This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joshua Jonathan (talk | contribs) at 12:50, 25 October 2014 (→Quotes: added cmt, changed cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:50, 25 October 2014 by Joshua Jonathan (talk | contribs) (→Quotes: added cmt, changed cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| 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: 30 days  |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
|
 | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | India 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 15, 2004, August 15, 2005, August 15, 2011, and November 26, 2012. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization: |
| This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Reentered Proposal to create a subsection on the situation of women
Hello,
I would like to reenter the proposal to create a subsection on the situation of women (archived at Talk:India/Archive_38#Subsection_on_the_situation_of_women.3F). Kind regards,Sarcelles (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- You have Women's health in India(acclaimed to be good article), Women in India and more for that. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
According to the website of the Guardian (UK), India is the fourth-worst country for women. Hence the situation of women in India is quite special.Sarcelles (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think a subsection is necessary in this article. It is a summary article and the situation of women in India is complicated. About the the guardian article, perhaps we should wait for interpretations of the survey before considering including it. We need scholarly sources that have examined and commented on the quality of the survey before we can go around stating that India is the fourth worst - or even a generally horrible - country for women to live in.--regentspark (comment) 00:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sarceless, I had expected that you were going to come up with such sort of cranky stuff, but again, it won't belong here. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think a subsection is necessary in this article. It is a summary article and the situation of women in India is complicated. About the the guardian article, perhaps we should wait for interpretations of the survey before considering including it. We need scholarly sources that have examined and commented on the quality of the survey before we can go around stating that India is the fourth worst - or even a generally horrible - country for women to live in.--regentspark (comment) 00:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2014
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Justice H L Dattu is the new Chief Justice of India
Akashjain0204 (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Done --regentspark (comment) 20:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2014
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The map showing the states and union territories are wrong. Puducherry is marked in Kerala as well. Please correct it Cpraveenkumar25 (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are correct. Not sure why but Pondicherry is marked in multiple areas. Can someone please fix this?--regentspark (comment) 21:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Are we talking of this map? It seems ok to me, since the "union territory of Puducherry consists of four small unconnected districts: Pondicherry, Karaikal and Yanam on the Bay of Bengal and Mahé on the Arabian Sea. Pondicherry and Karaikal have the largest areas and population, both as part of Tamil Nadu. Yanam and Mahé are enclaves of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala respectively." Have there been any recent changes that changed this? Abecedare (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- No. Only people like me who've visited Pondicherry and thought that that's it. Obviously Indian geography is not my strong suit. --regentspark (comment) 23:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Are we talking of this map? It seems ok to me, since the "union territory of Puducherry consists of four small unconnected districts: Pondicherry, Karaikal and Yanam on the Bay of Bengal and Mahé on the Arabian Sea. Pondicherry and Karaikal have the largest areas and population, both as part of Tamil Nadu. Yanam and Mahé are enclaves of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala respectively." Have there been any recent changes that changed this? Abecedare (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Not done The map, it appears, is correct. Puducherry is disjoint (see Puducherry). --regentspark (comment) 23:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well, we learn something everyday. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Largest City
As in the article List of most populous cities in India, the mention of Mumbai being India's largest city ("largest city" refers to population by geographical terminology) is outdated, but at least in the former a mention is made to the inaccuracy, the information from the 2011 census of India. As of a 2013-2014 count, Delhi is India's largest city. The same is mentioned in the four Misplaced Pages articles that refer to urban areas, metropolitan areas and cities proper by population, where Delhi outranks Mumbai by 2013-2014 calculations. In the table "India", Mumbai is mentioned as largest city. I recommend this be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.242.244 (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2014
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
National Language Hindi 116.203.72.15 (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Not done - It already states:-
"Hindi in the Devanagari script is the official language of the Union. English is an additional co-official language for Government work."
It then gives 2 references for that statement - Arjayay (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Modern humans in India
There is evidence of tools being present in India prior to the Toba explosion that took place 75000 years ago. Please read the wiki article on Toba Catastrophe Theory and then the referenced notes to that article, Nos: 37, 38, 39, 40. Else just read these 2 links: http://anthropology.net/2007/07/06/mount-toba-eruption-ancient-humans-unscathed-study-claims/ http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/news070702-15.html
Clearly modern humans were present in India at least 75000 years ago...even though this can't be explained by the African migration theory. It's a POV that can't and MUST NOT be ignored! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.228.219 (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done It was written as 73-55,000, which is near to 75k. Since these sources support 75k, Cavalli-Sforza also estimated the same. I have changed it with a better citation. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this. The references provided by the IP don't confirm the presence of modern humans 75,000 years ago. They merely state that the existence of tools from that period. Petralgia's work is contested and not considered mainstream. By stating things the way we do, aren't we giving credibility to a non-mainstream theory? @Abecedare and Fowler&fowler: (the editors who made the initial change.) --regentspark (comment) 16:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good points, RP. As the sources provided by the IP above (and the Alice Roberts book BladeMulti added) affirm the Jwalapuram tool evidence indicates that there were humans in the region ~75000 ya, but whether they were anatomically modern humans is disputed. The previous version we arrived at here referenced a work co-written by Petraglia, which may not be the best source to cite either. Suggestions for alternate sources and wording? Abecedare (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- 75,000 sounds doubtfull to me too. Actually, it sounds like another version of "mine is bigger than yours", in this case "India was first - if it wasn't for the Aryans, then for the survival of humankind." Is there a theory that mankind actually originated in India? - Oh my, to ask the question is to answer it ... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Even worse. Next is, of course, alians who brought life to earth, starting in India - oh my, what did I say? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- 75,000 sounds doubtfull to me too. Actually, it sounds like another version of "mine is bigger than yours", in this case "India was first - if it wasn't for the Aryans, then for the survival of humankind." Is there a theory that mankind actually originated in India? - Oh my, to ask the question is to answer it ... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good points, RP. As the sources provided by the IP above (and the Alice Roberts book BladeMulti added) affirm the Jwalapuram tool evidence indicates that there were humans in the region ~75000 ya, but whether they were anatomically modern humans is disputed. The previous version we arrived at here referenced a work co-written by Petraglia, which may not be the best source to cite either. Suggestions for alternate sources and wording? Abecedare (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this. The references provided by the IP don't confirm the presence of modern humans 75,000 years ago. They merely state that the existence of tools from that period. Petralgia's work is contested and not considered mainstream. By stating things the way we do, aren't we giving credibility to a non-mainstream theory? @Abecedare and Fowler&fowler: (the editors who made the initial change.) --regentspark (comment) 16:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I would favor dropping the 75000 year thing entirely and sticking with "The earliest reliable evidence of human activity in India dates to about 30,000 years ago" That's pretty much the sum of what's reliably accepted. That's not to say that 75,000 years is not possible but, barring mainstream acceptance, that shouldn't be in this article. Best discussed somewhere else - perhaps in Archaic humans or some such article.--regentspark (comment) 20:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Since the citations provided by the IP and Bladesmulti show that the evidence pertaining to the 75,000 date is still a matter of academic controversy (unlike what I thought before), I too support leaving it out of this 50,000 feet view of history. Suggested wording: "The earliest authenticated human remains in South Asia date to about 30,000 years ago." with a wikilink to anatomically modern humans/homo sapiens and using Allchin-Petraglia as a reference (which in general is a solid academic work).
