Misplaced Pages

Talk:India

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ARYAN818 (talk | contribs) at 19:08, 26 September 2008 (→No one has answered my points about Aryans). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:08, 26 September 2008 by ARYAN818 (talk | contribs) (→No one has answered my points about Aryans)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Featured articleIndia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 16, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 11, 2005Featured article reviewKept
May 6, 2006Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 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
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 5 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIndia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60


This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Guidelines for editing the India page
  • The article is written in summary style in Indian English.
  • All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits.
  • Only external links pertaining to India as a whole are solicited here. Please add other links in the most appropriate article.
  • Images should be add only after prior discussion. See also: WP:IIR
  • India-related matters should be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Notice board for India-related topics.
  • See the FAQ section before posting a topic on the page.


Wouldn't it be more prudent to delete entire history of India before independence and post it under a different article Combined India? It would atleast stop the war in Misplaced Pages over that? India argues it's India's history and Pakistan, Pakistan's...If only the Pakistanis accept that there was no Pakistan before 1947 and it's just a part of India, both having no right over the unified legacy...

Notable South Indian kingdoms

Among the South Indian kingdoms, the three that are most notable, as measured by the number of scholarly references (in Google Scholar), are, in historical order: Chola, Pallava, and Vijayanagara Empire. Here is a list of the kingdoms and the number of scholarly references in Google Scholar (I searched in "social science, arts, humanities" and the search string was "<Name> OR <Alternate Name>, South India, history."):
Searching for the string, "<Name> OR <Alternate Name>, South India, art OR architecture"), produces:
Searching among tertiary sources, i.e. Encyclopedias produces the same top three:
In the COPAC online catalogues of major University and National Libraries in the UK and Ireland, the results are:
Since the top three also had long periods of dominion and, in addition, find most mention in both Encyclopaedia Britiannica and Encyclopedia Encarta, I submit that Chola, Pallava, and the Vijayanagara Empire should be the three South Indian kingdoms mentioned in the history section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
PS. Thanks, KH2, for your very helpful edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the above strategy does not work. Remember Fowler, how you refused to accept Halmidi inscription is from the 5th century, though most Google scholarly searches returns that date and not the 6th century?. Whats good for the goose.....Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see how the two can be compared. First, I am not saying that Halmidi is of the 6th century, but rather that the language should be changed to "... has been dated to the 5th or 6th century." Second, Halmidi's date has been revised by scholars in the last 20 years. If you do a Google Book Search for the period 1988 to 2008, and examine the most cited ten references (first ten) published between 1988 and 2008, you will notice that references 1. (Sheldon Pollock), 3. (Pollock), 5. (G. S. Gai), 7 (D. C. Sircar) and 10. (Ancient Indian Literature (Sahitya Akademi) date it to the sixth century. A later date is also the most cited among epigraphists. If you do a Google Books search on "Indian epigraphy Halmidi," among the most cited references 1 (late 6th/early 7th), 2 (early 6th), 4 (late 6th), 6 (late 5th/early 6th), all mention a later 6th date. If you do a Google Scholar search on the Halmidi inscription, only 19 references turn up and only one key author (i.e. one that is cited most my others), D. C. Sircar, who dates Halmidi to the late 6th century. In addition, Encyclopaedia Britannica (2008) (not old articles written in the 1970s) says in the second sentence, "The earliest records in Kannada are inscriptions dating from the 6th century AD onward." In light of such evidence, I believe Misplaced Pages cannot cite the first 1936 epigraphic reference which has been predictably repeated by many "scholars" who are neither experts in epigraphy nor in Old Kannada. This situation here is different, no matter how you cut the pie, Chola, Pallava, and Vijayanagara Empire come out on top. There has been no movement in the last 20 years towards greater study of the Chalukyas compared, say, to the Pallavas. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I dont agree. There are similarities between the two issues. I can pull up dozens of citations proving Halmidi is from 5th century. You are no one to decide whose citation has more value and whose does not and you certianly dont have that knowledge. Secondly, I dont accept your logic on the kingdoms either. Art, architecture, conquests are all part of a kingdoms achievements. The number of "google hits" provided simply does not make justice on these issues. Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas are some of the most famous empires of India. The Hoysala era takes south Indian sculpture and architecture to a peak, never to be emulated.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
