![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
[Copied from User talk:Ghatus]
"Communal interpretation of history. Read "Historiography, Religion, and State in Medieval India" - By Satish Chandra"
- ( 140.239.232.12 ( talk) 16:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC))
"tussles" is not appropriate as too vague and informal. As a reminder our goal is to summarize the content of the article, and the goal of the article is to summarize the mainstream historical view of the history of India. So probably the first question is: does the article currently pretty accurately cover Indian history as the historians see it? If not where is it lacking or which parts have too much emphasis/detail for their overall impact?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
References
Please discuss and try to come to a consensus instead of edit warring. -- NeilN talk to me 20:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
IP68, please restart the discussion by stating what your concerns are with the current version. The "compromise" can come later. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
68 | JJ | 24 | comparison | |
1 | The history of India includes the prehistoric settlements and societies in the Indian subcontinent, | The history of India includes the prehistoric settlements and societies in the Indian subcontinent; | Same | |
2 | the advancement of civilization from Indus Valley Civilization to the Vedic Civilization of the Indo-Aryan cultures, | the advancement of civilization from Indus Valley Civilization to the Vedic Civilization of the Indo-Aryan cultures; | the advancement of civilization from Indus Valley Civilization to the Vedic Civilization, with expansion of the Indo-Aryan cultures; [per VictoriaGrayson source] | Almost Same |
3A | the rise of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism | a second urbanisation, together with the start of a still continuing process of Sanskritization, and the rise of the Śramaṇa movement, including the birth of Jainism and Buddhism; | Add "second urbanisation"; add "Sanskritization"; Jainism and Buddhism precede Hinduism. | |
3B | the subsequent development of Hinduism as a synthesis of various Indian cultures and traditions; | Jainism and Buddhism precede Hinduism. | ||
4A | a succession of powerful dynasties and empires for almost two millennia throughout various geographic areas of the subcontinent, | the onset of a succession of powerful dynasties and empires for almost two millennia throughout various geographic areas of the subcontinent, | Same | |
4B | including the Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent; | including the growth of Muslim dynasties during the Medieval period intertwined with Hindu, later Sikh, powers; | JJ: add "Muslim" 24~: add "intertwined" | |
5 | the advent of European traders resulting in the establishment of the British rule and the subsequent independence movement that led to the Partition of India and the creation of the Republic of India | the advent of European traders resulting in the establishment of the British rule; and the subsequent independence movement that led to the Partition of India and the creation of the Republic of India. | Same |
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
A whole bunch of material got added today on the Sangam period and the Dravidian languages [4]. It basically has "me too" (or "us too") feel to it. Diannaa rightly reverted some of it, but it got put back. Well, I am going to remove it again. The involved editors should go and use a sandbox somewhere to write a nice simple section that is of the size of the Vedic society section and come back. The mainspace is not a sandbox! I would also suggest the involved IPs to register accounts because it is hard to identify and communicate otherwise. Those 64 bit IPs are especially awful! - Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Physical features influence history to a great extent. There is an imminent need to mention about the impact of geography on history. A small attempt has been made to fill up the gap. please go through it and improve wherever possible-- Dr MPV ( talk) 03:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Proposed section:
The physical features of India had greatly influenced the history of India. As Richard Hakluyt puts it “Geography and chronology are the Sun and Moon, the right eye and the left eye of the long history”. [1] . [2] History of India can be understood in its proper prospective only with the comprehensive understanding of its geographical features
The great Himalaya ranges of mountains in north India had not only saved India from invasions from its north but also prevented it from the cold winds and dry winds blowing from Tibet. . [3] They provide copious rains to the plains below besides they have also become perennial source for rivers like Ganges Yamuna and Brahammputra making the plains fertile. These mountain ranges also influence the climatic condition of the region. It separates India from China and helped in developing its own Civilization distinct from that of China and others. The passes like Khyber Pass Bolan pass helped foreign invaders to cross the border. The Khyber Pass connects Peshawar with Kabul, Others like Tochi, Kurram and Gomal passes connects India with Afghanistan. The famous Bolan Pass connects India with Kandhar. This is a very wide and easy pass and only through this pass Persians, Greeks, Scynthians Khushans, Huns , Turks, Mughals and even invaders like Nadir Sha and Ahamad Shaw Abdali invaded India. . [4]
This border areas have people belonging to various races because of this mountain passes and consequent invasions. They also become the bed of multiple and mixed culture and civilization. The kingdoms around this passes had to be always alert which led to the development of races known for valor like Rajput, Gorkhas. These passes facilitated the trade and intercourse between India and outside world. [5]
The North Eastern ranges of Himalayas virtually prevented any movement to the western world as the passes situated in these portion of range were impossible to cross. It is because of these barriers no king from India tried to invade Burma and vice versa. [6] Vindhya Satpura mountain ranges divide India as North India and South India. This has resulted in the development of two distinct history, Civilization and culture between North India and South India. The kingdoms which were dominant and powerful in North could not influence south except few occasions and vice versa. These mountain ranges also prevented the development of unity of India and the one India concept always remained elusive. Another set of mountain ranges along the West Coast and East Coast in the Peninsular India help in bringing rain to the plains and became the sources for many rivers like Kavery, Vagai etc.
Rivers like Indus and Ganges contributed greatly to fertility of the plains of North India . The richness of the soil was responsible for the establishment great empires in this region. Many social, religious and philosophical ideas were generated here. Religions like Buddhism. Jainism flourished here and universities like Taxila and Nalanda were also established on account of prosperity prevailed in this region. They also became a source for the birth and development of Indus Valley Civilization. The development of art and literature including Vedic literature became a natural consequence. [7] Development of urban culture had been one of the significant highlights. Foreign Invaders were frequently attracted by the prosperity prevailed in the region and had resulted in frequent foreign invasions.
These rivers also provided a means for internal transport and communication and many great cities like Pataliputra, Banaras, Agra, Multan, Lahore, Delhi etc. were founded on their banks. [8]
Similarly other rivers like Krishna, Godavari, Thungabadra , Kaveri etc. contributed to the prosperity and development of great Kingdoms of South. These rivers divided the peninsular India in to many isolated portions.
The sea shore with it's long unbroken coastline with few fractures led to the development of fewer ports but they were busy throughout the year. It fostered trade and maritime activity. They established commercial relations with middle east and far east as well. Using the coast, some Southern kingdoms invaded across Oceans and created history. The same feature was also responsible for the European powers to set foot in India.
The vastness of the country and its physical features prevented the development of political unity. [9] Besides, the vastness and fertility provided enough resources for the kings to engage within India rather than venture outside India. . [10] As a result, India developed some sort of aloofness and almost remained oblivious to the developments outside India. Therefore, it had to pay a very heavy price later. [11] The prosperity and richness also increased laziness and habits of ease and pleasure for the inhabitants. . [12]
The Thar deserts affected the course of history substantially. Since it divided the plains of Indus Valley and the plains of Ganges, they became two distinct units. [13] This led to the mobilization of resources from other parts of India to the plains of Indus valley against the invaders near impossible. It rendered the Indian defence weak. . [14]
References
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The new editor is right that Geography/Geology played a crucial role in shaping Indian history, Indeed, the first chapter of any college or university book on Indian history is on this issue. However, it does not mean that we should give disproportionate weight to these physical features. Rather, we should make a short paragraph on it. Three points are to be included there - 1) the role of Himalayas(the always awake gatekeeper) and the mountain passes (especially the Khyber Pass. There would have been no Indian history without the Khyber Pass), 2) the role of the rivers in building Janapadas (urban centres) and finally 3) the geographical vastness of India which made India so diverse a country. I think these three points are to be written in a short paragraph. Ghatus ( talk) 11:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks friend for the suggestion, Let me try to condense it and make it brief Dr MPV ( talk) 01:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
There are alternate views about the bias few historians had about the narration of Indian history. Those who read about Indian history will have to be kept informed about this view for them to take an independent view. Please improve-- Dr MPV ( talk) 07:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion Dr MPV ( talk) 01:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Proposed section:
The need for writing Indian history arose after the English East India Company (EEC) started ruling India. During 18th century in order to rule India, the officials of EEC had to familarise themselves with the lifestyle, the laws and rules that regulated Indian life. [1] This necessitated them to focus on these issues in order to facilitate a good understanding of Indian people, their habits and Laws. Sir William Jones during 1784 founded The Asiatic Society of Bengalwith the objective to initiate studies to understand the lifestyles of the Eastern people and to record them with evidence. Scholars like Charles Wilkins, HT Colebrooke, H H Wilson have contributed substantially to the Asiatic society of Bengal.