- I think we need to specify, (1) "remains", and not just say activity, since tool finds can indicate the latter, and (2) "homo sapiens", since otherwise we will potentially have editors pushing back the date to ~2 million years referencing homo erectus remains.
- Thoughts? Abecedare (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. In the words of Capt. Picard - make it so :) --regentspark (comment) 21:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Aye, aye, captain. :) Abecedare (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Talk:India/Archive_38#.2F.2A_Ancient_India_.2A.2F_Early_human_remain_found_-_dates_are_incorrect is where the 73k - 55k was agreed upon. Abecedare had suggested it. If 75,000 is not very mainstream, what else can be suggested? I know it can be lengthy, we can just think of adding something else.
- Mention of Homo erectus would work. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think this is necessary in this article. 30,000 is the reliably accepted date and our readers understand that "the earliest authenticated human remains" does not preclude the possibility that there were earlier settlements of humans. if we include 75,000 in India we would also need to include caveats stating that whether these were left by modern humans or some other hominids is disputed and we would also need to explain the basis of the dispute. That's too much detail for this article. A note about Jwalapuram in the History of India article would be more appropriate because there we have the space to explain the dispute.--regentspark (comment) 13:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. In the words of Capt. Picard - make it so :) --regentspark (comment) 21:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
A few points:
1. The Jwalapuram tool find and their dating has not been contested by anybody. 2. Evidence is not to be fitted into any theory mainstream or otherwise. 3. The presence of tools at Jwalapuram, before and after the Toba explosion period indicate the presence of humans. Academics who have seen the evidence clearly state that these tools are similar to that made by modern humans of Africa and are different from those of the Neolithics. This important fact cannot be ignored or dismissed. 4. There are plenty of theories, considered mainstream that have holes that cannot be explained. That doesn't mean the holes have to be ignored. 5. Just because a 75000 date is inconvenient to some, one must not settle on a 'compromise' date. That's intellectually dishonest and doesn't deserve place in an encyclopedia. 6. It's clear that some people are driving an agenda that resembles the 'my tool is bigger than yours' argument, even though there is evidence to the contrary. 7. Petraglia's acceptance/credibility does not any way diminish the Jwalapuram tool find and the resultant datings. 8. The Jwalapuram finds are used by academics to bolster their arguments, either way, about the survival of humans after the Toba catastrophe. They are clearly considered extremely important finds by all. Clearly if the evidence at Jwalapuram can be used by one set of academics it can be used by any other set...and the educated reader/editor should be able to accept this without bias or reservation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.138.137 (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- We don't need to ignore the jwalapuram findings. They can be included in History of India. See my note above as to why this (India) article is not the appropriate place for disputed information of this sort. --regentspark (comment) 13:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- History of India is right place for these things. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The request is simple:
Under the topic heading Ancient India in the article, the opening line says "The earliest authenticated human remains in South Asia date to about 30,000 years ago." Why can't this line be substituted or prefaced with the line... "The earliest evidence of human activity is as long as 75,000 years ago..." ( picked up from the opening para of the History of India stub) It's accurate, undisputed and sets the tone and context of the subsequent narrative under the Ancient India heading. I don't see any problem at all incorporating my request. The content doesn't need discussion since it has already been authenticated. It's more important to talk about evidence of human activity in this context since we are talking of a significantly earlier period compared to to the 30000 figure pertaining to earliest authenticated human remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.163.32 (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- The main reason is that we don't want to get into definitional issues in a summary article of this sort. The tools unearthed in Jwalapuram were probably not Homo sapiens, the modern human, but some other, now extinct, hominin. Those are not explanations we want to get into in this article. The earliest homo sapien evidence is from 30,000 years and best to leave it at that. --regentspark (comment) 18:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Reply: 1. If you can mention the 30000yr figure you can mention the 75000 year figure as well. 2. We are talking of evidence of human activity and not about any homo - sapiens, erectus, or otherwise. 3. The Jwalapuram links were presented to INFORM the editors here that the 75000 yr figure has authenticated basis. 4. I wish the editors a) understand the request b) read on the issue c) apply their mind in the edits. 5. "The tools unearthed in Jwalapuram were probably not Homo sapiens, the modern human, but some other, now extinct, hominin." - When you state that, it is YOUR OPINION and not borne by the EVIDENCE presented. Let's keep the encyclopedia clean and away from ignorance and prejudice. 6. Please let me know if you guys are going to handle the request ( please read the sentence which IMO should be incorporated ) or I should escalate the matter, since my request is a) factual b) authenticated c) keeping in line content already present in that para. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.147.158 (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- IP, a has been explained repeatedly above the claim that modern humans (homo sapiens) resided in India ~75,000 years ago is:
- a hypothesis, not an accepted fact (Petraglia et al: ... may suggest the presence of modern humans in India at the time of the YTT event.)
- a controversial one, at that (Nature News: This theory will spur much debate, admits, because modern humans were not thought to have reached India, from Africa, so long ago. "It's controversial, but it makes a lot of sense"), and
- it's disputed by other experts (Nature News: Stanley Ambrose, from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, disagrees with Petraglia's conclusions.)
- and awaits further evidence (Antopologogy.net column: But until fossil evidence is retrieved from sites like Jwalapuram, we will have no clue as to the true identity of the makers of the stone tools and other sites alluded to by Petraglia)
- For these reasons this hypothesis is not being included in this summary style article, and IMO should not be included in the lede of the History of India article either. The right place to discuss such current and ongoing scientific developments is the Toba catastrophe theory where it can be, and already is, discussed in the right context and with the proper caveats.
- If you are still not satisfied with this explanation, feel free to escalate the matter using wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Abecedare (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
A point by point response:
1. I have not asserted that it be incorporated into the article that "modern humans resided in India 75000 years ago". I have said that it be incorporated into the article that "The earliest evidence of human activity is as long as 75,000 years ago...". There is a difference between what is being attributed to my request and my actual request.
2. From the same nature.com links provided by the objector I quote " The tools from each layer were remarkably similar, and Petraglia says that this shows that the huge dust clouds from the eruption didn't wipe out the population of tool-using people. "Whoever was there seems to have persisted through the eruption," he says.This is the first archaeological evidence associated with the Toba super eruption, says Petraglia, and it contradicts theories that the eruption had a catastrophic effect on the area that its ash blanketed. Petraglia thinks that modern humans — rather than Neanderthals or other hominins — are the only species that would have been able to persist through an event as dramatic as the Toba eruption. This theory will spur much debate, he admits, because modern humans were not thought to have reached India, from Africa, so long ago. "It's controversial," says Petraglia, "but it makes a lot of sense." Petraglia and his team compared the tools they found to others from Africa from different periods in this week's edition of Science1. The Indian tools look a lot like those from the African Middle Stone Age about 100,000 years ago, when modern humans were thought to have lived, he says. "Whoever was living in India was doing things identical to modern humans living in Africa."
1) I have not picked out words from a quote and out of context to make a point. The entire set of 2 paras have been picked up without any edit to maintain context and the points being made are:
a) Evidence suggests that "tool using people" lived in India through the event that happened 75000 years ago. This authenticates my request that "The earliest evidence of human activity is as long as 75,000 years ago...". b) The current theory that modern humans came from Africa into India at a particular time is not based on fact and evidence but on current thinking. Obviously current thinking is being challenged by the presence of the Jwalapuram evidence and that's the reason the find is controversial... because it re-shapes current thinking on the subject which in any case is not cast in stone! c) While the anthropologists may argue it out about the presence of modern man in India 75000 years ago, my request does not dwell on that but instead states "The earliest evidence of human activity is as long as 75,000 years ago..."...and this is not disputed by any of the evidence presented by way of quotes or links.
