as proposed by Maunus. WP policies still apply, no propaganda of any kind. Since articles being mentioned have been reviewed by mainstream scholars, good source for criticism is easily available. Ideally link criticism to claim.

For all controversial material, all editors to try to get consensus via talk page before making changes.

De-POVization

I have started dePOVizating the article bit by bit but it is extremely tedious work. As it is now each section presents an argument in favour of the OIT, but in a very obfuscating manner making the argument look like some kind of semifact. Further more when it mentions counterarguments it does it in a way that is clearly intended to put the counter arguments in a bad light as nonsensical or unreasonable. Further more each section ends with a little coda that present the argument as the only reasonable one. Not acceptable and certainly POV.

I am trying to make it obvious in each section what is the argument, who proposes what and what counter arguments are presented by the mainstream side. Sometimes I cannot refer to a particular source but the counter argument is so obvious that I include it in my own wording - it is better that it is a little balanced and then it can be sourced later. I also remove excessive sourcing of arguments - the article is way too long and spends way too much space explaining and providing sources to things that it doesn't really explain anyway. Sometimes less is more - this is one of those times. Maunus 12:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort you are putting in this. As I mentioned earlier, I am new to WP and my strength is research not writing. Most of the edits that you and Paul have done are definitely an improvement. I will take this as learning.Sbhushan 15:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And I appreciate the amount of research you have done and the effort you have put into building this new layout of the page. But most of all I appreciate your responsivee opeen minded attitude.Thanks. Maunus 15:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Question re: "unlikely"

It has been mentioned that PIE homeland in India is very unlikely scenario. So far I have not heard an argument (except substrata) that makes it unlikely. I would like to understand this issue, so I can research to find counter arguments. To clarify the question, OIT accepts that Sanskrit is a daughter language, but there is no link between this and PIE homeland (please see history section). The East to West spreading can be answered by Nicolas model (I know she prefers AMT, but the logic of spread can still be used). I would appreciate if you can provide me top three reasons.Sbhushan 15:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought research was a strength of yours? You can read this up in any introduction to Indo-European studies, beginning with the EIEC, and spanning all of JIES. The case against a migration out of India is overwhelming, essentially reducing "counter arguments" to agnostic arguments like "can we really be certain about anything", "can we absolutely rule out it was not so", which of course we cannot. India as a marginal territory of IE distribution, with only a small variety of IE languages, and numerous non-IE languages just is orders of magnitude less likely than a central area with great diversity of languages. Your problem is that you know in advance what you want to prove, which isn't methodically sound. India may be considerably more likely a PIE Urheimat than Polynesia or Bolivia, but it still is considerably less likely a candidate than regions central to IE variety. I suggest you just look at Kurgan hypothesis and the references there. The Kurgan scenario is completely sound wrt the whole picture, and doesn't need to take recourse to agnosticism or wild "revolutionary" re-dating sprees like OIT. In a nutshell, OIT is unlikely because there are immensely more likely candidates. dab (ᛏ) 15:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

1. it requires more and longer migrations for the PIE branches to all have left India.

2. it requires a more complex chronology in respect to the development of isoglosses and archeological and other features (such as the reinvention of the chariot etc.)(Witzels "autochtonous aryans" adress this well)

3. it requires a number of complex internal explanations of the innovations in Indic (which also must have happened in a quitee short time namely the time after the last non Indic group left and the writing of the Veda) instead of one simple explanation (substrate influence).