Scholars like Max Muller and many other European Scholars learnt Sanskrit and become proficient in Vedas and translated all the four Vedas in German. Many European Scholars following his footsteps brought about number of books on Vedas and contributed to Indian Philosophy. All these literature helped them to understand Indian civilization and culture.
Christian missionaries in order to preach and propagate Christianity and to establish the superiority of their religion also had to understand the Indian culture and habits. The efforts of Christian missionaries culminated in a number of literature. All these literature, especially literature developed by Christian missionaries have to a certain extent influenced the English historians of India. They become biased about Indian civilization and culture. Mr. John Stuart wrote a book ‘The History of British India’ during the year 1817. This book describes Indian civilization and culture as Barbarous and anti- rational. The British civil servants studied this history book as a Textbook during the training period before they landed in India . This book helped this British civil servant to form a poor and bad opinion about Indian civilization and culture. Mr. V A Smith was another Civil Servant who came to India like this and wrote a comprehensive history book on India called The Oxford History of India. But Mr. Smith did not portray such a bad picture like John Stuart about Indians, Indian culture and Civilization even though he also mentioned that Indians are not capable of ruling themselves. Later Indian historians strongly objected to this type of biased and prejudiced view presented by English, and went about explaining various political and social institutions that were well developed and existed in India. English historians invariably focused on Emperors, kingship giving indications about the biased mindset they had developed due to the influence of various literature. They did not even mention anything about the well-developed social Institutions, political Institutions and cultural development existed in the country but wrote the history with the strong belief that Indians were lazy and had fatalistic attitude towards life. [2]
Later on many Indian historians felt that there was an imminent need for Indian history to be written objectively in its proper perspective with good understanding and without any bias and history was written also accordingly. [3]
References
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I think this Historiography section is precisely there for that reason. It talks about the different point-of-views or narratives. Ghatus ( talk) 11:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I will go through it and revert if necessary Dr MPV ( talk) 01:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Currently the naval arm of the Marathas has no mention at all, which certainly deserves a mention. Hence I am adding it (under Maratha Empire). Kindly do not make changes without discussing on talk page.
Amit20081980 ( talk) 15:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The empires listed after the Delhi Sultanate emerged in the 14th century while, based on our article Eastern Ganga dynasty this empire/dynasty emerged much earlier and declined around this time. It doesn't fit in the list. The paragraph added later in the content is poorly sourced. Orissa government websites, blogs, and travel websites are not reliable sources. -- regentspark ( comment) 23:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The article contains 1,164 links. Terms are linked as many as 12 times each in the text (excluding infoboxes, navboxes, tables, captions, and footnotes). Some are linked multiple times in the same sentence, paragraph, or section. Such excessive linking fails to help the reader understand the topic, the history of India. Such links fall under WP:OVERLINKING and/or MOS:DUPLINK, and should be removed.
I propose that terms be linked no more than once in the same sentence, same paragraph, or same section, unless the proponent of a specific duplicate linking can make a convincing case that it is helpful to readers. Furthermore, I propose unlinking the following (number of links in parentheses):
These specific terms are all important to the history of India, of course, but they are already understood in context. It isn't necessary for a reader to read an entire encyclopedia article about Asia or the British people in order to understand the history of India. In the case of Central Asia, China, Japan, and the United Kingdom, the terms have been used, often several times, before the point in the article at which they are linked. Also, more pertinent terms often are linked in immediately adjacent text, such as India in World War II in close proximity to World War II.
I've brought this to the talk page because the modest removal of eight links of the above sorts was promptly reverted by another editor with the assertion that they were "important links". -- Worldbruce ( talk) 00:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
History of India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The quote from Will Durant, footnoted as 244 is incorrect. Only the first sentence. "The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. " is accurate. The other sentences are not in Durant's text and are inflammatory.
107.217.164.124 ( talk) 18:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
All, New to editing Wikipedia, but a long time user. I'm a 7th grade teacher in the USA and was reading through some background history under Beginning of European Explorations and Establishment of Colonialism and came across this odd-sounding sentence fragment: "The British—who set up a trading post in the west coast port of Surat in 1619—and the French." Does anyone object to editing it? DSD1980 ( talk) 00:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)DSD1980
![]() | This
edit request to
History of India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The British—who set up a trading post in the west coast port of Surat in 1619—and the French. The internal conflicts among Indian kingdoms gave opportunities to the European traders to gradually establish political influence and appropriate lands.
Change to: The internal conflicts among Indian kingdoms gave opportunities to the European traders to gradually establish political influence and appropriate lands. Following the Dutch, the British—who set up in the west coast port of Surat in 1619—and the French both established trading outposts in India.
DSD1980 ( talk) 14:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
History of India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am pretty sure the Upanishads were not written in the second Urbanization,but rather during the Vedic period.
67.84.203.208 ( talk) 19:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on History of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.marymount.k12.ny.us/marynet/stwbwk05/05vm/earrings/html/emanalysis.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@ ScrapIronIV:, please let me know why we can't use the names by which the Portuguese and French called their Indian colonies in the English wikipedia article!— Dona-Hue ( talk) 17:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
References
In this reversion, an IP tells Maestro2016, "you made major changes to an established page. Let's discuss first in the talk page." Yes, let's. Most of this edit corrects the WP:Headings to sentence case. There are a couple of minor copy edits. And there is some content added sourced to Burton Stein, clearly a reliable source. So I am interested to know, what is the objection to the edit? Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 19:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Attention IP user: Please be advised that an edit warring complaint has been filed against you for your continued reversions without addressing your objections here. (There is no way to notify the editor(s) on their talk page as they are IP hopping.) Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 21:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The article is semi-protected, and yet it has some vandalism. Could someone with edition rights check it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.26.21.211 ( talk) 07:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The disputed content recently added by Maestro2016 and being removed by a user and the regular IP [9] with valid reasoning that it is irrelevant to this article is all correct. But another issues is that source doesn't support the information either. [10] [11] You don't find mention of "Delhi Sultanate" anywhere in that book or website. Capitals00 ( talk) 12:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
As for this edit [12] where is the discussion? I could only find an edit from an IP couple of months ago [13] that removed it with a misleading edit summary. Geunineart ( talk) 05:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
We agree that this was always on this article until removed by the IP. I would still keep it on lead. Capitals00 ( talk) 10:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
From Petraglia et al. (2010), Out of Africa: new hypotheses and evidence for the dispersal of Homo sapiens along the Indian Ocean rim, Anna ls of Hum an Bio logy, May–June 2010; 37(3): 288–311, p.299:
The Middle Palaeolithic artefact assemblages dating to between 78 and 74 ka at Jwalapuram in peninsular India were suggested to be the product of H. sapiens, based in part upon their close technological similarity with MSA assemblages of Africa (Petraglia et al. 2007). However, such a date range for H. sapiens in the subcontinent does not correspond with genetic coalescence ages, which indicate a younger dispersal event, at ca 70–55 ka. This temporal disjuncture led to the suggestion that the Jwalapuram assemblages may mark the presence of earlier human populations for which there is no surviving genetic evidence (Endicott et al. 2009).
So, there's more to these dates than only Patraglia's datings. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC) See also Mellars et al. (2013), Genetic and archaeological perspectives on the initial modern human colonization of southern Asia, PNAS June 25, 2013 vol. 110 no. 26:
It has been argued recently that the initial dispersal of anatomically modern humans from Africa to southern Asia occurred before the volcanic “supereruption” of the Mount Toba volcano (Sumatra) at ∼74,000 y before present (B.P.)—possibly as early as 120,000 y B.P. We show here that this “pre-Toba” dispersal model is in serious conflict with both the most recent genetic evidence from both Africa and Asia and the archaeological evidence from South Asian sites. We present an alternative model based on a combination of genetic analyses and recent archaeological evidence from South Asia and Africa. These data support a coastally oriented dispersal of modern humans from eastern Africa to southern Asia ∼60–50 thousand years ago (ka).