(I won't discuss Halmidi here further since it is off-topic. I mentioned it since you brought is up first.) Misplaced Pages does pay attention to Google Scholar references (not Google hits) and other tertiary references like Britannica and Encarta. Notability is decided by the number of scholarly citations. Which one of the references listed in those lists is not reliable? Those references unequivocally favor Chola, Pallava and Vijayanagara over Chalukya, your own personal preferences notwithstanding. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's have a straw poll: Rate your top five south Indian kingdoms below. We'll determine the three through a preferential voting system. Would it be accepted if I close it? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a straw poll could be plagued by users with little knowledge of South Indian history and the voting may take a prejudicial turn very easily. We already know what some users will vote for. I suggest we return to what it was a few weeks back, or create a special page (Notable South Indian Kingdoms) with a list or link it to History of South India which lists all notable kingdoms/empires without prejudice.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I think it should list the three it lists now (Chola, Chalukya and Vijayanagara) and also link to the History of South India, so a reader could further his knowledge on the issue with a click on the dab link.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Chalukya, Chola and Vijayanagara are from different and successive timeframes (with some inevitable overlap, of course (lest someone nitpick)) and Vijayanagara, for one, was unrivalled during its time. imo, Rashtrakuta should also be included as it was arguably the greatest (at least in terms of expanse) South Indian empire of all time. Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas controlled the greatest expanses of any South Indian kingdom. Cholas (as with Pallavas earlier) were mostly confined to only TN (and parts of Kerala) (even that kept changing hands between them, the Pandyas and the Cheras). But if it is a compromise that is needed and we need only three names, the present Chalukya, Chola and V'nagara should be sufficient. Sarvagnya 18:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
(My vote) As indicated by my Google Scholar results, my preferences are: 1. Vijayanagara Empire, 2. Chola, 3. Pallava, 4. Pandya, and 5. Satavahana. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Satavahanas atleast merit a mention because they were the first great empire of the south. Pandyas are small fry - were never a great empire.. were almost always feudatories to bigger fish. Pallavas always lived in the shadow of the Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas and commanded far less territory than either. Of course, feel free to filibuster with your uninformed and arbitrary metrics. Sarvagnya 20:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Uninformed Metrics that change from one article to the next, from one convenience to the next.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
If you think my "metric" is "uninformed," why don't you suggest an "informed metric" for Google Scholar search? And if you think the Pandyas and Pallavas are "small fry," why in your estimation more scholars writing about them than the Chalukyas? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I have answered you below your scholarly statement about "scholarly literary studies of modern languages".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

section break

Some amusement I was trying to amuse myself with some of these google scholar searches that Fowler has opened me up to (sorry, I am used to reading real books and found this "search" facility to be a nice diversion). Here are the number of hits for the various literatures of India. I just used the "<NAME> literature" string. Let us keep one issue in mind. Recently, the committee that was appointed by the Govt of India to study/approve classicalness of language, approved it for Kannada and Telugu, though official notification is awaited)

  • Sanskrit Literature-4630-->classical language
  • Tamil-1870--->classical language
  • Kannada-190 (second oldest literary tradition among spoken vernaculars of India, after Tamil)--->approved for classical language tag
  • Telugu-231 (third oldest literary tradition after Tamil and Kannada)--->approved for classical language tag.
  • Kashmiri-59
  • Marathi-281 (How come it has more hits than Kannada and Telugu. Is its literature of greater antiquity? or depth? or richness than Telugu or Kannada?)
  • Oriya-151
  • Malayalam-170
  • Bengali-1280 (I wonder why the Governemnt of India has not considered a classical language tag for Bengali, despite 1280 hits)
  • Hindi-795 (I wonder why the Governemnt of India has not considered a classical language tag for Hindi, despite 795 hits).