Using Nichols model like that is like when Talageri says that "the common homeland of Greek and IA could be India": it is possible - but a number of explanations needs to be done in order to account for it that we don't need to do if we suppose it to bee somewhere else. E.g. in the Kurgan people we have a people who fit the most accepted time frame, who can be seen archeologically to expand their territory over time, who have the basic cultural patterns that fit with a PIE people and who inhabited an area closer to the epicentre of linguistic diversity (a territory which also makes for faster and easier expansion). That is the reason I believe the Kurgan hypothesis over the other ones. (I do find OIT more probable than Paleolithic Continuity or Anatolian though)Maunus 16:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, as always your concise comment are much appreciated. Substrata is a key argument, I will try to understand this issue more. Also if IVC gets deciphered, it will solve this issue. Thanks.Sbhushan 02:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding changes in the document, Thomason and Kaufman (1988) also outlined a typology of change typically caused by the cultural pressure of a language on another—the more overpowering the influence, the more the language will transform. The kind of transformation seen in India is complete imposition of new language and culture (few nomads changing more advanced urban population). This has impact on the Substrata and place name change discussion. The exception statement in place name does not match Witzel's comments that all over Europe the place names were retained. So India is exception, more surprising as India had urbanized indigenous population. Can we change the words?Sbhushan 02:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thomason and Kaufman outlined many kinds of scenario for language change and they discuss specfically Dravidian substrate in Indic in the pages I have referred to. Not only overpowering influence can cause language shift - and they specifically state that the kind of influences seen in Indic can only stem from large Dravidian speaking populationsanging those wordings would be misrepresenting their conclusions. As for the hydrology I suppose we ought to change it a bit - the exception part is probably my POV (sorry).Maunus 08:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I am prepared to agree that if indeed not a single non-Indo-Aryan river name can be found in all of NW India, that is really surprising, and imo the strongest claim for an early (3rd millennium) Indo-Iranian presence in India. It would be sensational enough if it would transpire that Indo-Iranian existed in 2600 BC in an area stretching from IVC to BMAC to Arkaim even without cuckoo-cloud claims about PIE, the Rigveda or the 6th millennium. dab (ᛏ) 11:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, it is hard to keep bias out, that is OK, we will keep each other honest. "large Dravidian speaking" population changing based on immigration of few nomads, who are technologically far inferior to existing "Dravidian". What did these nomads have to offer? Is this likely? I see lot more changes in the Substrata section. This is completely mis-representing Bryants conclusion.Sbhushan 02:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

an analogy

regarding diversity: If we had no historical information predating the 18th century AD, and we wanted to explain the presence of the horse in both the Americas and Eurasia, which would be the more likely equine Urheimat? In the Americas, we have wild horses (mustangs) and llamas. In Eurasia, we have donkeys, onagers, and a wide variety of different horse breeds. If we wanted to insist that the horse originated in the Americas, we would need to claim an extremely early "emigration". After this, the horse stayed extremely conservative in America, not evolving or diversifying, while the "migrants" in Eurasia diversified into all sorts of subspecies and species. In fact, we would have to postulate several waves of emigration, the Hipparion emigrates first, and evolves into the zebra, onager, donkey etc., and later the finished horse emigrates as well, diversifying into anything between the Caspian pony and the Frisian, while in America, the Urheimat of the Hipparion, only the mustang survives, no trace of anything else. Could we prove this wasn't what happened? No, but it would strike us as extremely, extremely unlikely, and very compelling supporting arguments would have to be presented to make it plausible. We have the same situation here (although of course this is an analogy, and can only be taken so far). In India, we have Indo-Aryan (the mustang) and Dravidian (the llama). In Eurasia, we do not only have a colourful collection of all sorts of IE branches (the various horse breeds), but also remotely related Anatolian (the Przewalski horse) and possible more remote relatives like the Tyrrhenian languages of which we cannot quite say if they are IE or not (the onager, donkey, zebra...). I am not sure if you can appreciate the analogy, but it illustrates why neutral observers will find it very difficult to favour OIT unless really overwhelming supporting arguments are shown (as which fabrications involving archaeoastronomy and the Sarasvati river certainly do not qualify). dab (ᛏ) 11:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A very well formulateed analogy indeed. Maunus 11:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the whole problem with the PIE homeland question. It is all based on one anology supported by another anology. I would rather not spend time debating this issue, but let me ask a question. Hock (1999a) notes that “the ‘PIE-in-India’ hypothesis is not easily refuted. Bryant (2001) tries to see if India can be excluded as a possible PIE homeland and fails. Nicolas model answers diversity issue. There are few more models I could quote. Why do you think you know better than these scholars? If you do then there is lot of money to be made with publication royalties. Why waste your time publishing on Wikipedia? It doesn’t pay you any royalty, trust me there is no fame, and you also have to put up with lot of abuse from some people.