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
See also Review article on the origin of modern humans: the multiple-dispersal model and Late Pleistocene Asia, on Petraglia et al. (2017), On the origin of modern humans: Asian perspectives. Interesting. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is a quite messy:
I'll attempt a gradual rewrite. Others are welcome to join. utcursch | talk 03:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll start with this section. Proposed changes:
Suggestions and objections welcome. utcursch | talk 23:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
indian historic periodization in terms of european models is totally a irrelevant, circumstances in india were not the same as the european ones. i would also request adding bhimbhetka rock cave art as the base of evolution of indus arts as proposed by Erwin Neumayer Prehistoric Rock Paintings and Ancient Indus Motifs 2, i would also like to add recent discovery of ratnagiri petroglyps which has artistic depictions on par with gobekli tepe, i-e arts which appear in later civilization like Master of Animals 115.135.118.112 ( talk) 06:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
second urbanisation dates seem to be pretty misleading, several sources do indicate that by 600 BC, india was already urbanised for several centuries for instance
Dieter Schlingloff cites G.R. Sharma's monograph in which he states that kausambi city fortification was already completed btw 1025-955 BC and the moats were completed btw 855-815 BC 1, which means the city was already urbanized from period of 1000-800 BC. secondly, Buddha's death has been recently revealed to have occured in the sixth century BC 2 3 4, Dieter Schlingloff also compares parallel emergence of indian cities with the emergence of greek cities, which have been thought to have arisen in 900 BC
“This is an important moment in the archaeological study of ancient Buddhism,” says Lars Fogelin, an archaeologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
Although we can’t be sure that the ancient tree shrine had links to Buddhism, Fogelin says it is the most plausible explanation. “Depictions of tree shrines in friezes on other early Buddhist sites make the Buddhist affiliation of the tree shrine the most likely.”
hence buddha must have been born before 600 BC by which time the area that is east india where he belonged to had already been urbanised.
the punched mark coins are also thought to date from seventh century BC according to Jhon, E. Page 5
jain Parshvanatha is also thought to have lived around 800 BC by the historians.
Both Mahabharatha and ramayana epics have been thought to be be first composed around 900-800 BC.
the Northern Black Polished Ware also appear around 700 BC and the same is the time period when black polished ware appear in etruscan civilization 900 BC–100 BC
Both Buddhist and Jain calendars seem to begin in 6th century BC, which means that they were born in an urbanised era.
115.135.118.112 ( talk) 10:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert the IP a third time, but for the record, the length problem has already been discussed here (see two sections above), the content is undue weight, and the IP is obviously editing in bad faith, because IP addresses cannot use Huggle, but an edit summary has been manufactured to suggest that that is the case. Vanamonde ( talk) 18:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
F&F, Mathglot, Kautilya (and others): since we're concerned about length, I think we need to take a hard look at this section. I personally am not a fan, as I think it's too detailed to provide an at-a-glance overview, but too short to actually explain what the various columns represent, and what the periods mean. At the moment, I am in favor of dumping it altogether, and moving the material about Mill and Thapar to the historiography section. I would like to hear your thoughts, however. Vanamonde ( talk) 21:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Highpeaks35, I have selectively reverted one of your recent removals. Contested information isn't necessarily bad information; furthermore, the earliest human presence is a detail of great importance. Indeed, it's probably the single most piece of information that needs to be in that section. Earlier hominids are somewhat incidental. Also, the rest of that section is in terrible shape. Feel free to modify it later: I'm raising it here so we're not sucked into an edit war caused by miscommunication. Vanamonde ( talk) 00:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The article is huge (currently 338kb) and way past the length where a split should be considered. Since this article is already in Summary style, that means first, a careful proportional balancing to assure due weight of different sections and that they have the right level of detail, and then moving off at least 50% of the article (moving 75% would not be too much) into already existing, or new, child articles. This is a big job, and would require an outline or plan of work on a subpage here to organize it. I'll help, but don't want to play lead on this one. Any takers with good suggestions, and a good head for managing a task like this, who's willing to take this on? Ping, please. Mathglot ( talk) 11:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Xtools shows that the article has been stable till 2013, and has been steadily growing since then. It was 100K then. About 300–400K now. One possibility is to revert it to what it was at the end of 2013 ( take a look) and let people negotiate about anything they want to add to it.
Splitting the article is not a good idea. But people can of course start new articles like "Classical Age in India" or "Medieval India" etc. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Vanamonde93:, @ Mathglot: Thanks for pinging me, and thanks also for the implicit confidence you place in me. I'm strapped for time, so I can't actively edit this article, but I can suggest how to go about making it more encyclopedic, and I'm happy to provide feedback. I think splitting the article at this stage is probably premature. Trimming it, as Vanamonde suggests, would be the first line of attack. This will take time. Several volunteers will be needed, preferably ones that have not hitherto significantly edited the article. They, by each picking one subsection, will need to comb through the section and check for the following:
For now, working on (a)(i) and (a)(ii), would be a good place to start. That itself will trim the article quite a bit. Only then, can (b)(i) and (ii) be considered. I will be happy to offer feedback, but cannot do the work itself. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
IP Hopper 2405:204:2289:fe07:* , please stop your edit warring at History of India. You have made three reverts in ten minutes as 2405:204:2289:FE07:43F5:CC47:15E:6518 and at least another four in the same cidr block for a total of seven so far, and the twenty-four hours isn't even up yet.
In addition, as mentioned above by Vanamonde93, please stop using misleading edit summaries. Cordially, Mathglot ( talk) 23:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Somehow it's not correct the name a whole period after one specific culture, which did not dominate India then. Is there a better name? And, in this respect, Sanskritization should be mentioned; India was not Brahmanical and Sanskritized all at once. It still isn't it overall... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
the myth of aryan migration has nine maps/images alone in this article, so called vedic period but i noticed that none of the european articles themselves do this, i tried to add indo european migration maps in the history of greece and italy but it was immediately removed. might i ask why this myth is tolerated/forcefully enforced only specifically in the indian history articles and why this mythology is not tolerated in european articles even in iranian articles? i tried to remove autronesian origin of bengali people mythology from one west bengal history article which was also unsourced and this mythology too was enforced by reverting my edits which included more archaeological aspect rather than aryan mythology. i tried to remove dravidian origins mythology from this article which seems controversial and yet it was reverted and forcefully enforced by european users. 60.54.13.118 ( talk) 19:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The Iranian peoples,[1] or the Iranic peoples,[2][3] are a diverse Indo-European ethno-linguistic group that comprise the speakers of the Iranian languages.[4][5]
The Proto-Iranians are believed to have emerged as a separate branch of the Indo-Iranians in Central Asia in the mid-2nd millennium BCE.[6][7]
@ Highpeaks35: you removed a subsection, calling it "speculative." I've restored part of it, but removed the (indeed) speculative and undue part of inscriptions on bones. But Parpola is a credible, and relevant, author. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Ah, I see; F&f removed it too, calling it speculative:
copying indus civilization from lead of IVC; removing Dravidian Language speculation; does not belong to this page; it couldn't even get into the IVC page
It has often been suggested that the bearers of the IVC corresponded to proto-Dravidians linguistically, the break-up of proto-Dravidian corresponding to the break-up of the Late Harappan culture.[144] Finnish Indologist Asko Parpola concludes that the uniformity of the Indus inscriptions precludes any possibility of widely different languages being used, and that an early form of Dravidian language must have been the language of the Indus people.[145] Today, the Dravidian language family is concentrated mostly in southern India and northern and eastern Sri Lanka, but pockets of it still remain throughout the rest of India and Pakistan (the Brahui language), which lends credence to the theory.
Hello @ Vanamonde93:: Please take a look at the revised lead of the IVC page here. This was more or less the consensus version of a year ago. Please note that words such as "cradle" are not used. You could start with that lead, and if needed whittle it down, or change the language, to arrive at the lead for this page's IVC section. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
What we call today "Hinduism" emerged after 500 BCE. And Buddhism and Jainism responded to and interacted with the Vedic tradition(s), but were not reform movements of the Vedic tradition(s), let alone Hinduism. See Naomi Appleton, Shared Characters in Jain, Buddhist and Hindu Narrative: Gods, Kings and Other Heroes, as a starter. I'll have to check, but see also Geoffrey Samuel, The origins of Yoga and Tantra. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Here's my take on this. This is a history page. It's POV is that of historians, not of scholars of religion or Sanskritists. This means that we pay more attention to how historians have summarized the available records; otherwise, we risk swimming into waters deeper than our shallow water mandate allows for. In other words, we are writing the long view of Indian history. The Vedic Period section (in this page) is a case in point. It has paragraphs summarized from Michael Witzel's in-house journal (Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies (or title thereabouts)). It is difficult to understand. It consists mainly of the naming of names. There is no historical argument. Contrast what's in there with Burton Stein's History of India, section "Clearing the forests,"which is the introduction to his Vedic Period:
Between 1000 and 500 BCE iron tools and weapons provided the technological foundations for the expansion of agricultural communities over the entire basin of the Ganges. One important consequence of the replacement of copper and bronze implements by stronger iron weapons and tools was the greater ease in removing the forest cover from the banks of the Ganges, so these fertile lands could be planted."
and slightly later:
"The supersession of bronze by iron and pastoralism by sedentary agriculture laid the foundation for a new period of political consolidation beginning around 1000 BCE. Numerous small cities in the Gangetic valley reflect the twin processes of agricultural development and state formation. Out of these processes came a set of monarchies around the eighth to sixth centuries BCE, and the first imperial regime, the Mauryans, around 320 BCE. The opening of the vast, fertile Gangetic plain to agrarian exploitation can be glimpsed in the post-Harappan archaeological record, to which has been added the rich docu mentation of the Sanskrit Vedic corpus. ... Archaeology and the Vedic documents permit two simultaneous changes to be traced, one to a fully settled agrarian economy and the other from clans with a lineage-based society to the more complex social and political forms that have marked all subsequent developments in India and made it distinctive."
