Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nobleeagle (talk | contribs) at 03:29, 4 January 2007 (Pakistani history). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

/archive1

Workgroup-level quality statistics

Please read. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahom history

Found this article through the cross-namespace links and thinking it quite a good start I wikified and organized it the best I could, being that Indian history is not my forte. I'm just bringing it to your attention so it can be reviewed and expanded beyond the Ahom-Mughal conflict, or whatever you want to make of it. Dracontes 14:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 15:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Maps

I'm interested in making free svg maps. Please drop me a note on my talk page if you need any. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Indus Valley sites

This pak as been untagging indus valley with the indian tag on it. Could use some help on this. Szhaider (talk · contribs) seems to be behind it. He takes the tag off harappa civilization and other indic historic sites as well.--D-Boy 21:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Chola kings

Can someone please look at the stray little stub Rajarajan that's been created recently. Am I right in guessing that name should redirect to an existing article like Rajaraja Chola I?? --Mereda 17:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A little help, please?

Can someone have a look at the latest entry at Taj Mahal (disambiguation), please? Is Veena a vandalism entry? It looks odd to me. --Nemonoman 05:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Thanks Parthi 05:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please dont steal Pakistani history

Serious note. Dont make a joke out of this. I will take this matter further.

	 Mistaken Definition of Ancient India

We have all seen the term Ancient India before. On first thought you would think it applies to the Ancient History of India. Well, you are wrong. This term applies to the Ancient History of South Asia.

For decades, Indian historians have written the history books according to their own liking. And because of Pakistanis being ashamed of their non-Islamic past, their jobs had been made so much easier. To understand what has happened in the region, you have to be open minded. Everything written here is backed up with facts, logic and common sense. The logic applied to this argument makes sense.

Before India became an English colony sometime in 1800's or perhaps earlier, there was no such thing as India that we see today. The subcontinent was very much divided into many parts ruled by various dynasties. After independence in 1947, many of the states in the subcontinent were united into two single countries. The Republic of India and Pakistan. The Republic of India was not supposed to claim the name 'India'. This was a political agreement broken in 1947 which has lead to a lot of confusion in modern times. India, just like Pakistan was born in 1947. Prior to this, the region which is now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, was known as British India. When the region was partitioned, Republic of India claimed the title of 'parent state' of British India, as they received the larger land mass for their country. Along with this title they also claimed the History of the region which was British India in ancient times.

This region was only ever united when Britain invaded. Prior to that, the region was scattered with dynasties. Logically, it doesn't make sense that India can claim the history of people and land which never belonged to them. The old argument of 'Pakistan not existing prior to 1947, therefore there is no such thing as Ancient Pakistan' is flawed. The same logic can be applied to India. There was no such thing as a country, India prior to 1947, and prior to the 1800s; the South Asian subcontinent was never united in anyway. So the current definition of Ancient India is flawed. Ancient Indian history is the history of Republic of India in Ancient times. This doesn't include any region outside of their own borders.

Therefore, grouping the history of the entire South Asian subcontinent, which has never been united prior to the 1800s and passing it on to a country which came into existence in 1947, doesn't make sense. Indian Historians have ignored these arguments and pretended that India has existed for 1000s of years.

Let's talk about Indus Valley for example. The region in question is now located in Pakistan. The people of the region have always been living there. However the history of the region is claimed by India, who is in absolutely no way related to the Pakistani people, neither have they ever had claim over the land which is now Pakistan. Indus Valley settlements are located all over Southern Asia. These include, Iran, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, northwest India, and of course Pakistan. However, the Main IVC cities, aswell as the majority are in Pakistan. The main ones being, Harappa and Mohenjodaro. The Indus Valley history should be called Ancient Pakistani. Any history which took place in what is now Pakistani should be known as Ancient Pakistani history. This includes the Kushun empire aswell.

The Pakistani identity is being stolen because Historians hide the fact that South Asia has never been united prior to 1800s.

It is incorrect to even label IVC as Ancient South Asian history. South Asia is home to 1.6 billion people, which is way too broad to describe the people of Indus valley, which is now Pakistan. Sure this is no harm in mentioning the settlements outside of Pakistan (India, Iran, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Kashmir), however one has to remember that Pakistan is the home of it.

User:Unre4L

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and we aren't required to listen to fringe blogs.Bakaman 03:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Um...pakistan didn't exist before 1947. This is not a joke.--D-Boy 09:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

India didnt exist before the 1850s Thats not a joke either mate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unre4L (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

May I suggest a few message boards or blogs where this discussion will be better appreciated, User:Unre4L? deeptrivia (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Republic of India and Pakistan both didn't exist before 1947. True. However, historians and other scholars (not just Indian, includes Western) don't use the term "Ancient South Asia." They stuck with "Ancient India." Blame them not us. Gizza 23:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed so many times before... Nobleeagle 05:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Unre4L is a member of the forum that he quotes...in fact he is responsible for more than 50% of the output of that forum...so this evidence of his may as well be OR. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's another point Unre4L. The Indus civilisation, even when considering the modern post-1947 borders, isn't completely in Pakistan. See Image:IVC_Map.png. Lothal, for example is in the Republic of India. Gizza 08:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's beside the point. Harappa is in Pakistan, and we won't tag Harappa as "Ancient South Asian" but Banawali as "Ancient India". The 1947 border is irrelevant for articles on the Bronze Age. see the {{mergefrom}} on this page. It would be best to create a sub-project "WP IVC" and use a template specific to that. dab (𒁳) 14:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Indian history stubs

This category has become very large. I think we should focus on expanding/merging these stubs. Do we need a subproject for that? deeptrivia (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Make an indian military stub. there's project for it.--D-Boy 11:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops.. didn't quite get what you're saying. deeptrivia (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Indian military history task force--D-Boy 05:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The question is, what do we do with the hundreds of Indian history stubs. A large number of them are not related to military history. deeptrivia (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Tipu Sultan spelling

On the talk page of the Misplaced Pages article Tipu Sultan I have been having a conversation with Kanchanamala about the spelling of Tipu Sultan. He has changed all the references within the article to 'Tippu'. I would be interested to hear comments from other members of WikiProject Indian History. Thank you Mick gold 09:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Misplaced Pages Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Pakistani history

Please see Talk:History of India and present your opinions as to whether India has any ownership over the history of the regions around the Indus. Nobleeagle 03:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)