For the "unlikely scenario" answer, the next question is how likely is this scenario? Few nomads come as immigrants to an advanced, thickly populated area (estimated about a million people) spread over 1.5 million KM. There is no invasion and no mass migration (no archeological data). The existing larger, more advanced population has a complete change in language and culture, with no knowledge to previous culture is maintained. All traces of existing culture disapear. Intruder don’t mention this exceptional feet of subjugating superior people without any war, no parallel in known history (they would be Heroes in their books, these same people praise every martial accomplishment in RV). People who used to live in urban center discard their houses and start living in huts. Any knowledge of the existing culture is not mentioned in the first document produced by immigrants (eventhough Witzel says that 'material cultural' was already absorbed by intruders - intruders were almost bilingual), but it surfaces in the documents produced 1,000 years later. They are able to change place names and river names without creating any confusion. Existing population accept the change, because some small number of culturally/technologically inferior immigrants had nostalgic thoughts about a homeland that they don't mention in their documents. Places for pilgrim are always mentioned in all religious documents. Very minimum impact on language of intruders who were immigrants (it is almost pure). The same immigrants trekked over thousands of KM, must have had lots of adventure/hardships in their journey, must have met other cultures, but there is no mention of anything in the their documents. After all this journey they were able to preserve their language closet to the original PIE (No reconstruction of PIE would be possible if Sanskrit was not preserved, also there would be no Indology). Their religious mythology is the most preserved compared to other branches of the family (RV alone has all 14 of IE deities names, next is Greek with 9). They record their presence in the same region as far as they can remember and these people have exceptional method of oral transmission of knowledge seen by oral preservation of RV.

And you think that language spread from East is more unlikely than the above mentioned scenario!!! If you do, then I have the Golden Gate Bridge in a prime location that I could be forced to sell at a small premium. I would be taking a loss on the transaction.Sbhushan 03:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sbushan: Hock and Bryant are not in favour of OIT - they say exactly the same as dab, OIT is possible (i.e. it can't be rejected) but unlikely( less probable than other theories). dab's analogy was intended to illustrate why the spread of isoglosses do constitute an argument against OIT.Maunus 08:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, I have never said they are they are in favour of OIT, they have said it is difficult to reject OIT. Nicolas model addresses the isoglosses issue (she puts locus in Bacteria, which is not too far from the locus proposed by OIT). But it is possible for PIE homeland to be located far from Central location. Hock himself said Isoglosses can be maintained in OIT hypothesis, he rejects it for complexity issue. Hock's complexity issue would also reject Kurgan (please see earlier comments regarding multiple migrations in opposite direction). Bryant's conclusion is that we might never solve PIE homeland puzzle.