The historian's perspective is that as the Aryans moved from the Punjab and down the Gangetic Plain, their technology allowed for large-scale deforestation along the Ganges, in turn changing their dominant modes of production from pastoralism to agriculture and their dominant organization from lineage-based clans to the complex social differentiation that is unique to India. If you are not getting that message across, you are not writing history, only naming names. My earnest request is to stop trying to squeeze in your specialist perspective into the article; instead, pick up only history books, i.e. ones that cover the entire history of India, and summarize them at the scale of this article. You don't really need anything more than Stein's History of India and Kulke's and Rothermund's History of India for the first cut. You don't need Romila Thapar (ancient), you don't need Asher and Talbot (medieval), you don't Metcalf and Metcalf (modern) at this stage. Otherwise, I fear this page will remain the sorry apology for history that it already has been for so long. Here is the pdf of Stein's book. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
the established orthodoxies of Hinduism had given impulse to the religious reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism and to the lives of their exemplars, Gautama Buddha and Mahavira.
Perfect in line with the colonisation of the Ganges plain, and the movement of Veic towards the east. Magadha was, of course, at the perifery of the Vedic culture for a long(er) time, and Buddhism and Jainism have, at least partly, different roots. It's interesting that the Sramana movement also gave rise to 'orthodox' renouncers, who acknowledged the Vedas, but rejected ritual. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Highpeaks35 has undone my careful, scrupulous, reliable (cited to Rita P. Wright's, Ancient Indus CUP, 2009), and balanced rewrite of the first two paragraphs of the lead, by restoring the partisan version (which uses the word "advancement" for the transition in South Asia from the urban Indus Valley Civilization to the pastoral Vedic Period, which in his restored version has been Wikilinked to "Vedic Civilization,"), unreliable (which cited to Puffins History of India and such books for children) and rendered in English that is chock full of lexical and syntactical howlers such as, "The era saw the composition of the Vedas, the seminal texts of Hinduism, coalesce into Janapadas (monarchical, state-level polities), and social stratification based on caste." Highpeaks35 has moreover roped in others such as Joshua Jonathan in absentia, in his edit summary, by proclaiming, "You can’t change the lead that was through ( sic) WP:CONCENSUS ( sic) for years without proper agreement. Look at the history, JJ and many others discussed for hours before making ( sic) establishing this lead)." Since I don't feel Highpeaks35 likes to discuss his edits at any level of constructive engagement on the talk page, I will be adding, neutrality- and language improvement tags for the article's lead. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
"but also eventually by the excluding of some indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure"in the History of India#Vedic society. Mentioning it twice, of a very sensitive and controversial topic, and putting it in the lead for new readers who may not understand, when it is already mentioned is clearly POV pushing. Your statement: "as it addresses untouchability, the defining inequality of Vedic culture" is moot, every civilization had massive inequality. Again, these are the reason why I find you work to be Eurocentric. ( Highpeaks35 ( talk) 02:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC))
"but also eventually by the excluding of some indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure". Almost all reliable sources use Indo-Aryan to describe the Vedic period, rarely Indo-European, even for the early waves. ( Highpeaks35 ( talk) 02:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC))
"but also eventually by the excluding of some indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure"). Why mention it twice? Also, all reliable souces mention the Vedic period as an Indo-Aryan culture, when did it become the culture of the parent Indo-European? ( Highpeaks35 ( talk) 02:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC))
the Vedic culture was not the only culture in India during its time; talking about ethnic bias, the emphasis on the Vedic culture certainly is a bias;
but which excluded indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure, arose later during this periodwas removed. The fact that it's also mentioned in the article is a reason to include it in the lead, not to exclude: lead summarises the article. And, it's highly relevant.
Made some small edits for now to make the intro less verbose and repetitive. I also have a few additional thoughts/questions about the 3rd-5th paragraphs (among the many other issues with them):
one could say simply that "During the 7th to 11th century control of northern India was contested between different regional dynasties..." and mention general trends, like how the dynasties of this period patronized elaborate temple developments. Also, shouldn't the growth of tantra and bhakti be mentioned in the intro? - Avantiputra7 ( talk) 01:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)The most significant event between the 7th and 11th century was the Tripartite struggle centred on Kannauj that lasted for more than two centuries between the Pala Empire, Rashtrakuta Empire, and Gurjara-Pratihara Empire. Southern India saw the rise of multiple imperial powers from the middle of the fifth century, most notably the Chalukya, Chola, Pallava, Chera, Pandyan, and Western Chalukya Empires.
Only one hypothesis is being presented about Caste system on lead. Mainstream scholars are of a view there are numerous hypothesis about it.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)There are many scholars are of the view that Caste system developed in the classical period or later. See this page which cites multiple scholars. Lockard gives a detailed view about it that you should read. It is agreeable that the concerns of Highpeaks35 are sensible and this can be reduced by simply cutting any details about caste system on lead other than a mere mention, but then again, why we should be giving weight to only a heavily disputed hypothesis? 112.134.66.170 ( talk) 14:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I made this subsection in the morning and didn't do anything else, because I couldn't understand what the IP was talking about. Now I see that the section has gone all over place, and I feel like collapsing it. But before I do so, let me just say that there is one sentence on the caste system in the lead. It is broken, but it seems to have been there for ages, and it will get fixed eventually after the body is cleaned up. As for 'Eurocentricism', it is all bollocks. Most of the scholars we use are devoted students of Indian studies and they don't say anything lightly. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 03:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
In just one image set I found major errors, and have corrected them. I'm astounded at the scale of the distortion in these captions. I'm assuming that similar examples are to be found throughout this article. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi. The latest change is fine by me. "Destructive" was the word used in the Davis text that you use for the el nino, but it is a harsh word. -- regentspark ( comment) 20:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Mstrojny: @ Vanamonde93: Sorry, I didn't mean to stifle discussion so definitively, so I'm reopening it, but not the move. I just wanted to say that this page has a much bigger problem. We have talked about improving it, pruning it, but nothing has happened. It remains a lop-sided Hindu view of India. The reams of cumbrous prose and ungainly pictures each vying with the other to glaze the earnest reader's eye, speak to that. How will a meta discussion on the title fix the basic problem? So, we'll have a Hindu view of South Asia.
