Sources of Indo-Greek history was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello! I am planning to conduct the GA review of this article. However, the first thing I notice is the NPOV banner that has been placed at the top of the page. I do not see any edit warring taking place, but I also do not see any discussion on why this banner was placed or how the author who added it would like to see the article changed.
I am going to wait a couple of days to see if anyone has a response to this comment. If I do not get a response, and if the banner is still present after a couple of days, I will have to fail this article on the criteria that major cleanup banners should not be present on a GA-level article. I will be watching this review page, so if you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. Dana boomer ( talk) 00:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a very bad article. There have been three major schools on the history of the Indo-Greeks: one based on Tarn's book of 1938; one based on Narain's book of 1951; one based on the work of Bopearchchi and Senior, in the past two decades. In principle, we should present all three; if we must choose one, we should choose the most recent, as current and based on the most evidence (and in general, as the middle ground between Tarn's picture of a New Alexander, the Saviour of Buddhism, and Narain's Indian triumphalism). This article, however, has been written by a dedicated believer in Tarn's most dated picture, who has no real understanding of the sources or the issues. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes, do read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/PHG/Evidence, and the section from the main article talk page which was the genesis of this article (a POV fork). If you have no background in the subject, the rest of the discussion, which is intensely allusive, is likely to go right past you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This list is from Tarn, Index II. It is the principal sources he used; this therefore covers India, Bactria, the provincial organization of Seleucid Syria, and Alexandria. Pseudo-Aristeas is cited because Tarn argues it has a common source with the Milinda-panha, and so on.
Those which are mentioned here should be quoted in full, and without interpretation; many of the references here are literally single sentences, or less:
Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Indo-Greeks (sources) → Sources of Indo-Greek history – The current title is meaningless. 216.8.171.148 ( talk) 21:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Moved by ChromaNebula. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 00:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Sources of Indo-Greek history was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello! I am planning to conduct the GA review of this article. However, the first thing I notice is the NPOV banner that has been placed at the top of the page. I do not see any edit warring taking place, but I also do not see any discussion on why this banner was placed or how the author who added it would like to see the article changed.
I am going to wait a couple of days to see if anyone has a response to this comment. If I do not get a response, and if the banner is still present after a couple of days, I will have to fail this article on the criteria that major cleanup banners should not be present on a GA-level article. I will be watching this review page, so if you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. Dana boomer ( talk) 00:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a very bad article. There have been three major schools on the history of the Indo-Greeks: one based on Tarn's book of 1938; one based on Narain's book of 1951; one based on the work of Bopearchchi and Senior, in the past two decades. In principle, we should present all three; if we must choose one, we should choose the most recent, as current and based on the most evidence (and in general, as the middle ground between Tarn's picture of a New Alexander, the Saviour of Buddhism, and Narain's Indian triumphalism). This article, however, has been written by a dedicated believer in Tarn's most dated picture, who has no real understanding of the sources or the issues. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes, do read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/PHG/Evidence, and the section from the main article talk page which was the genesis of this article (a POV fork). If you have no background in the subject, the rest of the discussion, which is intensely allusive, is likely to go right past you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This list is from Tarn, Index II. It is the principal sources he used; this therefore covers India, Bactria, the provincial organization of Seleucid Syria, and Alexandria. Pseudo-Aristeas is cited because Tarn argues it has a common source with the Milinda-panha, and so on.
Those which are mentioned here should be quoted in full, and without interpretation; many of the references here are literally single sentences, or less:
Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Indo-Greeks (sources) → Sources of Indo-Greek history – The current title is meaningless. 216.8.171.148 ( talk) 21:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Moved by ChromaNebula. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 00:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)