Dab's position is NOT same as these scholars. His view is that OIT is so unlikely, that it should not even be mentioned. He states speculations and theories as established facts. Also IVC and accomplishments of IVC are a fact (all scholars agree on that), which he calls speculation. I am not sure what kind of tabloid he is reading re: his alien IA's. His arbitary edits in the document with unsourced biased opinion is wrecking everyone's hard work. I am trying very hard to work with him to address his concerns, but he just keeps editing out well ref. material and replacing with his POV statements. I have not complained against any valid criticism added to the OIT position.Sbhushan 12:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I grant you that dab often writes in an aggressive and dismissive tone, but given the acres of nonsense and the wild accusations that get thrown around about people's motivations that's not too surprising. Only yeaterday I was accused on my talk page by one editor of hating "white people" and by another of being a white supremacist! However it is palpably untrue to say that he thinks it should not be mentioned. He created the OIT page (Out of India theory). Almost simultaneously I created another one (Out of India Theory). Which came first I don't remember. The two are now merged into this one, having been greatly expanded by your efforts and those of other editors. See here [1]. Paul B 12:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul, I have no problem with valid criticism, but please see Dab's arbitrary edits in the document. Everyone can see the effort I am making to engage Dab in dialogue to resolve this in amicable manner. It is also obvious how much success I am having. Everything related to PIE is controversial, the best thing would be to work together to create a proper encyclopedic balanced article. If the ref is not clear in the article please put {{Fact}} tag and if the author doesn’t address it in few days time. Then remove the text. If disagreement is regarding wording, suggest something on talk page and let us make it better. I am surprised by the entrenched positions here. If we continue this, we are not going to be able to get much done. I can’t address previous history, but at this point in time, Dab is the only editor making arbitary controversial edits without talking first.Sbhushan 12:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, all theories that place PIE outside India, fail to address the "unlikely" issue of IA overlap with IVC. Mainstream scholars don't even make any effort to address this difficulty. A complete theory has to address all issue. Every single theory proposed has been rejected by other scholars. Regarding Kurgan, please see Bryant (2001). Infact there is no consensus amongst Indologist after 200 years of research. They are unsure about everything, except that it could not have been in India (only based on "unlikely"). So we can't say that anything related to PIE is a fact.Sbhushan 12:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that anything is a fact - except that it is a fact that fewer scholars are convinced by OIT than by Kurgan hypothesis or even the Anatolian one which is a favourite of archeologists. If you read past dab's agressive rhetorics he is not saying anything that is out of line with what you mention. And yes every single proposal have been rejected by some scholars - some rejections and some proposals are just better founded and better argued than others (you can still find people who argue that the world is flat also - or that cigarettes aren't harmful etc. they usuallyhave an agenda though and not very convincing arguments). But the scientifically sound way to state the problem of a PIE urheimat is by saying that "we don't know where it is but judging from the evidence at hand kurgan is among the least problematic hypotheses and OIT is not" Itis a schlars job to be unsure about everything untill evidence makes something look probable. I am certainly unsure - and I admit that India is a possibility, so does the rest of the scholarly community. Why then are you guys so sure it must be India? (my feeling is that you are so sure because you would like it to be true, whereas we couldn't care less where in the world the PIE homeland were)Maunus 12:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, for the purpose of WP - OIT page, to make it proper encyclopedic balanced article, we agreed to present OIT arguments and present criticism of those arguments by mainstream. Dab agreed to this and now he is trying to tell OIT what their arguments should be. He is not doing any favor to OIT as he claims. He is introducing his POV in the article. We have to find a solution to address this issue or we will spend rest of our lives on this one page.Sbhushan 13:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, re: why I am so sure, this is to clarify my position and not for general debate/discussion. All agree PIE was one entity a long time back. Because of India's far East position, either IA come to India or PIE left India before IA was formed. So first question is could IA have come to India. Please look at earlier discussion re: why that is unlikely. In addition to that discussion, all ref to Saraswati, which is now a archeological fact (Bryant 2001). 80% of settlements around Saraswati are dated to 4th millennium. How could people who came in 1500 BC (even if you take 1900 BC) provide most praise to a river (in present form) which was effectively gone from the area for about 2000 years. Why not praise Sindu which is the main river at that time. There is lot more I could add, but please see all arguments presented in article regarding RV dating. So this makes in very unlikely that IA came to India. So now I look at the scenario that PIE left India before IA was formed. So I look at argument against this scenario (e.g unlikely, complex migration, substrata etc). Then I find that all these arguments have been countered by other linguistic themselves and are not facts but just a theory. So on what basis should we give more weight to theory than facts?