We have very limited manpower. The people who have time should be improving the article. (I don't have anything against you Mstrojny :) Its just that I've seen very little change on this page in 12 years.) As for nested intervals, I tried that:
in my post of 2007 here
|
---|
Wikipedia articles on the region (and this is where WP has an advantage over Britannica, or other stable encyclopedias) should take the approach of multiresolution analysis, and let the histories be presented at several scales of time and space. This approach has the additional advantage that it would not require name changes, which people in the discussion above seem reluctant to make. Here is a hierarchy of possible resolutions:
|
In other words, we have another discussion on form, but the content no one wants to touch, except of course the POV promoters. Sorry but I sincerely believe that well-meaning though this may be, it won't change a thing. People, i.e. the upholders of the shining India get the hiccups when "Indian subcontinent" is changed to "South Asia." What are the chances that they will allow their beloved "India" itself to be changed to South Asia? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I would like to request more input on this discussion. Interstellarity ( talk) 11:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I notice the word 'civilisation' and 'civilization', which are both equally valid. However, it looks rather sloppy to have both spellings in a single article, particularly (as in the opening paragraph) in close conjunction. I would fix them, but to what spelling? Mulstev ( talk) 21:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
[Copied from User talk:Ghatus]
"Communal interpretation of history. Read "Historiography, Religion, and State in Medieval India" - By Satish Chandra"
- ( 140.239.232.12 ( talk) 16:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC))
"tussles" is not appropriate as too vague and informal. As a reminder our goal is to summarize the content of the article, and the goal of the article is to summarize the mainstream historical view of the history of India. So probably the first question is: does the article currently pretty accurately cover Indian history as the historians see it? If not where is it lacking or which parts have too much emphasis/detail for their overall impact?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
References
Please discuss and try to come to a consensus instead of edit warring. -- NeilN talk to me 20:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
IP68, please restart the discussion by stating what your concerns are with the current version. The "compromise" can come later. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
68 | JJ | 24 | comparison | |
1 | The history of India includes the prehistoric settlements and societies in the Indian subcontinent, | The history of India includes the prehistoric settlements and societies in the Indian subcontinent; | Same | |
2 | the advancement of civilization from Indus Valley Civilization to the Vedic Civilization of the Indo-Aryan cultures, | the advancement of civilization from Indus Valley Civilization to the Vedic Civilization of the Indo-Aryan cultures; | the advancement of civilization from Indus Valley Civilization to the Vedic Civilization, with expansion of the Indo-Aryan cultures; [per VictoriaGrayson source] | Almost Same |
3A | the rise of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism | a second urbanisation, together with the start of a still continuing process of Sanskritization, and the rise of the Śramaṇa movement, including the birth of Jainism and Buddhism; | Add "second urbanisation"; add "Sanskritization"; Jainism and Buddhism precede Hinduism. | |
3B | the subsequent development of Hinduism as a synthesis of various Indian cultures and traditions; | Jainism and Buddhism precede Hinduism. | ||
4A | a succession of powerful dynasties and empires for almost two millennia throughout various geographic areas of the subcontinent, | the onset of a succession of powerful dynasties and empires for almost two millennia throughout various geographic areas of the subcontinent, | Same | |
4B | including the Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent; | including the growth of Muslim dynasties during the Medieval period intertwined with Hindu, later Sikh, powers; | JJ: add "Muslim" 24~: add "intertwined" | |
5 | the advent of European traders resulting in the establishment of the British rule and the subsequent independence movement that led to the Partition of India and the creation of the Republic of India | the advent of European traders resulting in the establishment of the British rule; and the subsequent independence movement that led to the Partition of India and the creation of the Republic of India. | Same |
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
A whole bunch of material got added today on the Sangam period and the Dravidian languages [4]. It basically has "me too" (or "us too") feel to it. Diannaa rightly reverted some of it, but it got put back. Well, I am going to remove it again. The involved editors should go and use a sandbox somewhere to write a nice simple section that is of the size of the Vedic society section and come back. The mainspace is not a sandbox! I would also suggest the involved IPs to register accounts because it is hard to identify and communicate otherwise. Those 64 bit IPs are especially awful! - Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Physical features influence history to a great extent. There is an imminent need to mention about the impact of geography on history. A small attempt has been made to fill up the gap. please go through it and improve wherever possible-- Dr MPV ( talk) 03:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Proposed section:
The physical features of India had greatly influenced the history of India. As Richard Hakluyt puts it “Geography and chronology are the Sun and Moon, the right eye and the left eye of the long history”. [1] . [2] History of India can be understood in its proper prospective only with the comprehensive understanding of its geographical features
The great Himalaya ranges of mountains in north India had not only saved India from invasions from its north but also prevented it from the cold winds and dry winds blowing from Tibet. . [3] They provide copious rains to the plains below besides they have also become perennial source for rivers like Ganges Yamuna and Brahammputra making the plains fertile. These mountain ranges also influence the climatic condition of the region. It separates India from China and helped in developing its own Civilization distinct from that of China and others. The passes like Khyber Pass Bolan pass helped foreign invaders to cross the border. The Khyber Pass connects Peshawar with Kabul, Others like Tochi, Kurram and Gomal passes connects India with Afghanistan. The famous Bolan Pass connects India with Kandhar. This is a very wide and easy pass and only through this pass Persians, Greeks, Scynthians Khushans, Huns , Turks, Mughals and even invaders like Nadir Sha and Ahamad Shaw Abdali invaded India. . [4]
This border areas have people belonging to various races because of this mountain passes and consequent invasions. They also become the bed of multiple and mixed culture and civilization. The kingdoms around this passes had to be always alert which led to the development of races known for valor like Rajput, Gorkhas. These passes facilitated the trade and intercourse between India and outside world. [5]
The North Eastern ranges of Himalayas virtually prevented any movement to the western world as the passes situated in these portion of range were impossible to cross. It is because of these barriers no king from India tried to invade Burma and vice versa. [6] Vindhya Satpura mountain ranges divide India as North India and South India. This has resulted in the development of two distinct history, Civilization and culture between North India and South India. The kingdoms which were dominant and powerful in North could not influence south except few occasions and vice versa. These mountain ranges also prevented the development of unity of India and the one India concept always remained elusive. Another set of mountain ranges along the West Coast and East Coast in the Peninsular India help in bringing rain to the plains and became the sources for many rivers like Kavery, Vagai etc.
Rivers like Indus and Ganges contributed greatly to fertility of the plains of North India . The richness of the soil was responsible for the establishment great empires in this region. Many social, religious and philosophical ideas were generated here. Religions like Buddhism. Jainism flourished here and universities like Taxila and Nalanda were also established on account of prosperity prevailed in this region. They also became a source for the birth and development of Indus Valley Civilization. The development of art and literature including Vedic literature became a natural consequence. [7] Development of urban culture had been one of the significant highlights. Foreign Invaders were frequently attracted by the prosperity prevailed in the region and had resulted in frequent foreign invasions.
These rivers also provided a means for internal transport and communication and many great cities like Pataliputra, Banaras, Agra, Multan, Lahore, Delhi etc. were founded on their banks. [8]
Similarly other rivers like Krishna, Godavari, Thungabadra , Kaveri etc. contributed to the prosperity and development of great Kingdoms of South. These rivers divided the peninsular India in to many isolated portions.
The sea shore with it's long unbroken coastline with few fractures led to the development of fewer ports but they were busy throughout the year. It fostered trade and maritime activity. They established commercial relations with middle east and far east as well. Using the coast, some Southern kingdoms invaded across Oceans and created history. The same feature was also responsible for the European powers to set foot in India.
The vastness of the country and its physical features prevented the development of political unity. [9] Besides, the vastness and fertility provided enough resources for the kings to engage within India rather than venture outside India. . [10] As a result, India developed some sort of aloofness and almost remained oblivious to the developments outside India. Therefore, it had to pay a very heavy price later. [11] The prosperity and richness also increased laziness and habits of ease and pleasure for the inhabitants. . [12]
The Thar deserts affected the course of history substantially. Since it divided the plains of Indus Valley and the plains of Ganges, they became two distinct units. [13] This led to the mobilization of resources from other parts of India to the plains of Indus valley against the invaders near impossible. It rendered the Indian defence weak. . [14]
References
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The new editor is right that Geography/Geology played a crucial role in shaping Indian history, Indeed, the first chapter of any college or university book on Indian history is on this issue. However, it does not mean that we should give disproportionate weight to these physical features. Rather, we should make a short paragraph on it. Three points are to be included there - 1) the role of Himalayas(the always awake gatekeeper) and the mountain passes (especially the Khyber Pass. There would have been no Indian history without the Khyber Pass), 2) the role of the rivers in building Janapadas (urban centres) and finally 3) the geographical vastness of India which made India so diverse a country. I think these three points are to be written in a short paragraph. Ghatus ( talk) 11:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks friend for the suggestion, Let me try to condense it and make it brief Dr MPV ( talk) 01:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
There are alternate views about the bias few historians had about the narration of Indian history. Those who read about Indian history will have to be kept informed about this view for them to take an independent view. Please improve-- Dr MPV ( talk) 07:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion Dr MPV ( talk) 01:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Proposed section:
The need for writing Indian history arose after the English East India Company (EEC) started ruling India. During 18th century in order to rule India, the officials of EEC had to familarise themselves with the lifestyle, the laws and rules that regulated Indian life. [1] This necessitated them to focus on these issues in order to facilitate a good understanding of Indian people, their habits and Laws. Sir William Jones during 1784 founded The Asiatic Society of Bengalwith the objective to initiate studies to understand the lifestyles of the Eastern people and to record them with evidence. Scholars like Charles Wilkins, HT Colebrooke, H H Wilson have contributed substantially to the Asiatic society of Bengal.
