What kind of racist Buddhist Wiki-Crack is psycho-sociologist Joshua Jonathan smoking? His big Indo-European Migrations Gif error

But he added that Indo-European languages spoken in Iran and India had probably already diverged from those spoken by the Yamnaya before the nomads blazed a trail into Europe.

That's a BBC science news story.  Now here's the Wiki gif that is prominently displayed as the header image for the "discussion" on Indo-European migrations. Notice the huge error? He has Europeans before the "migration" into India when the above quote states the opposite.

Now David Reich was the lead author of the science study being cited that Joshua Jonathan - someone with no professional qualifications in the area of study - defers to as his "source." So pray tell - why does Joshua Jonathan who glibly tosses his balls over to David Reich for an "improvement" to the gif, here

 I hope a team of professionals (Reich, Anthony, have you got some students available?) will pick up the idea of using a GIF to communicate an overview of the IE-migrations, and create a really good GIF of it.

then create a gif that is the opposite of Reich's claim?  Joshua Jonathan apparently has an ideological axe to grind to claim that Europeans are Aryans.

This stuff is hilarious if only that the rapid return of right-wing "Aryan" b.s. is symptomatic of the extreme divergence of wealth between the rich elite and the 99%.

And yet Wiki can get away with this Europeans are Aryans b.s. because more of the Wiki readers probably eat that stuff up - like a recent post on thedaobums site (with 25 unique views a day yet 1000 views in total!)

It just shows how people hunker down into their own little dead-end cults on the interwebs and hope their Aryan culture (that is fake) will save them!

 So when we look at Joshua Jonathan's Wikivisual we see the source for his other Wiki "image" on the Indo-European migration - and it's some lecture that gets completed lambasted on youtube. read the comments - the dude gets skewered as making huge mistakes. and yet that is the other image Joshua Jonathan chooses to be "objective" on Wikipedia.

But many supporters of the Anatolian hypothesis remain staunchly unconvinced. Paul Heggarty, a linguist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, questions Garrett’s methods, arguing that, for example, linguists cannot be sure if the Latin attested to in written documents really was the direct ancestor of later Romance languages, rather than some dialect of Latin for which no record remains. Even small differences in the true ancestral language, Heggarty insists, could throw off the timing estimates.

As for the Reich paper, many archaeologists and linguists praise the data on ancient migrations. But they challenge what they see as its speculative link to language. The movement out of the steppes, Renfrew says, “may be a secondary migration into central Europe 3000 to 4000 years later than the spread of farmers, which first brought Indo-European speech to Europe.” If so, the Yamnaya steppe people would not have spoken PIE but an already derived Indo-European tongue ancestral to today’s Balto-Slavic languages such as Russian and Polish, Heggarty says. He adds that the wording of the Reich paper is “misleading.”

Indeed, in a lengthy discussion in the paper’s Supplementary Information section, Reich and colleagues do concede that “the ultimate question of the Proto-Indo-European homeland is unresolved by our data.” They suggest that more ancient DNA, especially from points east of the steppes, may finally tie our linguistic history with our genes.

Linguistics and DNA - the overlap is not necessarily linear - Science points out.

And then on the  Wiki "talk" edit comments:

@Joshua Jonathan: You can look up how Herbert Hope Risley classified Aryans and Dravidians by the size and shape of the nose.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

 Aryan migration is used even today to convert the lower castes or Dravidians to Christianity. The Christian organization Dalit Freedom Network comes to mind.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

And then back on the blogosphere: further clarification of the error:

potentially erroneous in parts. For instance, my understanding is that the Vedic Aryans did not emerge from BMAC per se, as the map suggests, but rather from an post-BMAC phenomenon heavily influenced by steppe pastoralists.

And then this - Rhazib Khan noting the erroneous and political "West" emphasis on Aryans

But it strikes me that the dates point to a likelihood that much of the expansion and diversification of Indo-Aryans may precede their expansion into the Gangetic plain ~1500 BCE, the date preferred by many scholars.