I hope we all get the point here. Let us not make a mockery of our history.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

All your results say is that there have been more scholarly studies in Bengali and Hindi literature than in Kannada and Telegu. However, what does that have to do with how old a literature is? There are many modern languages that are more popular as objects of scholarly study than classical languages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, there may be some kingdoms which are of more interest to scholarly studies, because of current socio-political reasons, which does mean they are greater than kingdoms with fewer hits on google search. The logic is simple. duh!Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing called "greater," only more notable. Misplaced Pages decides notability, for better or worse, by certain criteria, among which are citations in secondary and tertiary scholarly sources. The order of the notability of these kingdoms does not change no matter how you do your search. If you think it is current socio-economic reasons, you can restrict the search to the period before 1960, the order of notability is still the same. You can restrict the search to "art" (less influenced by current socio-economic conditions) or to "history," the order is still the same. You can restrict to all the major university presses in the world that publish on South Asia: Berkeley, Chicago, Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, ..., the order is still the same. The point is that you might think one kingdom is "greater," someone else might think another is. However, we can only go by notability as defined by Misplaced Pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
"Misplaced Pages decides notability..." -- Right! Misplaced Pages decides notability.. not relative notability -- an exercise in futility you seem to have perfected in the course of your stay here. It was ghits at one point and now you seem to have graduated to Google scholar. Good going. Sarvagnya 23:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Pallavas were not an insignificant empire. Their contribution in exporting Indian culture to the rest of the world specifically Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Vietnam and Indonesia is by far the most important contribution they made. No wonder scholars are interested in them. Taprobanus (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. But so are the Chalukyas. There contribution is far too important to ignore. What Fowler needs to do is to stop politicising his preferences and trying to establish changing norms. If this Google hit count goes through, the same method should be used to determine notability of other crutial info in this artile and others, such as Kannada literature, where Fowler has locked horns with me. Sounds like a fun Fall season to look out for.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Almost all Indian empires worth their name traded economically and culturally with the rest of the world. Nothing special about that. At the end of the day, Pallavas' territorial influence pales in front of their contemporaries, the Chalukyas or for that matter, the Rashtrakutas. No number of Ghits can change that fact. Sarvagnya 01:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
You can use expressions like "politicising" my preferences and "uninformed metrics," but we can only go by the evidence. The evidence suggests that scholars, by a clear margin, in both history and art, write more scholarly articles on the Pallavas than the Chalukyas. In addition among the tertiary sources a slightly greater number mention the Pallava than the Chalukyas. One has to then wonder why it is the former that are being excluded from the list of three. Please don't try to read more into this than what is present in this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
If you go back a month or two into the history of this article, you will perhaps see that the Pallavas were also mentioned.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Almost all Indian empires worth their name traded economically and culturally with the rest of the world That may be true but we are talking about South Indian empires and most South Indian empires pale infront of Pallavas in the influence that they had in the South East Asian states. From religion, to state craft to writing the Pallavas contributed to the Indianizing of South East Asia. Not even Cholas came close to matching them. There is not a single South Indian empire that has had such lasting influence and it is why the scholars are interested in them. Taprobanus (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, The Pandyas rival the Pallavas in their trade with the east. Their very name is suggestive of their sea-faringness. However, the Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas and Hoysalas were known for their relations with the West. So we cant just focus on one region.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Again.. I am sure every Indian empire worth its name had its own unique contribtions. We are not discussing that here. The point here is to come up with three and only(?) three names. And Pallavas' sphere of influence pales in front of their contemporary Chalukyas. Sarvagnya 18:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
In terms of territory ruled, the Chalukyas beat the Pallavas hollow. In terms of cultural influence outside India, the Pallavas beat most South Indian empires hollow - most Southeast Asian scripts (the Khmer script, Thai script, Burmese script...) come from the Pallava script. Is there any reason to prefer one of these criteria over the other? None at all, and I can think of half-a-dozen others which could just as well be used. Which is why this discussion is unlikely to lead anywhere. Not to forget that our trying to decide which South Indian empires are most "notable" is pure OR anyway. -- Arvind (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
"..any reason to prefer one of these criteria over the other?" - well fwiw.. expanse of territory is calculable.. fact - not my 'opinion'. Saying Pallavas beat others hollow simply because they exported a script (which incidentally was not their own invention anyway) to some place is just your opinion. For that matter, the Chalukyas' pioneering efforts in temple building and architecture (variants of which would in fact, also find their way to S E Asia) itself was no mean achievement. And I'm not sure why you're telling me that all this is pointless.. I myself called it an "exercise in futility" somewhere above. You might want to impress that on those who've foisted this upon us in the first place. Sarvagnya 04:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of other factual criteria - longevity, population, number of archaeological sites, area under cultivation, number of wars won, number of kingdoms conquered, trading relations outside India, mentions in contemporary non-Indian sources, mentions in contemporary Indian sources, number of World Heritage sites, volume of inscriptions, number of literary / cultural works produced. What makes territory a superior measure to those? I don't see a scholarly consensus that territory controlled is the best measure of an empire's greatness or notability. In the absence of that, how can we say that the biggest empires were the most notable without violating WP:OR? And what is the measure of territory anyway? Peak territory? Mean territory? Longest-held territory? By some measures, the Satavahanas would outrank all other southern kingdoms.
And, for the record, my last comment was not addressed to you specifically. Nor is this. -- Arvind (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(←) Clarification:I was trying to amuse myself with some of these google scholar searches that KH2 has opened me up to... Dinesh let me clarify that the google scholar search thread is posted by F&F...not me. The reason F&f thanked me was for removal of content against WP talk policies. In fact this is my 1st post to this discussion! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