Scholars like Max Muller and many other European Scholars learnt Sanskrit and become proficient in Vedas and translated all the four Vedas in German. Many European Scholars following his footsteps brought about number of books on Vedas and contributed to Indian Philosophy. All these literature helped them to understand Indian civilization and culture.
Christian missionaries in order to preach and propagate Christianity and to establish the superiority of their religion also had to understand the Indian culture and habits. The efforts of Christian missionaries culminated in a number of literature. All these literature, especially literature developed by Christian missionaries have to a certain extent influenced the English historians of India. They become biased about Indian civilization and culture. Mr. John Stuart wrote a book ‘The History of British India’ during the year 1817. This book describes Indian civilization and culture as Barbarous and anti- rational. The British civil servants studied this history book as a Textbook during the training period before they landed in India . This book helped this British civil servant to form a poor and bad opinion about Indian civilization and culture. Mr. V A Smith was another Civil Servant who came to India like this and wrote a comprehensive history book on India called The Oxford History of India. But Mr. Smith did not portray such a bad picture like John Stuart about Indians, Indian culture and Civilization even though he also mentioned that Indians are not capable of ruling themselves. Later Indian historians strongly objected to this type of biased and prejudiced view presented by English, and went about explaining various political and social institutions that were well developed and existed in India. English historians invariably focused on Emperors, kingship giving indications about the biased mindset they had developed due to the influence of various literature. They did not even mention anything about the well-developed social Institutions, political Institutions and cultural development existed in the country but wrote the history with the strong belief that Indians were lazy and had fatalistic attitude towards life. [2]
Later on many Indian historians felt that there was an imminent need for Indian history to be written objectively in its proper perspective with good understanding and without any bias and history was written also accordingly. [3]
References
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I think this Historiography section is precisely there for that reason. It talks about the different point-of-views or narratives. Ghatus ( talk) 11:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I will go through it and revert if necessary Dr MPV ( talk) 01:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Currently the naval arm of the Marathas has no mention at all, which certainly deserves a mention. Hence I am adding it (under Maratha Empire). Kindly do not make changes without discussing on talk page.
Amit20081980 ( talk) 15:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The empires listed after the Delhi Sultanate emerged in the 14th century while, based on our article Eastern Ganga dynasty this empire/dynasty emerged much earlier and declined around this time. It doesn't fit in the list. The paragraph added later in the content is poorly sourced. Orissa government websites, blogs, and travel websites are not reliable sources. -- regentspark ( comment) 23:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The article contains 1,164 links. Terms are linked as many as 12 times each in the text (excluding infoboxes, navboxes, tables, captions, and footnotes). Some are linked multiple times in the same sentence, paragraph, or section. Such excessive linking fails to help the reader understand the topic, the history of India. Such links fall under WP:OVERLINKING and/or MOS:DUPLINK, and should be removed.
I propose that terms be linked no more than once in the same sentence, same paragraph, or same section, unless the proponent of a specific duplicate linking can make a convincing case that it is helpful to readers. Furthermore, I propose unlinking the following (number of links in parentheses):
These specific terms are all important to the history of India, of course, but they are already understood in context. It isn't necessary for a reader to read an entire encyclopedia article about Asia or the British people in order to understand the history of India. In the case of Central Asia, China, Japan, and the United Kingdom, the terms have been used, often several times, before the point in the article at which they are linked. Also, more pertinent terms often are linked in immediately adjacent text, such as India in World War II in close proximity to World War II.
I've brought this to the talk page because the modest removal of eight links of the above sorts was promptly reverted by another editor with the assertion that they were "important links". -- Worldbruce ( talk) 00:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
History of India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The quote from Will Durant, footnoted as 244 is incorrect. Only the first sentence. "The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. " is accurate. The other sentences are not in Durant's text and are inflammatory.
107.217.164.124 ( talk) 18:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
All, New to editing Wikipedia, but a long time user. I'm a 7th grade teacher in the USA and was reading through some background history under Beginning of European Explorations and Establishment of Colonialism and came across this odd-sounding sentence fragment: "The British—who set up a trading post in the west coast port of Surat in 1619—and the French." Does anyone object to editing it? DSD1980 ( talk) 00:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)DSD1980
![]() | This
edit request to
History of India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The British—who set up a trading post in the west coast port of Surat in 1619—and the French. The internal conflicts among Indian kingdoms gave opportunities to the European traders to gradually establish political influence and appropriate lands.
Change to: The internal conflicts among Indian kingdoms gave opportunities to the European traders to gradually establish political influence and appropriate lands. Following the Dutch, the British—who set up in the west coast port of Surat in 1619—and the French both established trading outposts in India.
DSD1980 ( talk) 14:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
History of India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am pretty sure the Upanishads were not written in the second Urbanization,but rather during the Vedic period.
67.84.203.208 ( talk) 19:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on History of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.marymount.k12.ny.us/marynet/stwbwk05/05vm/earrings/html/emanalysis.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@ ScrapIronIV:, please let me know why we can't use the names by which the Portuguese and French called their Indian colonies in the English wikipedia article!— Dona-Hue ( talk) 17:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
References
In this reversion, an IP tells Maestro2016, "you made major changes to an established page. Let's discuss first in the talk page." Yes, let's. Most of this edit corrects the WP:Headings to sentence case. There are a couple of minor copy edits. And there is some content added sourced to Burton Stein, clearly a reliable source. So I am interested to know, what is the objection to the edit? Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 19:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Attention IP user: Please be advised that an edit warring complaint has been filed against you for your continued reversions without addressing your objections here. (There is no way to notify the editor(s) on their talk page as they are IP hopping.) Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 21:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The article is semi-protected, and yet it has some vandalism. Could someone with edition rights check it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.26.21.211 ( talk) 07:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The disputed content recently added by Maestro2016 and being removed by a user and the regular IP [9] with valid reasoning that it is irrelevant to this article is all correct. But another issues is that source doesn't support the information either. [10] [11] You don't find mention of "Delhi Sultanate" anywhere in that book or website. Capitals00 ( talk) 12:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
As for this edit [12] where is the discussion? I could only find an edit from an IP couple of months ago [13] that removed it with a misleading edit summary. Geunineart ( talk) 05:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
We agree that this was always on this article until removed by the IP. I would still keep it on lead. Capitals00 ( talk) 10:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
From Petraglia et al. (2010), Out of Africa: new hypotheses and evidence for the dispersal of Homo sapiens along the Indian Ocean rim, Anna ls of Hum an Bio logy, May–June 2010; 37(3): 288–311, p.299:
The Middle Palaeolithic artefact assemblages dating to between 78 and 74 ka at Jwalapuram in peninsular India were suggested to be the product of H. sapiens, based in part upon their close technological similarity with MSA assemblages of Africa (Petraglia et al. 2007). However, such a date range for H. sapiens in the subcontinent does not correspond with genetic coalescence ages, which indicate a younger dispersal event, at ca 70–55 ka. This temporal disjuncture led to the suggestion that the Jwalapuram assemblages may mark the presence of earlier human populations for which there is no surviving genetic evidence (Endicott et al. 2009).
So, there's more to these dates than only Patraglia's datings. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC) See also Mellars et al. (2013), Genetic and archaeological perspectives on the initial modern human colonization of southern Asia, PNAS June 25, 2013 vol. 110 no. 26:
It has been argued recently that the initial dispersal of anatomically modern humans from Africa to southern Asia occurred before the volcanic “supereruption” of the Mount Toba volcano (Sumatra) at ∼74,000 y before present (B.P.)—possibly as early as 120,000 y B.P. We show here that this “pre-Toba” dispersal model is in serious conflict with both the most recent genetic evidence from both Africa and Asia and the archaeological evidence from South Asian sites. We present an alternative model based on a combination of genetic analyses and recent archaeological evidence from South Asia and Africa. These data support a coastally oriented dispersal of modern humans from eastern Africa to southern Asia ∼60–50 thousand years ago (ka).