2) Again from the nature.com link provided ... Stanley Ambrose merely attacks Petraglia when he says "It is highly speculative to say the eruption had no impact," he says. Ambrose argues that Petraglia's sample size is too small to make proper comparisons with other tools. And, he adds, "stone artifacts cannot be used to differentiate Neanderthals from African moderns." Petraglia says he has plenty more stone tools to back up his suggestions, beyond the ones presented in Science. "We have reported only some of our assemblages," he says.
a) Ambrose is contesting Petrgalia's assessment on the impact of the eruption.. b) He says Petraglia's sample size is too small which Petraglia immediately counters saying that there are more samples available. c)Ambrose says "stone artifacts cannot be used to differentiate Neanderthals from African moderns."...but Petraglia isn't doing that at all! Infact he says "The Indian tools look a lot like those from the African Middle Stone Age about 100,000 years ago, when modern humans were thought to have lived, he says. "Whoever was living in India was doing things identical to modern humans living in Africa."
3. Finally, the last quote is the blog writer's own opinion and not that of established academic thought when he says "But until fossil evidence is retrieved from sites like Jwalapuram, we will have no clue as to the true identity of the makers of the stone tools and other sites alluded to by Petraglia". In any case we are not talking about the true identity of the makers of stone tools.. It suffices that they are accepted to have been made by humans and are an indication of human activity ... and that's the point that comes out in my request "The earliest evidence of human activity is as long as 75,000 years ago...".
I've given a point by point rebuttal and cited material completely from context without getting into the various argument fallacies which seem to plague the objections directed at my request. The objections seem to deflect from the basic request itself and that's the reason I've repeatedly quoted my request so that its focus is not lost. I reiterate that my request to incorporate that phrase "The earliest evidence of human activity is as long as 75,000 years ago...". is well founded, correct, authentic, undisputed, academically non-controversial and in context of the thought flow expressed at the head of the topic under Ancient India.
I had to provide a rejoinder to the points mentioned by way of objections to my request, so that the complete nature of the objections put up and their invalidity is completely understood by all readers/editors. Please let me know if my little request will be incorporated or I still need to escalate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.186.135 (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- As you point out, current thinking is that humans arrived in India much later - perhaps 40,000 to 35,000 years ago. As Petraglia points out, the possibility of humans in India 75,000 years ago is controversial. We can't possibly include controversial information without properly explaining why it is controversial and this summary article is not suited to that sort of explanation. IMO, if you don't like this response, you should probably seek some sort of dispute resolution. --regentspark (comment) 17:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Explanation for recent revert
Bladesmulti, I reverted some of your recent edits to the page. A quick explanation: this edit muddled the sentences so that they did not make grammatical sense, and also changed the emphasis away from what the sources say. But the 5th centuary-Vedic period discrepancy was a good catch. And I don't think astrology belongs in the list of sciences here, especially since we are already mention astronomy and it is not sensible to talk of the remaining aspects of astrology making "significant advances". Finally, Routledge is the correct publisher of Kulke & Rothermund, and the google books listing is simply wrong for some reason. Abecedare (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I had just missed the book of Stein. If astrology can fall(here) under astronomy, there's no problem. About the caste system theory, it is contradictory to mainstream view, as per The World Year Book of Education. Columbia University. Teachers College, University of London Institute of Education. p. 226, Origin and Growth of Caste in India by Nripendra Kumar Dutt, p. 39. and few others, that have represented mainstream view. It is just that the priests were Brahmins, the warriors are Kshatriya, the merchants are Vaishya, and the artisans are Shudras. And those 4 were indigenous, current sentence seems to be considering only Shudras to be indigenous, and claiming particular period as an origin of caste system. Though it has been disputed. Shudra caste was developed at the end of Vedic period. -] Bladesmulti (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Can we remove "The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, and free peasants, but which excluded indigenous peoples by labelling their occupations impure" then? The author himself is not professed in this subject. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- The sentence seems a fine summary of the cited reference Kulke and Rothermund (41-43). If we wanted to devote another two-three sentences to this subject, we could get into some details on how the system in the early Vedic period developed into the one of late Vedic period. But given the summary style, I think it is fair and accurate to simply say that the system arose in the 2000-500BCE period that is the subject of the paragraph.
- I have edited the "excluded indigenous peoples by labelling their occupations impure" part of the sentence a bit though since K&R don't explicitly say that the indigenous peoples were excluded from the caste system; only that they were regarded as impure and excluded from certain religious rites. Review and copy-editing welcome. (Will edit the etymology section discussed below sometime later today) Abecedare (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Can we remove "The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, and free peasants, but which excluded indigenous peoples by labelling their occupations impure" then? The author himself is not professed in this subject. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2014
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
National language: Hindi Satyam.verma202 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not done Please see the /FAQ. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Citation / Verify tags
Mayasutra, I have removed some uncited content, it was recently added. Why you think that Bharatha is not related with the emperor Bharat? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Can you provide evidence of attribution, as to who / which document mentions that the official name of India "bharata" is based on the emperor 'bharat'? There are other characters named 'Bharat' (for example, Bharat in Ramayan (the brother of Ram, Lakshman and Shatrughan)). So why is it assumed that India's official name 'bhAratA' is based on emperor 'bharat' (the son of Shakuntala and Dushyant). Thanks, --Mayasutra (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Can someone explain the reasoning behind the recent series of edits to the etymology section? Was the problem (1) dubious/wrong claims, (2) irrelevant content, or just (3) inadequate sourcing? I have reverted the edits for now since they resulted in loss of seemingly useful information (such as the etymology of "India" sourced to OED, which should be an authoritative reference), but if User:Mayasutra or someone else can pinpoint the issues, we should be able to address them here. Abecedare (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Btw, I checked and the etymology and usage of the words "India" and "Hindustan" can be easily sourced to OED entries (the current content may require minor tweaking but is not incorrect). But can someone find one solid reference for the Emperor Bharata -> Bharat claim (OED does not have an entry)? There are many hits on Google Books etc that make such a claim, but we should try to ensure that we are not just propagating a common false etymology, ie can we find one proper academic history/language reference, rather than 100 so-so references. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good question Abecedare. If true, I assume the source would lead to a mythological text but a quick search on jstor does not bring anything obvious up. The only source (from 1922) we have in Names of India links Bharat to the name of a geographical entity in the Puranas. This does need a good source and if we can't find one then the conclusion is obvious. --regentspark (comment) 19:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Turns out to be OK. V. S. Apte's The practical Sanskrit-English dictionary defines Bharata (भरतः) as "N. of the son of Duṣyanta and Śakuntalā, who became a universal monarch (चक्रवर्तिन्), India being called Bharatavarṣa after him". And Buitenen's translation of Mahabharata's Adi Parva (which contains ) has an aside, "... sovereign Republic of India, or rather, Bharat, named after our Bharata." Will wait to find out what the specific objections to the current section content are, before I take to tweaking it to match (say) OED and Apte. Abecedare (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Kindly make sure to mention the boundaries of Bharatvarsha which was ruled by the emperor Bharat (son of Shakuntala and Dushyant). Kindly also clarify Buiten's translation, as to, who is "our Bharata" after whom India is named? Thanks --Mayasutra (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Abecedare It will require better citation to claim that Indus comes from Persian word Hindus. It doesn't seem to be as accurate as it should be, I also thought that it was new edition, that's why found it easier to remove. Significance of word Sindhu is what correct and it is the pioneer, but this article is about India, and it is more important. A Greek author of 2nd century BCE regarded the country as Indica, which is most appropriate, but I don't find its edition anywhere here, it has been mentioned on other pages though. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Blades, I am not sure I understand your objection. Are you saying that OED is wrong in tracing the source of the word India as from Sanskrit->Persian->Greek->Latin->English, or that OED is not an good-enough source for etymology of the word ? Do you have an equally good or superior reference that contradicts OED on this? Abecedare (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't said that it is incorrect. Although it is very less descriptive, I could find good sources, but they are hardly accessible for others. See It is pretty obvious that Hindus was derived from Sindhus and it was used as a name for Indus. Those 2 sentences can be merged together, and may be rephrased too. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Blades, I am not sure I understand your objection. Are you saying that OED is wrong in tracing the source of the word India as from Sanskrit->Persian->Greek->Latin->English, or that OED is not an good-enough source for etymology of the word ? Do you have an equally good or superior reference that contradicts OED on this? Abecedare (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Abecedare It will require better citation to claim that Indus comes from Persian word Hindus. It doesn't seem to be as accurate as it should be, I also thought that it was new edition, that's why found it easier to remove. Significance of word Sindhu is what correct and it is the pioneer, but this article is about India, and it is more important. A Greek author of 2nd century BCE regarded the country as Indica, which is most appropriate, but I don't find its edition anywhere here, it has been mentioned on other pages though. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The Lipner book is also a fine reference, and consistent with the OED entry. Perhaps we don't even disagree and were possibly just talking past each other. Unless there are any other objection, I will edit the article section in a few hours to cite the above mentioned sources, and bring its content in line with what they say. Abecedare (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
(1) "Indus seems to have been derived from references to a river or rivers of such waters called Sindhu in the Rigveda" -- The author, Lipner, does not mention on what basis he reached this conclusion. He starts with a presumption that the Indo-Aryans were outsiders impressed by fast-flowing waters of the Indus including the Sarasvati region. He then goes on to mentions Persians, under Darius I conquered the Southern Indus region, a territory which was annexed as a satrapy known as 'Hindus'. However, he is not clear on what basis he connected Sindhu->Indus-Hindus.
(2) The author notes the term 'sindhu' was a non-religious one which began with geographical and cultural connotations as in the term Sindh in the sub-Punjab area of Indus today. However, he does not explain what were the cultural connotations.
Although this source is good, I suggest a better or additional source which can offer clarity on the above. --Mayasutra (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Until the statements in the etymology section are resolved, there is no reason to remove the citation required tag. Thanks. --Mayasutra (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Have put the tags back on. Coming to theology versus Mythology -- Emperor Bharata, the son of Shakuntala and Dushyant is a character that appears in some Puranas and in the Mahabharat. In historical known time period, such a character did not exist. Therefore, why is the term "theological figure" used? Please clarify if the word "mythological" is warranted? Also, how is the Bharata tribe of Rigveda connected with Emperor Bharata (son of Shakuntala and Dushyant). This point requires clarification in the article on Bharata_(emperor) also. Thanks. --Mayasutra (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Don't invade those sections with maintenance tags, you know what is a featured article? Almost every information may have been researched, before it was added. I just provided one source, it says that hindu stemmed from sindhu. There is no deadline, just wait. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Have put the tags back on. Coming to theology versus Mythology -- Emperor Bharata, the son of Shakuntala and Dushyant is a character that appears in some Puranas and in the Mahabharat. In historical known time period, such a character did not exist. Therefore, why is the term "theological figure" used? Please clarify if the word "mythological" is warranted? Also, how is the Bharata tribe of Rigveda connected with Emperor Bharata (son of Shakuntala and Dushyant). This point requires clarification in the article on Bharata_(emperor) also. Thanks. --Mayasutra (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Am not sure what to make out of the claim that "every information MAY have been researched". Am not sure how a "featured article" works if a select group of editors determined an article so. Especially when the statements have no supporting citations. Yes, there is no deadline. I do not think asking for citations and attribution (of emperor Bharat to official name 'bhAratA') is an 'invasion' :) (that is an outright silly claim). Anyways, went thru your source. Have mentioned something above on it (please see and reply). Thanks.--Mayasutra (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Those maintenance tags were removed once, don't insert again. There are many people who check every edition on this article, just because it is a featured article, how you think that we would be adding those type of information that require citation? They can be wrong, but not uncited. Mythology also means pre-historic, so if you are going to regard these bases, that have been historically addressed for thousands of years,(without making a single doubt) I find it easier to say that you are just wasting your time and no one will impose your opinion. Got any citation for your information? If not, just drop it. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Am not sure what to make out of the claim that "every information MAY have been researched". Am not sure how a "featured article" works if a select group of editors determined an article so. Especially when the statements have no supporting citations. Yes, there is no deadline. I do not think asking for citations and attribution (of emperor Bharat to official name 'bhAratA') is an 'invasion' :) (that is an outright silly claim). Anyways, went thru your source. Have mentioned something above on it (please see and reply). Thanks.--Mayasutra (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- If I wanted, I could have put the tags back on when I wrote the last message to you. It is obvious am not reverting them. That does not mean the statements go unchanged without citations. That said, want to point out your argument is lame. If many check this article just bcoz it is a "featured article", it is all the more imperative to have verified info. A myth need not be pre-historic. It can be conjured up in historical time as in Kalidasa's fables. It is also not necessary a myth was historically addressed for thousands of years. That is a mere assumption. So it seems you are pushing POVs based on myths or just wasting your time trying to impose your opinion. Thanks. --Mayasutra (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
@Mayasutra:: Please see Etymology section that has been updated with some tweaks in wording and citations. I have tried to keep the content simple, because the details of etymology and changes in use of the various names really belong to more specialized sub-articles. If after checking the referenced works you still have any questions, feel free to raise them here. Abecedare (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- The update is nearly perfect. However, I suggest clarity with the following statements:
(1) The eponym of Bharat is Bharata, a legendary ruler in the epic Mahabharata, and other religious and literary texts -- Is there evidence of attribution available, as to a writer or document mentioning the official name of India "bharata" is based on the emperor 'bharat' (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant)? There are other characters named 'Bharat' in itihasas / puranas. So why is it assumed that India's official name 'bhAratA' is specifically based this particular character named 'bharat'. Unless an attribution is obtained, does this point warrant a mention in the article? I suggest removing the point unless an attribution is found. Also, emperor Bharat is mentioned in Puranas and Mahabharat, not Mahabharat alone. The word "legendary ruler" maybe confounding. The Guptas in historical time for example conquered more territory than the mythical Bharat. So who gets to decide who exactly is "legendary"? Finally, in any article mentioning Bharata the emperor son of Dushyant, it is imperative to mention the boundaries of Bharatvarsha; to avoid confusion and implied meanings using peacock terms.
