This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Iron Age in India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Bnbautis.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Here is my complete , comprehensive solution to the so-called Aryan problem Part one is a high level overview. Part two is much more interesting This is one of the longest research papers published in a peer-reviewed journal since independance. Part 2 is particularly important > http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One > http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two > Mirror: > http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25880426/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One > http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25865304/SUJAY-NPAP-Part-Two Links to the journal Part one http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1324506 Part Two http://ssrn.com/abstract=1541822
Part 2 has methods to reconstruct the langauges of the harappans with checks and balances.. 122.166.5.202 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC).
I can't find any cites in Google Books to the journal "The IUP Journal of History and Culture" and no cites in Google books or Google scholar to the author and IP above, Sujay Rao Mandavilli. This looks a bit promotional, certainly not something we should be using in the article. Dougweller ( talk) 12:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Recent discovery of daggers in southern India dates to 2200 BCE , 1000 years older than rest of the world . http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/discovery-ancient-indian-daggers-may-push-back-start-iron-age-020352. (Text contributed by Dr Shrikanth) - Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The Tewary sources appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources and too much reliance on them in this article is a problem. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The title of this article was changed without consensus. It should be reversed back. ( 2600:1017:B80E:4E3E:CDFA:AD8F:7708:5B6C ( talk) 03:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC))
I've started an essay on Wikipedia:India - South Asia nomenclatura. I hope in time this may grow into a style-advice or a guideline. No idea how the development of an essay, let alone a style-advice or a guideline works, but I thought it may be best to just start with it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I move protected to prevent any further undiscussed moves, this is no endorsement of the current title. I'd have ideally preferred to restore the original title before these moves, but apparently my eyesight failed me by making me see an "in" where there wasn't any, but I don't think there's any point in fixing that mistake with another move, therefore I'm leaving it open for an RM discussion or just a basic consensus on whether the original title or this one should be used as "status quo" for a move discussion. — Spaceman Spiff 10:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus - an RfC discussing the merits of WP:ISA may be in order. DrStrauss talk 17:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Iron Age in India → Iron Age in South Asia – The reason is very simple. Some Indian wikipedia members are attempting to shove there own nationalistic Indian pseudohistory onto wikipedia by intentionally mixing up South Asian history with Indian history. SOUTH ASIA refers to the regions (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) while INDIA refers to the Republic of India now. We're talking about the region of South Asia, not India. Hence forth for the sake of neutrality, this should be changed to South Asian Iron Age, just like South Asian Stone Age and South Asian Bronze Age which was again reverted to Bronze Age of India. This is totally unacceptable how some Indian wiki members are going around on wikipedia and deleting South Asia and replacing it with India or Ancient India or Indian subcontinent, all either fake terms or obsolete terms. Kindly consider moving to South Asian Iron Age. PAKHIGHWAY ( talk) 15:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC) -- PAKHIGHWAY ( talk) 15:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 12:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 16:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
.There is a reason why we have Iron Age China and not Iron age in East Asia. Razer( talk) 05:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)"Eastward of India lies a tract which is entirely sand. Indeed, of all the inhabitants of Asia, concerning whom anything is known, the Indians dwell nearest to the east and the rising of the Sun.". [1]
INDIA refers to the Republic of India now". India is also the name of the ancient land that made up the pre-partition India. I am largely guided by two book titles by Burjor Avari, an excellent source for these matters: India: The Ancient Past [2] and Islamic Civilization in South Asia. [3] It is only with the arrival of Islam that "India" fragments into South Asia. Prior to that it was "India", a unified civilisation. (After the advent of the Mughal Empire, it was unified again until 1947.) The Iron Age should be especially associated with "India" because it was an integral part of the Indo-Aryan civilisation. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Modern India came into existence in 1947 on the eve of the partition of British India. This is the Republic of India of familiar renown ... Before 1947, and well into the ancient period, however, India geographically embraced all the Indian subcontinent, which included the areas covered by the modern states of Pakistan and Bangladesh. In fact, the earliest roots of Indian civilisation can only be understood through study of what has been recovered from excavations and field-work mainly inside Pakistan. [2]
The historic India has always been the Indus Valley.,
The real "India" from a historic perspective (according to the Greeks, Persians etc.) is the Indus Valley.etc.: No, it isn't. It has always been the Indus Valley and beyond. Alexander invaded India. Polybius named the Hindu Kush the Caucasus Indicus, crossing which got you into India. [4] Pliny named Muziris in Kerala an Indian port. [5]. Arrian, Herodotus, et al. will all confirm this extent of Ancient India.
Show me a map from the 1200 that shows "India" in the context you're attempting to show.: See the Tabula Peutingeriana ( c. 1st century BCE – c. 5th century CE) (or c. 1200, take your pick) which depicts India as extending from well beyond Alexandria Bucephalous all the way to Damirica. See also, the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea [6]:
The country inland from Barygaza is inhabited by numerous tribes, such as the Arattii, the Arachosii, the Gandaraei and the people of Poclais, in which is Bucephalus Alexandria. Above these is the very warlike nation of the Bactrians, who are under their own king. And Alexander, setting out from these parts, penetrated to the Ganges, leaving aside Damirica and the southern part of India …
References
References
Under North India section, artifacts, revolutionized is spelled wrong. Try to be more specific about who is their near the end of the section. Bnbautis ( talk) 04:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
This is article deals with an important subject. Yet somehow it is written like a middle-school essay. Limited content for an entire period of history that spans over a millennium?
A team of archaeologists discovered several iron artifacts, including small knives, in Telangana in 2015, dating back to 1,800 BCE to 2,400 BCE.
This is the same time (or even earlier) to which the much publicised Sinauli “chariots” were dated to. No trace of iron was found at the Sinauli excavation site from that date, instead what found was copper. Secondly, the 1800-2400BCE date cites only a news article. No reference to any other sources or scholarly article despite being from five years ago. Thirdly, Tewari (2003) dates iron artefacts to 1800-1000BCE. Seriously? that is 800 years! 1000BCE is very much possible, but why such a huge span of 800 more years back in time. Looks like 1800 BCE claim was just to push the dates further back to the normally accepted dates of Vedic period. ChandlerMinh ( talk) 15:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Iron Age in India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Bnbautis.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Here is my complete , comprehensive solution to the so-called Aryan problem Part one is a high level overview. Part two is much more interesting This is one of the longest research papers published in a peer-reviewed journal since independance. Part 2 is particularly important > http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One > http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two > Mirror: > http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25880426/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One > http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25865304/SUJAY-NPAP-Part-Two Links to the journal Part one http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1324506 Part Two http://ssrn.com/abstract=1541822
Part 2 has methods to reconstruct the langauges of the harappans with checks and balances.. 122.166.5.202 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC).
I can't find any cites in Google Books to the journal "The IUP Journal of History and Culture" and no cites in Google books or Google scholar to the author and IP above, Sujay Rao Mandavilli. This looks a bit promotional, certainly not something we should be using in the article. Dougweller ( talk) 12:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Recent discovery of daggers in southern India dates to 2200 BCE , 1000 years older than rest of the world . http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/discovery-ancient-indian-daggers-may-push-back-start-iron-age-020352. (Text contributed by Dr Shrikanth) - Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The Tewary sources appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources and too much reliance on them in this article is a problem. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The title of this article was changed without consensus. It should be reversed back. ( 2600:1017:B80E:4E3E:CDFA:AD8F:7708:5B6C ( talk) 03:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC))
I've started an essay on Wikipedia:India - South Asia nomenclatura. I hope in time this may grow into a style-advice or a guideline. No idea how the development of an essay, let alone a style-advice or a guideline works, but I thought it may be best to just start with it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I move protected to prevent any further undiscussed moves, this is no endorsement of the current title. I'd have ideally preferred to restore the original title before these moves, but apparently my eyesight failed me by making me see an "in" where there wasn't any, but I don't think there's any point in fixing that mistake with another move, therefore I'm leaving it open for an RM discussion or just a basic consensus on whether the original title or this one should be used as "status quo" for a move discussion. — Spaceman Spiff 10:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus - an RfC discussing the merits of WP:ISA may be in order. DrStrauss talk 17:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Iron Age in India → Iron Age in South Asia – The reason is very simple. Some Indian wikipedia members are attempting to shove there own nationalistic Indian pseudohistory onto wikipedia by intentionally mixing up South Asian history with Indian history. SOUTH ASIA refers to the regions (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) while INDIA refers to the Republic of India now. We're talking about the region of South Asia, not India. Hence forth for the sake of neutrality, this should be changed to South Asian Iron Age, just like South Asian Stone Age and South Asian Bronze Age which was again reverted to Bronze Age of India. This is totally unacceptable how some Indian wiki members are going around on wikipedia and deleting South Asia and replacing it with India or Ancient India or Indian subcontinent, all either fake terms or obsolete terms. Kindly consider moving to South Asian Iron Age. PAKHIGHWAY ( talk) 15:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC) -- PAKHIGHWAY ( talk) 15:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 12:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 16:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
.There is a reason why we have Iron Age China and not Iron age in East Asia. Razer( talk) 05:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)"Eastward of India lies a tract which is entirely sand. Indeed, of all the inhabitants of Asia, concerning whom anything is known, the Indians dwell nearest to the east and the rising of the Sun.". [1]
INDIA refers to the Republic of India now". India is also the name of the ancient land that made up the pre-partition India. I am largely guided by two book titles by Burjor Avari, an excellent source for these matters: India: The Ancient Past [2] and Islamic Civilization in South Asia. [3] It is only with the arrival of Islam that "India" fragments into South Asia. Prior to that it was "India", a unified civilisation. (After the advent of the Mughal Empire, it was unified again until 1947.) The Iron Age should be especially associated with "India" because it was an integral part of the Indo-Aryan civilisation. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Modern India came into existence in 1947 on the eve of the partition of British India. This is the Republic of India of familiar renown ... Before 1947, and well into the ancient period, however, India geographically embraced all the Indian subcontinent, which included the areas covered by the modern states of Pakistan and Bangladesh. In fact, the earliest roots of Indian civilisation can only be understood through study of what has been recovered from excavations and field-work mainly inside Pakistan. [2]
The historic India has always been the Indus Valley.,
The real "India" from a historic perspective (according to the Greeks, Persians etc.) is the Indus Valley.etc.: No, it isn't. It has always been the Indus Valley and beyond. Alexander invaded India. Polybius named the Hindu Kush the Caucasus Indicus, crossing which got you into India. [4] Pliny named Muziris in Kerala an Indian port. [5]. Arrian, Herodotus, et al. will all confirm this extent of Ancient India.
Show me a map from the 1200 that shows "India" in the context you're attempting to show.: See the Tabula Peutingeriana ( c. 1st century BCE – c. 5th century CE) (or c. 1200, take your pick) which depicts India as extending from well beyond Alexandria Bucephalous all the way to Damirica. See also, the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea [6]:
The country inland from Barygaza is inhabited by numerous tribes, such as the Arattii, the Arachosii, the Gandaraei and the people of Poclais, in which is Bucephalus Alexandria. Above these is the very warlike nation of the Bactrians, who are under their own king. And Alexander, setting out from these parts, penetrated to the Ganges, leaving aside Damirica and the southern part of India …
References
References
Under North India section, artifacts, revolutionized is spelled wrong. Try to be more specific about who is their near the end of the section. Bnbautis ( talk) 04:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
This is article deals with an important subject. Yet somehow it is written like a middle-school essay. Limited content for an entire period of history that spans over a millennium?
A team of archaeologists discovered several iron artifacts, including small knives, in Telangana in 2015, dating back to 1,800 BCE to 2,400 BCE.
This is the same time (or even earlier) to which the much publicised Sinauli “chariots” were dated to. No trace of iron was found at the Sinauli excavation site from that date, instead what found was copper. Secondly, the 1800-2400BCE date cites only a news article. No reference to any other sources or scholarly article despite being from five years ago. Thirdly, Tewari (2003) dates iron artefacts to 1800-1000BCE. Seriously? that is 800 years! 1000BCE is very much possible, but why such a huge span of 800 more years back in time. Looks like 1800 BCE claim was just to push the dates further back to the normally accepted dates of Vedic period. ChandlerMinh ( talk) 15:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)