So I find that IA coming to India is not as simple as mainstream makes it to be (infact they don't even make an effort to address this issue) and PIE going out of India is not as difficult as mainstream makes it out to be. My position for OIT is not feelings, but logical thought process and that is why I am not afraid of criticism. I could also quote Witzels statement where he doesn't care if PIE homeland was in Africa, as long as it was not in India (that I find unscholarly). But for sake of article, please see my earlier comment, let us make it proper article, our discussion are not going to solve this issue.Sbhushan 13:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, re: lack of linguistic scholars who support OIT, problem is that India doesn't have these studies. A lone Indian SS Misra is busy with PVC scenario (a lost battle in imho). Guess where most European scholars prefer PIE homeland. Look at how theoris are modified to fit facts, Invasion → Migration → complex trickling to expalin lack of archeological evidence. Also, no archeological trace of migration from Central Asia to India. So were these horses and Chariot airlifted (or StarTrek - transporter tech) to land in India (I couldn't resist poking at Dab's alien theory). So again mainstream theory might be supported by more scholars, but have serious logical flaws.Sbhushan 13:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A well formulated analogy indeed.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If BMAC & Arkaim were not already connected with IVC then why after 1700 BC period they declined ? Why their growth dates are in accordance with peak IVC period ? And, their decline is with IVC ? It shows that both were economically dependent with IVC. Otherwise why they should also decline with IVC ? So, if those central asian areas were economically connected & dependent on IVC then how some nomads will impose thier language ( & not culture & material - as per Witzel ). What was something that made ancient Indians to adopt foreign nomadic language without leaving any smell of that transformtion ? Western people are adopting Indian words like Yoga and spiritual words as it's totally new even for their culture. They are adopting those words becuase they don't have such words in their culture and original words represents them properly. So, why ancient Indians will adopt naming of Yoga ( which is found in IVC terracota Yoga postures ) or mathematical terms ( as IVC had planned towns ) from central asian nomads whose immigration is not attested archelogically or in ANY Indian language texts. So, central asian nomads had to device that terms for that unknown science and then ancient Indians had to forget their nomenclature and adopt foreign given terms. First solve just these puzzling questions which are not present for Bolivia or Polynesian PIE case and otherwise have some logical sense in equating Indian subcontinent PIE case with totally unknown Bolivia or Polynesian PIE. WIN 07:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab's edits

Indo Iranian and Avesta

Dab, in the section you inserted "Talageri (chapter 6) (...)the east." instead of "Talageri states (...)that the Saptasindhu or Hapta-HAndu was a homeland of the Iranians." Talageris statement from Chapter 6 is

2. The Rigveda and the Avesta, as we saw, are united in testifying to the fact that the Punjab (Saptasindhu or Hapta-HAndu) was not a homeland of the Vedic Aryans, but was a homeland of the Iranians.

Please verify [[2]].

While what you quoted is also statement from chapter 6, it is not accurate representation of Talageri's position. So I am changing it back. You should not misrepresent authors position.Sbhushan 01:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Philology

Dab, your edit "The date at which it was composed, in the mainstream view the mid to late 2nd millennium BC (Late Harappan), is a firm terminus ante quem for the presence of the Vedic Aryans in India.[16]" is implying that mainstream date is a fact WP:NPOV. I am suggesting this should be worded as

The date at which it was composed is a firm terminus ante quem for the presence of the Vedic Aryans in India. In the mainstream view it was composed the mid to late 2nd millennium BC (Late Harappan) and OIT proponent propose a pre-Harappan date.