(2) Hindustan ( ( listen); lit. "Land of the Hindus"), also derived from Persian, traditionally connoted Northern India to its inhabitants but was more widely used to refer to the Indian subcontinent by Europeans and Muslims. -- Is ambiguous. "To its inhabitants" does not seem correct, because the Persians used it to refer to inhabitants of a particular geographical boundary. Also, please separate old Persian usage from the more recent European usage. I suggest using --
(a) Hindustan ( (listen); lit. "Land of the Hindus"), also derived from Persian, traditionally connoted Northern India. Or,
(b) Hindustan ( (listen); lit. "Land of the Hindus"), also derived from Persian, traditionally connoted the region of the Indus river basin. Or,
(c) Hindustan ( (listen); lit. "Land of the Hindus"), also derived from Persian, traditionally connoted the region of and beyond the Indus river basin.
For either of the statements, a proper citation is required.
(3) It is occasionally used to denote India in its entirety. The existing citation from Encyclopedia Britannica mentions the term hindustan meant "historically, northern India, in contrast to the Deccan, or southern India. This area can be defined more particularly as the basin of the five Punjab rivers and the upper Indo-Gangetic Plain. As a mostly fertile and well-populated corridor situated between walls of mountain, desert, and sea, Hindustan has been regarded as the principal seat of Indian power, containing the bulk of Indian wealth and physical energy. The name Hindustan is sometimes used to indicate the lands “north of the Vindhya Range.”
-So it is important to mention the older usage as well as the more recent popular usage for the entire country (as is used presently).
Thanks, ----Mayasutra (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Have you got any citation? What type of paragraph you want it to be added here? Bladesmulti (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Those making the claims need to provide citations. Not others. Since there is no evidence of attribution connecting India's official name 'bhAratA' to emperor Bharat (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant), I suggest removing the statement. For points (2) and (3) have elaborated above for Abecedare to make the relevant changes. --Mayasutra (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Quick response:
- Bharata: The citations provided are specific that Bharat (ie India) is named after Bharata the son of Shakuntala and Dushyant and not after Bharata the brother of Rama (or any other figure with that name). Secondly, the word legendary is intended as an antononym of historically attested, not as a synonym for greatest. I agree that the emperor appears in the Puranas (and Kalidasa's Shakuntala etc); hence the concluding phrase "...other religious and literary texts".
- Hindustan Compare with OED:
To its inhabitants, Hindustān is ‘India north of the Narmada, exclusive of Bengal and Bihar’, or, virtually, the region covered by Hindi and its dialects. But from early times, foreigners, Muslim and European, have extended it to include the whole of the peninsula ‘from the Himālaya to the Bridge (i.e. Adam's Bridge)’, and this is the general geographical use.
The current sentence in the wikipedia article is an attempt to summarize the origins and the insider-outsider usage while trying to avoid outright plagiarism. - The last sentence in the Etymology is a (too!) close-paraphrase of EB's
It is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India.
, and thus needs rewording (although its contents are fine).
- Abecedare (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Wiki resolution required
- Thanks.
- Please clarify which citation says Bharat (India) is named after Bharata the son of Shakuntala and Dushyant.
- Please quote the OED verbatim in the sources where it is allowed to do so. However, kindly do not club the old Persian usage denoting a region of specific boundaries together with the more recent European / popular usage for the entire country. Better to mention the old Persian usage in a separate sentence, and the recent usage in a separate sentence. If the word legendary is intended as an antonym of historically attested, is the usage correct? Bharata the son of Shakuntala and Dushyant is not historically attested. The character appears in puranas and mahabharat; not in attested history. Is not the word "mythical" warranted in such case?
- Agree. Please reword.
Thanks.--Mayasutra (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Addressed (3). For use of the word legendary, see King Arthur (just a top of the head example). For (1), see the references that are cited in the article already! Abecedare (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks.
- Point 3 - Please see my reply to blade on Lipner. Lipner is not clear on what basis he connected Sindhu->Indus-Hindus. You have not quoted OED verbatim in the sources either. Can you find a source which establishes Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India. You will also need a source which establishes the term applied to whole of South Asia as you stated.
- Point 2- Any reason why the term "mythical" cannot be used? We are not talking of a historically disputed figure. We are talking of a character that appears in myths or tales composed in historical time.
- Point 1- Please provide the full citation for Apte and Buitenen. Also please quote the sources verbatim in the citation so we can be clear what they say about the eponym Bharata (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant). Would like to know what are Apte's and Buitenen's sources. Does any Indian Government document say India is officially named Bharat after Bharata (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant)? Please note this source which gives the Jaina version as follows:
As regards the question of the derivation of the name Bharata-varsha, it is pertinent to note that as many as three Bharatas had been prominent in ancient India. In Ramayana, there is one prince Bharata, the younger brother of famous king Ramachandra, but considering his limited role, it is nowhere mentioned that after him this country is known as Bharata-varsa. Similarly, another prince Bharata, the son of king Dushyanta from Shakuntala, is known mainly from the most popular drama Shakuntala written by the celebrated poet Kalidasa. But as there have been very few references in ancient Indian literature relating to outstanding military and other achievements of this Bharata, it cannot be maintained that this country's name Bharata-varsha is derived from him. On the contrary the well-known prince Bharata, the eldest son of the first Jain Tirthankara Lord Rishabha-natha, is most famous as Chakravarti, i.e. Emperor Bharata, due to his great military exploits of bringing all kingdoms in India under his rule, and that is why India is named Bharata-varsha after him. This fact is amply borne out by Bhagavata, Markandeya, Vayu, Braliamanda, Skanda, Vishnu and other Hindu puranas. For example, in the Skanda-purana (chapter 37), it is specifically stated:
Nabheh putrashcha Rshabhah Rshabhad’Bharato bhavat
tasya namna tvidvam varsham Bharatam cheti kirtyate.
That is, Rishabha was the son of Nabhi, and Rishabha gave birth to son Bharat, and after the name of this Bharata, this country is known Bharata-varsha.
Since this a disputed topic, and there is no official document by the Indian government which says the country is specifically named after Bharat (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant), I suggest removal of the statement. If still used, all versions should be mentioned. Additionally, it must be noted that it is only a mythical claim that a particular Jain named Bharata existed who conquered the whole of sub-continent.
--Mayasutra (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Have quoted OED and EB in the sources verbatim for clarity on the term Hindustan. Please address Points (3), (2) and (1) above. Although Lipner has not been used in the article, the points raised in my reply to blade on Lipner's book are valid. You will need to quote OED verbatim and also find a source which establishes Sindhu->Indus-Hindus and Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India, applied to whole of South Asia. Thanks.--Mayasutra (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
@Mayasutra: I have partially reverted/modified your recent edits to the section. A quick explanation:
- I have removed the quote from OED because it was inconsistent with the citation style used on the page (minor issue), and more importantly added 1kb to an already bloated page (which limits its accessibility). That is also the reason, I don't support adding quotes from the 300+ references cited in the article unless a positive case can be made for a particular instance.
- Instead of breaking "The geographical term Bharat..." into two stubby sentences, I have moved the citation to the part of the sentence it is directly relevant to. Hope this addresses any concerns you had on the issue.
- I have restored the sentence about Hindustan being occasionally used as a name for India, since that is the only Hindustan is even mentioned in the article!