KH2, sorry about the confusion.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
As usual Arvind is correct, we just have to find a compromise and move on but the solution has no leg to stand on. Some one else may come and change it all again. So in my view this unless people are reasonable and willing to compromise, this problem will not be solved.Taprobanus (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions

(Question for Arvind) What do you suggest we do with this frequently occurring problem of various editors adding the names of their favorite examples to the India page prose and thereby rendering it ugly? We really don't want long lists. No disagreement that there is no definitive gauge of notability, but is scholarly interest (with all its flaws) such a bad one? Also, what do you think of the tertiary source count? After all other encyclopedias do have to make some of the same decisions with regards inclusion and exclusion as we do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(Question for Nichalp) Since this disease of lists and "listy" prose must plague other Misplaced Pages articles as well, are there any official guidelines on how to eradicate it? In other words, are there any guidelines on how to pick a small (<=3) set of representative examples in any topic? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've not come across a specific guideline, but see this: Misplaced Pages:Embedded list#Lists within articles. The focus is on prose, not a list. In addition, as the page is written in summary-style, the suggested bulleted list alternative is not a feasible option. I usually précis the text (grid methodology to arrive at a fixed word count) when writing a summary. That helps immensely. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I have created a text version of user:Saravask's image rotation template {{Indian image rotation}}. This text template is {{India text rotation}}. Since there is a clear separation in all references between the first four Vijayanagara Empire, Cholas, Pallava, and Chalukyas and the remaining Pandya, Rashtrakuta, ... I propose that we follow Nichalp's original suggestion of limiting the total number in the text to three, that we keep Vijayanagara Empire and Cholas in permanent place, and that we rotate between the Pallava and Chalukya. So, in the daily rotation, for example, the statement in the history section (today) would read:

"Empires in Southern India included those of the Cholas, the Template:India text rotation, and the Vijayanagara Empire"

and, in the hourly rotation, the statement (this hour) would read:

"Empires in Southern India included those of the Cholas, the Template:India text rotation, and the Vijayanagara Empire"

Would this be agreeable to the editors? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No. I think it defeats the stability criteria. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to clarify something about the proposed text-rotation template. Unfortunately, even if there is consensus on its use, it isn't going to do much good. Even though the template's code is supposed to rotate the names of kingdoms every day/hour, in practice this will probably not happen because of Misplaced Pages's cache. What this basically means is that the text may not automatically refresh based on the criteria in the code unless someone or some people take it upon themselves to manually purge the cache often (which would probably defeat the purpose of automating text anyway). Thanks AreJay (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Nichalp and AreJay. Why does the cache not need to be purged in the image rotation template? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Good question, afaik, there is a specific configuration setting within MediaWiki that allows you to set cache refreshes for HTML pages displaying images (image thumbnails are also refreshed when HTML is refereshed). Not sure if this parameter is configured for Misplaced Pages though, but I do know that my results varied when I was working on randomizing images and text a few months ago. Sounds like this is a moot point though, per deletion discussion below. Thanks AreJay (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read enough of this discussion to know which kingdoms are notable and which are not. However, per Nichalp and Arejay, I won't support using a rotation template to solve the problem. The future of Misplaced Pages's credibility is dependent on its stability (high quality articles will appear in printed forms). I wasn't a fan of the rotating images template, which was created for regionalistic purposes and neither am I of this. Gizza 08:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. As you know, I wasn't a fan of image rotation either. I guess I was trying to be amenable here and get this monkey off our backs, but I agree its a bad idea. I am therefore withdrawing this proposal. Could some admin please get rid of the text rotation template? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Phew! All rotations compromise stability and *sanity*. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Nichalp has suggested above that we rate the top five South Indian kingdoms. Please only add your preferences here; discussion goes in the next section.

Discussion

Reason for my vote: It is not going to be easy to determine which Kingdom was greater and determining that may just be OR as per Arvind. Scholarly interest sounds like a good crriteria. Docku 22:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Culture section

“ The earliest works of Indian literature were transmitted orally and only later written down. These included works of Sanskrit literature – such as the early Vedas, the epics Mahābhārata and Ramayana, the drama Abhijñānaśākuntalam (The Recognition of Śakuntalā), and poetry such as the Mahākāvya – and the Tamil language Sangam literature. ”

There are problems with the second part of the paragraph above.

1) First, Kalidasa, Mahakavya and Sangam lit., are neither of the same stature as the Vedas and the two epics in a pan-India sense nor are they chronologically in comparable timeframes.

2) Second, the line about Sangam literature seems to only reflect Zvelebil's views. However, the question of Sangam literature's absolute and relative dates, orality and in some areas, even historicity is far from settled. Scholars (especially modern scholars) have alarmingly differing opinions on the issue and are deeply divided over it.