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
See also Review article on the origin of modern humans: the multiple-dispersal model and Late Pleistocene Asia, on Petraglia et al. (2017), On the origin of modern humans: Asian perspectives. Interesting. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is a quite messy:
I'll attempt a gradual rewrite. Others are welcome to join. utcursch | talk 03:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll start with this section. Proposed changes:
Suggestions and objections welcome. utcursch | talk 23:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
indian historic periodization in terms of european models is totally a irrelevant, circumstances in india were not the same as the european ones. i would also request adding bhimbhetka rock cave art as the base of evolution of indus arts as proposed by Erwin Neumayer Prehistoric Rock Paintings and Ancient Indus Motifs 2, i would also like to add recent discovery of ratnagiri petroglyps which has artistic depictions on par with gobekli tepe, i-e arts which appear in later civilization like Master of Animals 115.135.118.112 ( talk) 06:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
second urbanisation dates seem to be pretty misleading, several sources do indicate that by 600 BC, india was already urbanised for several centuries for instance
Dieter Schlingloff cites G.R. Sharma's monograph in which he states that kausambi city fortification was already completed btw 1025-955 BC and the moats were completed btw 855-815 BC 1, which means the city was already urbanized from period of 1000-800 BC. secondly, Buddha's death has been recently revealed to have occured in the sixth century BC 2 3 4, Dieter Schlingloff also compares parallel emergence of indian cities with the emergence of greek cities, which have been thought to have arisen in 900 BC
“This is an important moment in the archaeological study of ancient Buddhism,” says Lars Fogelin, an archaeologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
Although we can’t be sure that the ancient tree shrine had links to Buddhism, Fogelin says it is the most plausible explanation. “Depictions of tree shrines in friezes on other early Buddhist sites make the Buddhist affiliation of the tree shrine the most likely.”
hence buddha must have been born before 600 BC by which time the area that is east india where he belonged to had already been urbanised.
the punched mark coins are also thought to date from seventh century BC according to Jhon, E. Page 5
jain Parshvanatha is also thought to have lived around 800 BC by the historians.
Both Mahabharatha and ramayana epics have been thought to be be first composed around 900-800 BC.
the Northern Black Polished Ware also appear around 700 BC and the same is the time period when black polished ware appear in etruscan civilization 900 BC–100 BC
Both Buddhist and Jain calendars seem to begin in 6th century BC, which means that they were born in an urbanised era.
115.135.118.112 ( talk) 10:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert the IP a third time, but for the record, the length problem has already been discussed here (see two sections above), the content is undue weight, and the IP is obviously editing in bad faith, because IP addresses cannot use Huggle, but an edit summary has been manufactured to suggest that that is the case. Vanamonde ( talk) 18:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
F&F, Mathglot, Kautilya (and others): since we're concerned about length, I think we need to take a hard look at this section. I personally am not a fan, as I think it's too detailed to provide an at-a-glance overview, but too short to actually explain what the various columns represent, and what the periods mean. At the moment, I am in favor of dumping it altogether, and moving the material about Mill and Thapar to the historiography section. I would like to hear your thoughts, however. Vanamonde ( talk) 21:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Highpeaks35, I have selectively reverted one of your recent removals. Contested information isn't necessarily bad information; furthermore, the earliest human presence is a detail of great importance. Indeed, it's probably the single most piece of information that needs to be in that section. Earlier hominids are somewhat incidental. Also, the rest of that section is in terrible shape. Feel free to modify it later: I'm raising it here so we're not sucked into an edit war caused by miscommunication. Vanamonde ( talk) 00:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The article is huge (currently 338kb) and way past the length where a split should be considered. Since this article is already in Summary style, that means first, a careful proportional balancing to assure due weight of different sections and that they have the right level of detail, and then moving off at least 50% of the article (moving 75% would not be too much) into already existing, or new, child articles. This is a big job, and would require an outline or plan of work on a subpage here to organize it. I'll help, but don't want to play lead on this one. Any takers with good suggestions, and a good head for managing a task like this, who's willing to take this on? Ping, please. Mathglot ( talk) 11:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Xtools shows that the article has been stable till 2013, and has been steadily growing since then. It was 100K then. About 300–400K now. One possibility is to revert it to what it was at the end of 2013 ( take a look) and let people negotiate about anything they want to add to it.
Splitting the article is not a good idea. But people can of course start new articles like "Classical Age in India" or "Medieval India" etc. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Vanamonde93:, @ Mathglot: Thanks for pinging me, and thanks also for the implicit confidence you place in me. I'm strapped for time, so I can't actively edit this article, but I can suggest how to go about making it more encyclopedic, and I'm happy to provide feedback. I think splitting the article at this stage is probably premature. Trimming it, as Vanamonde suggests, would be the first line of attack. This will take time. Several volunteers will be needed, preferably ones that have not hitherto significantly edited the article. They, by each picking one subsection, will need to comb through the section and check for the following:
For now, working on (a)(i) and (a)(ii), would be a good place to start. That itself will trim the article quite a bit. Only then, can (b)(i) and (ii) be considered. I will be happy to offer feedback, but cannot do the work itself. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
IP Hopper 2405:204:2289:fe07:* , please stop your edit warring at History of India. You have made three reverts in ten minutes as 2405:204:2289:FE07:43F5:CC47:15E:6518 and at least another four in the same cidr block for a total of seven so far, and the twenty-four hours isn't even up yet.
In addition, as mentioned above by Vanamonde93, please stop using misleading edit summaries. Cordially, Mathglot ( talk) 23:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Somehow it's not correct the name a whole period after one specific culture, which did not dominate India then. Is there a better name? And, in this respect, Sanskritization should be mentioned; India was not Brahmanical and Sanskritized all at once. It still isn't it overall... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
the myth of aryan migration has nine maps/images alone in this article, so called vedic period but i noticed that none of the european articles themselves do this, i tried to add indo european migration maps in the history of greece and italy but it was immediately removed. might i ask why this myth is tolerated/forcefully enforced only specifically in the indian history articles and why this mythology is not tolerated in european articles even in iranian articles? i tried to remove autronesian origin of bengali people mythology from one west bengal history article which was also unsourced and this mythology too was enforced by reverting my edits which included more archaeological aspect rather than aryan mythology. i tried to remove dravidian origins mythology from this article which seems controversial and yet it was reverted and forcefully enforced by european users. 60.54.13.118 ( talk) 19:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The Iranian peoples,[1] or the Iranic peoples,[2][3] are a diverse Indo-European ethno-linguistic group that comprise the speakers of the Iranian languages.[4][5]
The Proto-Iranians are believed to have emerged as a separate branch of the Indo-Iranians in Central Asia in the mid-2nd millennium BCE.[6][7]
@ Highpeaks35: you removed a subsection, calling it "speculative." I've restored part of it, but removed the (indeed) speculative and undue part of inscriptions on bones. But Parpola is a credible, and relevant, author. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Ah, I see; F&f removed it too, calling it speculative:
copying indus civilization from lead of IVC; removing Dravidian Language speculation; does not belong to this page; it couldn't even get into the IVC page
It has often been suggested that the bearers of the IVC corresponded to proto-Dravidians linguistically, the break-up of proto-Dravidian corresponding to the break-up of the Late Harappan culture.[144] Finnish Indologist Asko Parpola concludes that the uniformity of the Indus inscriptions precludes any possibility of widely different languages being used, and that an early form of Dravidian language must have been the language of the Indus people.[145] Today, the Dravidian language family is concentrated mostly in southern India and northern and eastern Sri Lanka, but pockets of it still remain throughout the rest of India and Pakistan (the Brahui language), which lends credence to the theory.
Hello @ Vanamonde93:: Please take a look at the revised lead of the IVC page here. This was more or less the consensus version of a year ago. Please note that words such as "cradle" are not used. You could start with that lead, and if needed whittle it down, or change the language, to arrive at the lead for this page's IVC section. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
What we call today "Hinduism" emerged after 500 BCE. And Buddhism and Jainism responded to and interacted with the Vedic tradition(s), but were not reform movements of the Vedic tradition(s), let alone Hinduism. See Naomi Appleton, Shared Characters in Jain, Buddhist and Hindu Narrative: Gods, Kings and Other Heroes, as a starter. I'll have to check, but see also Geoffrey Samuel, The origins of Yoga and Tantra. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Here's my take on this. This is a history page. It's POV is that of historians, not of scholars of religion or Sanskritists. This means that we pay more attention to how historians have summarized the available records; otherwise, we risk swimming into waters deeper than our shallow water mandate allows for. In other words, we are writing the long view of Indian history. The Vedic Period section (in this page) is a case in point. It has paragraphs summarized from Michael Witzel's in-house journal (Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies (or title thereabouts)). It is difficult to understand. It consists mainly of the naming of names. There is no historical argument. Contrast what's in there with Burton Stein's History of India, section "Clearing the forests,"which is the introduction to his Vedic Period:
Between 1000 and 500 BCE iron tools and weapons provided the technological foundations for the expansion of agricultural communities over the entire basin of the Ganges. One important consequence of the replacement of copper and bronze implements by stronger iron weapons and tools was the greater ease in removing the forest cover from the banks of the Ganges, so these fertile lands could be planted."
and slightly later:
"The supersession of bronze by iron and pastoralism by sedentary agriculture laid the foundation for a new period of political consolidation beginning around 1000 BCE. Numerous small cities in the Gangetic valley reflect the twin processes of agricultural development and state formation. Out of these processes came a set of monarchies around the eighth to sixth centuries BCE, and the first imperial regime, the Mauryans, around 320 BCE. The opening of the vast, fertile Gangetic plain to agrarian exploitation can be glimpsed in the post-Harappan archaeological record, to which has been added the rich docu mentation of the Sanskrit Vedic corpus. ... Archaeology and the Vedic documents permit two simultaneous changes to be traced, one to a fully settled agrarian economy and the other from clans with a lineage-based society to the more complex social and political forms that have marked all subsequent developments in India and made it distinctive."