- Sangave's Jainism:The Oldest religion you quote from above is certainly not a good source on the topic. But instead of getting into an extended debate on why his is a fringe claim, I have modified the sentence in the section to make clear that the Bharata etymology is a generally accepted fact (as opposed to being indisputable). I have also updated the source to the recent, and very well reviewed work, by Diana L. Eck on the topic of mythology+geography in India that has an extended discussion of the significance of the name Bharata, which an interested reader can look up.
Abecedare (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Citations
- No reason to remove OED and EB quote in sources. It is important for clarity. Am putting it back on. You need to cleanup entire article to reduce size.
- You cannot add parts to a sentence which is not supported by the source. So, keep the sentence supported by the citation separate. Am changing this. In case any source mentions the point, please produce the sentences verbatim from the source here on the talk page.
- I had not changed this. So, agree.
- Every religion claims to be the oldest having derived its heritage prior to its founders; with concepts and practices (modified or otherwise) coming from an ancient period. Oldest religion is not the point. It is about Bharata (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant). There is no Indian official document which says Bharat (India) is named after Bharata (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant). Such a claim is made only by the Sangh Parivar. A hundred book can rehash the claim. Does not matter Apte or Diana Eck or anyone else. Their sources are important. This is undoubtedly disputable. More people are required to resolve this. Am marking the portion for which wiki resolution is required. Also note, boundaries of Bharat-Varsha conquered by the mythical Bharat (including the Jain Bharat) must be mentioned; not the general description of Bharat-varsha from later day composition such as Vishnu Purana.
- Again, please address Points (3), (2) and (1) above. Although Lipner has not been used in the article, the points raised in my reply to blade on Lipner's book are valid. You will need to quote OED verbatim and also find a source which establishes Sindhu->Indus-Hindus and Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India, applied to whole of South Asia.
- I request admin to take a look into these issues.
Thanks. --Mayasutra (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Mayasutra, I am afraid our discussion is getting repetitive and circular. At this point other editors can weigh in, or you can seek a third opinion, or use any of the suggested dispute resolution processes. I would recomend though that you not make changes to the section of a stable/FA article, until consensus for them is established. Abecedare (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Abecedare:
Thanks. Except putting back Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and Encyclopedia Britannica (EB) sources, I have not made any change to the article. Since OED and EB are acceptable sources, I see no issue with that (notwithstanding your claim of 1kb). Noticed you kept my format of restricting sentence to what is stated in the source despite your edit summary claim of "move citation to part of sentence it is directly relevant to (unnecessary IMO, but no big deal either)" :)
Original (by you and Blade):
The geographical term Bharat (pronounced ), which is recognised by the Constitution of India as an official name for the country, is used by many Indian languages in its variations.(source: Ministry of Law and Justice 2008)
Went thru the constitution (source) and found the regional variations are not mentioned there. So changed to this. Yep, its no big deal. However, its about not attributing stuff to that which is not mentioned / supported by the source. Now time to move on two points requiring dispute resolution; that is
- Establishing Sindhu->Indus-Hindus and Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India, applied to whole of South Asia.
- Mentioning that Bharat (India) is named after Bharata emperor (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant).
Have requested guidance from User:Joshua_Jonathan, and will proceed accordingly. Thanks.--Mayasutra (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- These massive changes requires consensus, this is a featured article, and we had far better citations than Britannica. We have already clarified these definitions at least 3 times. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bladesmulti: Lame argument, yet again, which am sorry, but it borders on stupidity. If this is a featured article, it is all the more imperative to have citations and verified info. Hope I do not have to repeat that again. Truly, am tired of having to repeat that. Its a shame the way you use the featured article claim yet again. These are not "massive changes". I did not add new sources. OED and EB already existed. I merely mentioned verbatim what both mention within sources. Why did you revert it? Where is the agreement required for this? If you had better citations, where are they now? Who clarified these definitions? Nope, sorry, Abecedare has been talking on this page without citations (except replacing Buitenen with Diana Eck). In order to resolve Sindhu->Indus-Hindus, please provide sources and reply to the message on Lipner to you. If you and Abecedare provide references, for claims made by both of you in the etymology section, this may not go to dispute resolution. Mayasutra (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- OED is ok but Britannica wouldn't provide source for there information. They are often derived from unreliable sources. It will be more helpful if you can provide the direct citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are deliberately confusing the issue? Since when was this about OED or EB's sources? This is about stating what OED and EB mention WITHIN sources. What is wrong in doing so? Anyways, it appears you want to create an edit war (typical!). So, well, am not reverting unless an admin is involved. Will wait for 24 hours, then will take this to dispute resolution because it is clear you and Abecedare are not inclined to provide citations. Your last sentence is lame (sorry but really vapid yet again) -- I do not have to provide citations. You and Abecedare need to; because you are making claims without citations / references / sources. It is also clear your are not inclined to reply to my post to you on Lipner above dated 03:08, 23 October 2014. Obviously, you have neither citations nor anything discuss. --Mayasutra (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Reply by JJ: What an endless discussion... A few remarks:
- Provide diffs when refering to changes;
- Separate the discussions on Persian Hindus, Baharat and Hindustan;
- Removing maintenance-tags because this article is a featured article is a nonsense argument;
- If info is uncited, and someone asks for sources, then find those sources!
- Find more sources on both, and don't get stuck on OED and EB.
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan: Obviously agree with the points you make, although I am not sure of immediate relevance of some of the points, since the Etymology section in the version before the most recent revert war was IMO already completed and well sourced. If you think anything in there is not sourced, or that any of the sources are not adequate please let me know.
- As for your recent revert: Did you see my note above? Specifically points 1 and 3 about the quotes and deletion of the statements regarding current use of the term Hindustan (which unfortunately your revert again deleted; I assume unintentionally). Would appreciate if you took another look at the section content and compare the versions before and after your edit.
- Finally about the relevant policy about inclusion of quotes. See here. If there is a disagreement about providing quotes in this article, we sould start a separate discussion since it is not really restricted to the Etymology section (which has been discussed beyond what is reasonable!). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- I see the Etymology section in the India article as more of a summary of Names of India. I don't believe going into more detail, such as adding the quotes, should be in the Etymology section. This belongs in the Names of India article and would be very helpful there. The info that was added in the Etymology section can stay if referenced and agreed upon. OED and EB are perfectly fine sources to use. However, every reliable source can have problems and biases. If questions arise, more sources should be found.
- For the time being, keep the info in the Etymology section, minus the quotes. Follow Joshua's advice to finally decide what info should be there. Add all the additional info you find, plus the quotes to expand upon the Names of India article. Bgwhite (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Abe, MayaSutra provided citations from the OED and the EB; your note refers to other points. my revert was not "unintentionally"; don't speculate or attribute, please. Blades stated that additions to featured articles should be discussed before; I was asking for the policy which says so. Please stick to the points, instead of diverting the discussion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Jonathan, The version before Mayasutra's most recent edit already contained all the existing references (including OED and EB). Please again review this version, which I have sourced and updated recently. Abecedare (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Abe, MayaSutra provided citations from the OED and the EB; your note refers to other points. my revert was not "unintentionally"; don't speculate or attribute, please. Blades stated that additions to featured articles should be discussed before; I was asking for the policy which says so. Please stick to the points, instead of diverting the discussion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: Thanks for the clarifications. Abecedare is not right.