Bundling them all together in same breath and the same line is POV and UNDUE. I will be removing these portions from the paragraph and leave the Vedas and the epics behind. As we all know, this is meant to be a highly compressed summary of the ocean that is Indian literature. The Vedas and the epics surely stand head and shoulders above the rest purely in terms of their pan-India influence (literary and social). Sarvagnya 21:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It is well referenced. I dont buy your reasoning. Docku 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It depends on what the reference says. As Sarvagnya says, the sentence appears to put the Vedas in a similar historical period to the Sangam literature, when the former is more than 1000 years old than the latter at least. But I doubt the reference says that. It probably just gives the dates for Sangam litrature at circa 100 AD. or something and thus the claim that it is on par in terms of age with older Sanskrit literature is WP:SYN/WP:OR. Also if two bodies of literature did roughly have the same date, it is better to add the one that has had influence over the entire country and not just one state. Gizza 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Reading it again, I dont see any such claim as that Sangam literature on par with Vedic literature in historicity unless someone tries hard to read it that way. It merely lists earliest literatures in India. In fact, if there is such an inadvertant implication, a fair solution would be to correct the sentence and get rid of such an implication and not delete it. However, it can be deleted if everyone agrees with your argument that Sangam literature is not worth included here because it had influence only in Tamil Nadu? (I thought TN was part of India) Well? if that is the premise of your argument, I lost it. Docku 23:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I read it number of times, it does not convey that Vedas and Sangams are on the same wavelength except that both were first orally transmitted but written down later. But how come only Veads and Sangams literature how about equally important Buddhist and Jaina literature. I think we should exapand the section and add couple of more examples Taprobanus (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DaGizza, Docku, and Taprobanus, the reference doesn't say that. Furthermore, it is the Vedas that are separated in time from the rest: Vedas (1500–1200BCE), Ramayana (300 BCE), Mahabharata ((400 BCE to 200 AD)), Kavya ((early centuries AD), Sangam Literature ((1st to 4th centuries AD), Kalidasa ((5th century AD). Both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata belong to the classical or Sanskrit period, not the Vedic period, as does Kalidasa.
Classical Tamil literature cannot be left out; it is mentioned prominently in all concise descriptions of Indian literature, as, for example, in:
  • the Encyclopaedia Britannica page on "Indian Literature", "Because Sanskrit was identified with the Brahminical religion of the Vedas, reform movements such as Buddhism and Jainism adopted other literary languages, e.g., Pali and Ardhamagadhi, respectively. Out of these and other derivative languages there evolved the modern languages of northern India. The literature of those languages depended largely on the ancient Indian background, which includes the Sanskrit epics, the Mahabharata and Ramayana, ... The South Indian language of Tamil is an exception to this pattern of Sanskrit influence because it had a classical tradition of its own."
  • the Columbia Encyclopedia page on "Indian literature", which begins with, "Oral literature in the vernacular languages of India is of great antiquity, but it was not until about the 16th cent. that an extensive written literature appeared. Chief factors in this development were the intellectual and literary predominance of Sanskrit until then (except in S India, where a vast literature in Tamil was produced from ancient times)." and,
  • and the Encyclopedia Encarta page on "Indian Literature", which says, right after mentioning the Vedas (and not mentioning Ramayana and Mahabharata), "The emergence of the popular religions Buddhism and Jainism in the 6th century bc gave rise to literature in Pali and in the several dialects of Sanskrit known as Prakrit (meaning “natural language”). Meanwhile, Tamil, a Dravidian language, emerged as the most important language in the south. A recorded literature in Tamil dates from the 1st century A.D."
I have now replaced the Kamil Zvelebil reference with that of A. K. Ramanujan, which will also be more interesting to general readers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Why not leave both the citations on ?Taprobanus (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No one has answered my points about Aryans