The historian's perspective is that as the Aryans moved from the Punjab and down the Gangetic Plain, their technology allowed for large-scale deforestation along the Ganges, in turn changing their dominant modes of production from pastoralism to agriculture and their dominant organization from lineage-based clans to the complex social differentiation that is unique to India. If you are not getting that message across, you are not writing history, only naming names. My earnest request is to stop trying to squeeze in your specialist perspective into the article; instead, pick up only history books, i.e. ones that cover the entire history of India, and summarize them at the scale of this article. You don't really need anything more than Stein's History of India and Kulke's and Rothermund's History of India for the first cut. You don't need Romila Thapar (ancient), you don't need Asher and Talbot (medieval), you don't Metcalf and Metcalf (modern) at this stage. Otherwise, I fear this page will remain the sorry apology for history that it already has been for so long. Here is the pdf of Stein's book. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
the established orthodoxies of Hinduism had given impulse to the religious reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism and to the lives of their exemplars, Gautama Buddha and Mahavira.
Perfect in line with the colonisation of the Ganges plain, and the movement of Veic towards the east. Magadha was, of course, at the perifery of the Vedic culture for a long(er) time, and Buddhism and Jainism have, at least partly, different roots. It's interesting that the Sramana movement also gave rise to 'orthodox' renouncers, who acknowledged the Vedas, but rejected ritual. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Highpeaks35 has undone my careful, scrupulous, reliable (cited to Rita P. Wright's, Ancient Indus CUP, 2009), and balanced rewrite of the first two paragraphs of the lead, by restoring the partisan version (which uses the word "advancement" for the transition in South Asia from the urban Indus Valley Civilization to the pastoral Vedic Period, which in his restored version has been Wikilinked to "Vedic Civilization,"), unreliable (which cited to Puffins History of India and such books for children) and rendered in English that is chock full of lexical and syntactical howlers such as, "The era saw the composition of the Vedas, the seminal texts of Hinduism, coalesce into Janapadas (monarchical, state-level polities), and social stratification based on caste." Highpeaks35 has moreover roped in others such as Joshua Jonathan in absentia, in his edit summary, by proclaiming, "You can’t change the lead that was through ( sic) WP:CONCENSUS ( sic) for years without proper agreement. Look at the history, JJ and many others discussed for hours before making ( sic) establishing this lead)." Since I don't feel Highpeaks35 likes to discuss his edits at any level of constructive engagement on the talk page, I will be adding, neutrality- and language improvement tags for the article's lead. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
"but also eventually by the excluding of some indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure"in the History of India#Vedic society. Mentioning it twice, of a very sensitive and controversial topic, and putting it in the lead for new readers who may not understand, when it is already mentioned is clearly POV pushing. Your statement: "as it addresses untouchability, the defining inequality of Vedic culture" is moot, every civilization had massive inequality. Again, these are the reason why I find you work to be Eurocentric. ( Highpeaks35 ( talk) 02:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC))
"but also eventually by the excluding of some indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure". Almost all reliable sources use Indo-Aryan to describe the Vedic period, rarely Indo-European, even for the early waves. ( Highpeaks35 ( talk) 02:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC))
"but also eventually by the excluding of some indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure"). Why mention it twice? Also, all reliable souces mention the Vedic period as an Indo-Aryan culture, when did it become the culture of the parent Indo-European? ( Highpeaks35 ( talk) 02:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC))
the Vedic culture was not the only culture in India during its time; talking about ethnic bias, the emphasis on the Vedic culture certainly is a bias;
but which excluded indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure, arose later during this periodwas removed. The fact that it's also mentioned in the article is a reason to include it in the lead, not to exclude: lead summarises the article. And, it's highly relevant.
Made some small edits for now to make the intro less verbose and repetitive. I also have a few additional thoughts/questions about the 3rd-5th paragraphs (among the many other issues with them):
one could say simply that "During the 7th to 11th century control of northern India was contested between different regional dynasties..." and mention general trends, like how the dynasties of this period patronized elaborate temple developments. Also, shouldn't the growth of tantra and bhakti be mentioned in the intro? - Avantiputra7 ( talk) 01:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)The most significant event between the 7th and 11th century was the Tripartite struggle centred on Kannauj that lasted for more than two centuries between the Pala Empire, Rashtrakuta Empire, and Gurjara-Pratihara Empire. Southern India saw the rise of multiple imperial powers from the middle of the fifth century, most notably the Chalukya, Chola, Pallava, Chera, Pandyan, and Western Chalukya Empires.
Only one hypothesis is being presented about Caste system on lead. Mainstream scholars are of a view there are numerous hypothesis about it.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)There are many scholars are of the view that Caste system developed in the classical period or later. See this page which cites multiple scholars. Lockard gives a detailed view about it that you should read. It is agreeable that the concerns of Highpeaks35 are sensible and this can be reduced by simply cutting any details about caste system on lead other than a mere mention, but then again, why we should be giving weight to only a heavily disputed hypothesis? 112.134.66.170 ( talk) 14:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I made this subsection in the morning and didn't do anything else, because I couldn't understand what the IP was talking about. Now I see that the section has gone all over place, and I feel like collapsing it. But before I do so, let me just say that there is one sentence on the caste system in the lead. It is broken, but it seems to have been there for ages, and it will get fixed eventually after the body is cleaned up. As for 'Eurocentricism', it is all bollocks. Most of the scholars we use are devoted students of Indian studies and they don't say anything lightly. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 03:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
In just one image set I found major errors, and have corrected them. I'm astounded at the scale of the distortion in these captions. I'm assuming that similar examples are to be found throughout this article. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi. The latest change is fine by me. "Destructive" was the word used in the Davis text that you use for the el nino, but it is a harsh word. -- regentspark ( comment) 20:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Mstrojny: @ Vanamonde93: Sorry, I didn't mean to stifle discussion so definitively, so I'm reopening it, but not the move. I just wanted to say that this page has a much bigger problem. We have talked about improving it, pruning it, but nothing has happened. It remains a lop-sided Hindu view of India. The reams of cumbrous prose and ungainly pictures each vying with the other to glaze the earnest reader's eye, speak to that. How will a meta discussion on the title fix the basic problem? So, we'll have a Hindu view of South Asia.
We have very limited manpower. The people who have time should be improving the article. (I don't have anything against you Mstrojny :) Its just that I've seen very little change on this page in 12 years.) As for nested intervals, I tried that:
in my post of 2007 here
|
---|
Wikipedia articles on the region (and this is where WP has an advantage over Britannica, or other stable encyclopedias) should take the approach of multiresolution analysis, and let the histories be presented at several scales of time and space. This approach has the additional advantage that it would not require name changes, which people in the discussion above seem reluctant to make. Here is a hierarchy of possible resolutions:
|
In other words, we have another discussion on form, but the content no one wants to touch, except of course the POV promoters. Sorry but I sincerely believe that well-meaning though this may be, it won't change a thing. People, i.e. the upholders of the shining India get the hiccups when "Indian subcontinent" is changed to "South Asia." What are the chances that they will allow their beloved "India" itself to be changed to South Asia? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I would like to request more input on this discussion. Interstellarity ( talk) 11:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I notice the word 'civilisation' and 'civilization', which are both equally valid. However, it looks rather sloppy to have both spellings in a single article, particularly (as in the opening paragraph) in close conjunction. I would fix them, but to what spelling? Mulstev ( talk) 21:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)