- No source has been provided for the claim of deriving Sindhu->Indus-Hindus and Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India, applied to whole of South Asia.
Please see my reply to blade on Lipner (to which blade did not reply); and to Abe saying "Lipner is not clear on what basis he connected Sindhu->Indus-Hindus. You have not quoted OED verbatim in the sources either. Can you find a source which establishes Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India. You will also need a source which establishes the term applied to whole of South Asia as you stated". - I asked Abe to quote OED where it says "The name ultimately stems from the Sanskrit word Sindhu...appellation for the Indus River." However, he has not yet done so.
This is part of Point 1 above actually. Despite again asking him quote OED verbatim (here on talk page or within sources) and asking him to find a source which establishes Sindhu->Indus-Hindus and Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India, he has not done so. - Abe continues to claim that India is named Bharat after Bharata emperor (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant); despite explaining there is no official government document attributing or attesting the same. Such a claim is made by the Sangh Parivar only. Which is why Apte's (or anyone's) source(s) are important. In addition, there is a Jain version explained above. Yet, there is no resolution on this. Additionally, I request the actual boundaries of Bharat-Varsha ruled by the mythical Bharat (including the Jain version) be included in one short line (if at all any eponymous Bharat must be mentioned in the article).
- Thanks for clarifying there is no rule disallowing quoting OED and EB within ref tags of sources. I cannot revert bcoz it can be deemed edit war. I request you to reinstate the quotes from OED and ED within the ref tags.
- No source has been provided for the claim of deriving Sindhu->Indus-Hindus and Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India, applied to whole of South Asia.
--Mayasutra (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2014
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the word Corruption from the line "However, it continues to face the challenges of poverty, corruption, malnutrition, inadequate public healthcare, and terrorism."(Third paragraph Third line).According to the ranking of Corruption Perception Index India ranks 94 out of 177 lesser than some developing nations for example Russia ranks greater than India,but in its wiki page there is no mention about corruption, I do not understand why sometimes wiki(not actually wiki but its editors)shows this bias against some countries. If you do not mention about corruption in Russia's wiki page then why mention about in india's page?.And there are many countries ranked greater than India but there is no mention about it in any of their pages. so Please remove the mention of corruption from the above line and make wikipedia more accurate and error-free. Yammanur sharath (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yammanur, perhaps you are concerned about image; more than the actual issue of corruption. Wiki needs to be accurate and error-free indeed. So, stats and actual facts matter. --Mayasutra (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Not done. The article Corruption in India shows that India does indeed continue to face the challenge of corruption. The article Corruption in Russia looks partly whitewashed; but it nevertheless suggests that yes, the situation in Russia is bad. As for the article Russia, am I simply hallucinating the appearance within it of
- Russia ranks as the second-most corrupt country in Europe (after Ukraine), according to the Corruption Perceptions Index. The Norwegian-Russian Chamber of Commerce also states that "orruption is one of the biggest problems both Russian and international companies have to deal with". The high rate of corruption acts as a hidden tax as businesses and individuals often have to pay money that is not part of the official tax rate. It is estimated that corruption is costing the Russian economy an estimated $2 billion (80 billion rubles) per year. In 2014, a book-length study by Professor Karen Dawisha was published concerning corruption in Russian under Putin's government.
- ? -- Hoary (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Hoary. On a scale from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean), India scores 34 on the Corruption Perception Index. Stickee (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Remember the last Olympic Games? Three indians (or were it four), paying for their own participation, because of a corrupt Olympic Committee. It was a shame! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Hoary. On a scale from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean), India scores 34 on the Corruption Perception Index. Stickee (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Stickee! Bladesmulti (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Etymology (continued per issue)
Sindhu->Indus-HindusIndus-Hindus-Etymology_(continued_per_issue)-2014-10-25T05:54:00.000Z">
Copied, and split per topic
No source has been provided for the claim of deriving Sindhu->Indus-Hindus and Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India, applied to whole of South Asia. Can you find a source which establishes Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India. Mayasutra (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)MayasutraIndus-Hindus">
Indus-Hindus">
- I've inserted a source-tag. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Indos or Indoi is the right greek word. Also previous/current citation is as good. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- The source for both the India etymology sentences is the OED entry for India, as cited. Abecedare (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- No dispute on Indos or Indoi being right Greek word. The issue is deriving Sindhu->Indus-Hindus and Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India. Please address the issues raised on Lipner's book in the post addressed to you above. --Mayasutra (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)MayasutraIndus-Hindus">
Indus-Hindus">
- Went thru your source by Ganga Ram Garg which gives a fairly good explanation. I have no issues with it. He notes the term Hindu and Hinduism is a geographical one; which needs to included in the article. Please reword the article and include the source. Thanks. Addition - The author keeps the narrative geographical until the sentence "but in actual practice the term Hindu stands for one who professes a certain faith called Hinduism" -- He does not explain how he reached that conclusion and since when the word began to be referred to a religion. Regarding the name Bharat, he says "the first tradition is generally accepted and taught in school textbooks as such" -- He does not explain 'accepted by whom', and who decided the attribution; notwithstanding that it is taught in school textbooks.
- Joshua, please review the source. Ganga Ram Garg explains well but provides no reference whatsoever for some vital claims.
- No dispute on Indos or Indoi being right Greek word. The issue is deriving Sindhu->Indus-Hindus and Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India. Please address the issues raised on Lipner's book in the post addressed to you above. --Mayasutra (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)MayasutraIndus-Hindus">
Indus-Hindus">
--Mayasutra (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra @Abecedare:Indus-Hindus"> Indus-Hindus">
- Please quote verbatim here (on the talk page) from the OED what it says about the derivation / etymology.--Mayasutra (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
OED and Sindhu
Copied, and split per topic
I asked Abe to quote OED where it says "The name ultimately stems from the Sanskrit word Sindhu...appellation for the Indus River." However, he has not yet done so. Despite again asking him quote OED verbatim (here on talk page or within sources).(talk) 05:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- In the same citation, you can find it. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Am asking both of you to quote the OED verbatim here (on talk page) since a very long time now. Please do so. Then we can resolve. --Mayasutra (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Bharat
No further problem here?