This is one of the reason's wikipedia is so frustrating. I mean I brought up the issue about Aryan's being mentioend in this article. ANd I guess some of you who control this article don't want more info about the Aryan's mentioned. One user seemed to want facts. So I typed in some facts.....I TYPED IN SOME FACTS......and no one has told me weather they agree or disagree with my facts......So now do you people understand why im frustrated? I mean you want facts, and I gave some facts, and no one has answered me about them. So it's like if I try to put some info about Aryans it will get erased. And when I try to give some facts about why there should be some more facts about Aryan's in this article no one will answer them? ARYAN818 (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You have received an adequate response every single time Aryan, but you just seem to ignore their advice. You have been told on countless occasions that Misplaced Pages is not based on the truth or facts but is based on Verifiable information contained in Reliable sources. Furthermore, this information has to be presented in a Neutral manner.
Yet in your posts about Aryans, Swastikas and whatnot, you have not explained where your information can be verified, you have not provided even one single citation to support what you say and you have not convinced any of the other editors here that this glorification of Aryans, etc. is unbiased and neutral. If you don't read the three fundamental policies of Misplaced Pages, which are blue linked above, you will never understand how Misplaced Pages works and will never progress in anything here. Gizza 01:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have recieved an adequated resposne every single time? Every single time? ARe u sure about that? Go to that other section I created about the Aryan's and there is no response after a while......And im not ignoring their adivce.....I gave SOME facts. I mean on WIKIPEDIA there are information about some of the stuff i've said lol. I mean has anyone bothered to check anything I said ARYAN818 (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here's a problem: you expect us to see every little comment you make when, in fact, sometimes we don't! There's a lot of discussions, so BE NICE and STOP FREAKING OUT. Or none of us will WANT to respond. BlackPearl14 20:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW FRUSTARTING WIKIPEDIA IS.....One person says to me "you have not provided even one single citation.....and yet.....another user says "Okay, here's a problem: you expect us to see every little comment you make when, in fact, sometimes we don't!".......That is one example of how a person can get frustrated with wikipedia.......You tell me to "BE NICE and STOP FREAKING OUT. Or none of us will WANT to respond".....Well sometimes no one does respond weather im nice or "freaking out". ARYAN818 (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

lol ;) the thing is: right underneath your comment, someone will add something new, and then another person - and we think that your comment is an older one! Here's a suggestion: I would go on Fowler&fowler's talk page and ask him about things you would like entered there. Be sure to provide your own sources, though, because we can't cite wikipedia ourselves. If it's on wikipedia, copy and paste: we're pretty busy people! I hope I helped out ;) I was just saying, instead of acting immaturely like you did, act more mature. BlackPearl14 21:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


(unindent) Guys, seriously, don't feed it. AreJay (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you guys understand? I mean I just mentioned how one person told me I dont put any evidence, and yet how another person tells me I expect them to go over all my evidence.....THAT IS A CONTRADICTION PEOPLE AND A VALID POINT........and yet this user says "dont feed it" like im the bad guy?.....THis is one of the reasons why wikipedia can be so annoying.....I mean I just gave a valid point......and this user ignores my point and say "dont feed it".......Hey user did u not understand that two user's gave me a contradiction? ARYAN818 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with Misplaced Pages, you're free not to edit. Respectfully, please quit with the rants. If you want to do something useful for Aryans, get the Aryan article up to featured status. 18:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.8.123 (talk)

Thank you!!!!!!! (no, really haha) BlackPearl14 18:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Why did you say thank you like you just proved some point? What did you prove about me that I am not getting? I mean didn't you and another user give two implications about my not having evidence, and me having evidence? Thank you !! ARYAN818 (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Both of us told you to provide evidence, as in sources. Which one of us didn't? And Arejay called you a troll because after months and months, you have still not bothered to learn about Misplaced Pages's policies. You haven't even clicked on these links, have you? (WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR) I think the last one is most important for you because your additions resemble original research more than anything else. Gizza 22:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
THis is really weird how you guys are sooooooo technical that everything has to be sourced. I mean if I America is the name of a country am I supposed to source that to? I mean seroiusly some of the things I mentioned are on wikipedia lol........I mean are you people telling me that there should not be more mention of Aryan's in this article of INdia? ARe you teling me that there should not be more mention of Aryan's in this article? ARYAN818 (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, verifiability is the sad part of Misplaced Pages. But don't lose hope. Try this encyclopedia. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 16:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
So someone explain to me why there are so many articles on wikipedia that are not sourcing everything? And someone tell me why there are certain things on wikipedia that are allowed to stay in the article with the words ciatation needed, but that can't be done here on India? And someone tell me if there should not be more mention of the Aryan's in this aritcle? And someone tell me why there are mentions of Aryan's in Iran's aritcle but they don't seem to be mentioned in this article? Valid questions. I wonder if someone is going to answer them, or just make me seem like an annoying user? ARYAN818 (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Aryan, you really need to start reading rather than asking here again and again. Please reer to WP:V, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:S etc. --Ragib (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldnt keep asking if people would answer the question. I mean you have just proved my point that instead of answering my questions you just make me seem like an idiot who keeps asking for no reason. HOw bout just answering what I asked Ragib?....by the way im not being disrespectful by asking this am I o great one? ARYAN818 (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, i was just going to suggest that. Sorry to be blunt, but hi ARYAN818! I find your arguments and edits more naive than annoying. Docku:“what up?” 21:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
O really? Any examples you want to give? Or are you another user who can't admit when im right and making good points? Give me some examples of how my edits are more naive then annoying? (here is another user who can't answer the question) ARYAN818 (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Aryan, look, the articles that don't have citations STATE, somewhere on the page, that there need to be citations, or, on the discussion page, there will be a dispute just like this one. No, I'm serious. Now PLEASE, start READING the encyclopedia first before posting like this, pleeeeeeaaaasseeee. *end begging session*. Right, point made. BlackPearl14 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You dont understand do you? Some pages, dont have citations, but still KEEP the info there with somethign like CITATION NEEDED. SO why cant that be done here? ANswer the question if you can, right, point made.