This will be more balanced wording. This change I have not made, as at some point you have suggested few different dates Renfrew (very early), Propola (2 waves), Witzel (1900) and standard date of 1500-1200. So pick one, I am OK with any. OIT is proposing date of composition pre-Harappan, please see details in the Saraswati and Item not in RV. You have right to disagree, but this is OIT position.Sbhushan 01:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, second edit "Note that the OIT is not (......)Early Harappan date.[citation needed]". I don't know what you mean by that. Date of RV is critical component of OIT, Bryant also acknowledges this. So I don't know where are you getting this idea from. Please provide ref. Again this change I have not made yet. I will wait to see if you have any ref to support this.Sbhushan 01:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

so what's Elst's date for the RV? Elst has a 5th millennium emigration from India. If OIT takes place in the 5th millennium, how is it relevant if the RV dates to the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th millennium? It will be irrelevant to OIT either way. Now a 2nd millennium date is accepted as practically certain for the early RV. It is really just painfully obvious. You can stretch things and argue for a surprisingly early date, in the late or mid 3rd millennium (Mature Harappan). That is a shaky argument, but with a lot of hand-waving, you can at least build a shaky case. A 4th millennium date for the RV, however, is simply completely beyond any rational debate, and firmly within the realm of "magic space Aryans". It will do this article no good, as I have argued many times, to conflate raving nonsense by people who don't know the first thing about ancient literature, the Bronze Age or philology, with reasonable if far-fetched pro-OIT arguments. You can cite Knapp, Frawley, Tilak and their like, arguing for a Rigveda composed by paleolithic cyborg Aryans on the North pole, but please do not mix this up with a rational debate on OIT. I am only interested in the latter. Do take Aryan mysticism to some other article, thankyou. dab (ᛏ) 09:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, you forgot to provide a ref to published docuement for your opinion. I will only address your comment if they have a link for published work. For OIT dating of pre-IVC please read all the referenced material provided in the article. Also read Bryant (2001) re: your "practically certain" comment, please also see story behind mainstream date for RV in that book. Bryant thinks that dating of RV is very important for OIT case. On what basis do think you know better than Bryant?Sbhushan 01:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

edit in place name section

Dab, your edits are showing your ignorance about the subject matter. Please read Bryant (2001, chapter 9 page 157 - 1 million mile = 1.7 million Kilometer), Asko Parpola - Study of the Indus Script[3], S.R. Rao (1991:1), Kazanas (2000:12). If you want to contribute to the article, please read published material from good sources. Every word that I have written in the docuemt in properly referenced. If you doubt something, please put and I will address your questions. I am trying to work with you to resolve the issues in a reasonable manner, but there is only so much that I can do alone. Making arbitary deletes are not helping the matters. Your edit are not WP:NPOV. All of your edits are controversial in nature, please get consensus before making the edits.Sbhushan 01:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, I have removed the text and every word that I have quoted is well referenced. If you have doubts about any section, please check the ref. If you can't find them, please leave a {{Fact}} tag and I will address it. Thanks.Sbhushan 01:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sbhushan, I am growing tired of you accusing me because you cannot cite your sources properly (sidenote, I am removing WIN's parrotting as white noise). Let us not even address the blatant bias you are trying to sell us as "edited for npov", it would be enough if we didn't have to double-check each of your references because you are unable to cite even OIT proponents accurately and reliably. Alleging that "Aryan civilization" was "spread over 1.5 million km" doesn't show ignorance, it shows complete and utter cluelessness on any topic common knowledge whatsoever. I assume your sources are talking of square kilometers. A square kilometer is not the same as a kilometer. It is fair enough to omit the 'square' by mistake, but to then come arguing with me instead of just silently correcting your mistake is simply hilarious. If Aryans were spread over "1.5 million km", they were settling far beyond the moon (probably in svargaloka or what?) I wouldn't be surprised if WIN or you thought there were ancient Aryan colonies on the moon, but I have serious doubts Kazanas would go so far. dab (ᛏ) 11:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, I should have caught the "square" error as we are talking about area. It is honest mistake. But how does this justify all the edits you have done unilaterally. Where I disagree with your statement, I am trying to have a discussion with you on talk page and have put {{Fact}} tag without deleting your irrelevant biased statements. I am not getting any response back at all regarding the statements I have identified, but you can write a large paragraph insinuating all kind of negative things for a small mistake. Please do look at WP policies. Sbhushan 15:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)