- Abe continues to claim that India is named Bharat after Bharata emperor (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant); despite explaining there is no official government document attributing or attesting the same. Such a claim is made by the Sangh Parivar only. Which is why Apte's (or anyone's) source(s) are important. In addition, there is a Jain version explained above. Yet, there is no resolution on this. Additionally, I request the actual boundaries of Bharat-Varsha ruled by the mythical Bharat (including the Jain version) be included in one short line (if at all any eponymous Bharat must be mentioned in the article). Mayasutra (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Let's start with the correct Bharat. Two sources have been given, right? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Many thanks for addressing these issues. Please see the Jaina version in green above contradicting Abe's version. There are several characters named Bharat in Indian scriptures including minor kings and sages. There is no confirmation / attribution / attestation from official Indian government sources / documents / gazettes that India is named Bharat after Bharata (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant). I suggest removing this point (not sure what purpose it serves). If mentioned, the Jaina claim also must be mentioned in a brief sentence; along with boundaries ruled by both the Bharats (the Jain Bharat as well as Bharat (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant)). Indian myths often use the phrase "conquering the whole world" (it means "their world' with boundaries as they envisaged which need not always be geographically accurate or resolvable / identifiable. For example: Bharata-varsha is considered part of Jambudvipa with Mount Meru at its centre; which in today's time is not easy to resolve). --Mayasutra (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- (reply to JJ after ec) That encyclopedia actually is not a good source, and seems to get the the etymology of Bharata (emperor)-> Bharat (India) reversed. Apte, Eck, Buitenen on the other hand are solid scholarly sources on the topic. Abecedare (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Abe, you need to quote Apte, Eck and Buitenen; along with their sources. I agree that encyclopedia is not a good source. There is no historical source (such as an epigraph; which is not possible in this case). Vitally, there is no official document by Indian government attributing the name Bharat (India) to Bharata (son of Dushyant-Shakuntala). So, the claim remains disputable. --Mayasutra (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Hindustan
Copied, and split per topic
Jonathan, The version before Mayasutra's most recent edit already contained all the existing references (including OED and EB). Please again review this version, which I have sourced and updated recently. Abecedare (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Hindustan ( ; lit. "Land of the Hindus"), also derived from Persian, is occasionally used as a reference to India, the country. Traditionally though, it connoted Northern India to its inhabitants, and was more widely used by foreigners to refer to the Indian subcontinent.(sources: OED, EB)"
10:39, 25 October 2014 (minus quotes):
- "Hindustan ( ; lit. "Land of the Hindus"), also derived from Persian, traditionally connoted Northern India to its inhabitants,(source:OED) or the region to the north of the Vindhya range in particular the Indo-gangetic plain;(source: EB) but was more widely used by foreigners to refer to the Indian subcontinent.(sources: OED, EB)"
- so, what's wrong with the second version? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Two issues:
- It excludes the statement that the term occassionally refers to India, without which Hindustan would not be worth mentioning in the etymology section of the India page.
- The "or the region to the north of the Vindhya range in particular the Indo-gangetic plain" is redundant and overly specific for this page. "Hindustan" has never had well-defined boundaries, and its exact referent has differed with speakers and period (see OED entry, or for even more details). This all can be detailed in the Hindustan page, but is undue here.Abecedare (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Two issues:
- Precisely Abe. The boundaries of Hindustan was never well-defined. Which is what must be made clear. The JSTOR source you provided all the more confirms this.
- I do not see an issue with "occasionally refereed to India" or "more widely used by foreigners to refer to the Indian subcontinent"; which more or less mean the same.
- I also do not see an issue with being specific as the source mentions "the region to the north of the Vindhya range in particular the Indo-gangetic plain".
- Please note, in Puranas, Bharata (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant) ruled the Indo-gangetic plain. His father Dushyant was the king of Hastinapur. Bharat conquered the whole of 'Aryavarta'; and became the first king to rule over 'Aryavarta'; where prayer rules were formulated. Which is why in prayer (sankalpam) folks mention "Visnhnor ajnaya pravartamane adyasmin brahmande bhuloke jambudvipe, bharatha varshe, bharatha khande meroyah dakshina digbhage (note location - bharatvarsha is a portion of land to south of meru in jambudvipa) brahmanosya dvitiya parardhe shri shvetavaraha kalpe (current kalpa), vaivasvata manvantare (current era of vaivasvata manu), ashtavimsatitame yuga-chatustaya atra kaliyuge (current yuga which is 28th kaliyuga), prathama charane bhuddhavatare (during the time of Buddha avatara), shalivahana shake (Shalivahana era), vartamana samvatsare...etc..." -- This gives an idea of the time period when it was composed (note the Saka era was started by Kushana emperor Kanishka).
- According to the Mahabharat, Bharata had 3 wives and 9 sons but was not satisfied with his sons. So he slew them. Thereafter his wife obtained a son with the 'grace of' Bharadwaja and thus came about the rise of Bharadwajas. Whether this is a 'myth' or a 'legend' is upto you / others. However, the boundaries ruled by Bharat need to be mentioned. Contrary to Hindutva claims, the British created a country called India; not Bharata (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant).
Thanks. --Mayasutra (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Quotes
Copied, and split per topic
Thanks for clarifying there is no rule disallowing quoting OED and EB within ref tags of sources. I cannot revert bcoz it can be deemed edit war. I request you to reinstate the quotes from OED and ED within the ref tags.
--Mayasutra (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- @Mayasutra: can you help me understand the dispute? What exact content change (please provide diff) are you trying to support or want to remove? --AmritasyaPutra 10:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- @AmritasyaPutra: Hi, its about rewording the etymology section and providing citations. The points are on (1) derivation of the geographical term Hindu, from
Sindhu->Indus-Hindus and Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India; (2) official name Bharat (is it after Bharat the son of Nabhi; or Bharat the son of Shakuntala-Dushyant); (3) boundaries ruled by either Bharat; (4) the term Hindustan. Please read the section created Joshua Jonathan; that will suffice to understand the issue. Thanks.--Mayasutra (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra- @Mayasutra: I have read it and that is why I explicitly request you to please provide diff link for exact content change you want to discuss. And the reference you are using for your argument if applicable. --AmritasyaPutra 11:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- You have not understood. I cannot make content change (or it will be edit war); nor do I want to. Am not making any argument. Am asking blade and abe to provide citations for their claims. Those who make the claim must provide the reference and/or reword as per sources. Thanks.--Mayasutra (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- @Mayasutra: 1. You do not want to make any content change, am I right? 2. Can you please provide "exact content" (If possible please provide diff link of addition) you want referenced? --AmritasyaPutra 11:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand. Just compare your point 1 and 2. Does your repeating point 2 make any sense? So my suggestion is, leave this to Joshua Jonathan. Thanks. --Mayasutra (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- @Mayasutra:If you do not want to add any change and cannot tell what content you want references for... what do you want because I can clearly see you edit war. Why does your edit summary says "No change in content." when you have changed content? --AmritasyaPutra 12:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand. Just compare your point 1 and 2. Does your repeating point 2 make any sense? So my suggestion is, leave this to Joshua Jonathan. Thanks. --Mayasutra (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- @Mayasutra: 1. You do not want to make any content change, am I right? 2. Can you please provide "exact content" (If possible please provide diff link of addition) you want referenced? --AmritasyaPutra 11:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- You have not understood. I cannot make content change (or it will be edit war); nor do I want to. Am not making any argument. Am asking blade and abe to provide citations for their claims. Those who make the claim must provide the reference and/or reword as per sources. Thanks.--Mayasutra (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
- @Mayasutra: I have read it and that is why I explicitly request you to please provide diff link for exact content change you want to discuss. And the reference you are using for your argument if applicable. --AmritasyaPutra 11:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- @AmritasyaPutra: Hi, its about rewording the etymology section and providing citations. The points are on (1) derivation of the geographical term Hindu, from
Mayasutras, you keep requesting citations and references, and the threads grow longer and longer, without resolutions. You could also try to find some info & references yourself, which clarify the etymology. Now we're all responding to your questions, without making progress. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages articles that use Indian English
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Selected anniversaries (August 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2011)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2012)
- All unassessed articles
- FA-Class India articles
- Top-importance India articles
- FA-Class India articles of Top-importance
- India portal selected articles
- WikiProject India articles
- FA-Class South Asia articles
- Top-importance South Asia articles
- South Asia articles
- FA-Class Asia articles
- Top-importance Asia articles
- WikiProject Asia articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- FA-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press