India's major contribution

In India, mathematics has its roots in Vedic literature which is nearly 4000 years old. Between 1000 B.C. and 1000 A.D. various treatises on mathematics were authored by Indian mathematicians in which were set forth for the first time, the concept of zero, the techniques of algebra and algorithm, square root and cube root. A method of graduated calculation was documented in the Pancha-Siddhantika (Five Principles) in the 5th Century. But the technique is said to be dating from Vedic times circa 2000 B.C.

The rudiments of Geometry called Rekha-Ganita in ancient India - were formulated and applied in the drafting of Mandalas for architectural purposes.

They were also displayed in the geometric patterns used in many temple motifs. In India around the 5th century A.D. a sys tem of mathematics that made astronomical calculations easy was developed. In those times its application was limited to astronomy as its pioneers were Astronomers. As tronomical calculations are complex and involve many variables that go into the derivation of unknown quantities. Algebra is a short-hand method of calculation and by this feature it scores over conventional arithmetic.

One more bigger finding was "Raman effect"the theory of the diffraction of the light effect. When light is scattered from an atom or molecule, most photons are elastically scattered (Rayleigh scattering). The scattered photons have the same energy (frequency) and wavelength as the incident photons. However, a small fraction of the scattered light (approximately 1 in 10 million photons) is scattered by an excitation, with the scattered photons having a frequency different from, and usually lower than, the frequency of the incident photons. In a gas, Raman scattering can occur with a change in vibrational, rotational or electronic energy of a molecule (see energy level). Chemists are concerned primarily with the vibrational Raman effect. In 1922, Indian physicist Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman published his work on the "Molecular Diffraction of Light," the first of a series of investigations with his collaborators which ultimately led to his discovery (on 28 February 1928) of the radiation effect which bears his name. The Raman effect was first reported by C. V. Raman and K. S. Krishnan, and independently by Grigory Landsberg and Leonid Mandelstam, in 1928. Raman received the Nobel Prize in 1930 for his work on the scattering of light. In 1998 the Raman Effect was designated an ACS National Historical Chemical Landmark in recognition of its significance as a tool for analyzing the composition of liquids, gases, and solids —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.94.228.204 (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And your point is? --Ragib (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This article follows summary style and as such cannot dwell on one topic in great detail. Besides, much of the verifiable information that you have provided is already mentioned in Indian mathematics. Gizza 22:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

References

The Reference section uses the Harvard reference template, which is depreciated. It should be replaced immediately with the cite book templates. I am going to indulge in a few edits to correct this. So do not worry. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User {{inuse}} to avoid edit conflicts. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo caption

The photo captioned North Block in New Delhi looks like the Supreme Court (also in New Delhi) to me - please correct me if I am incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.227.162 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, though the architecture is similar. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories: