Jump to content

Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Disruption

I note the following blanket revert [1] by User:Zuggernaut based on completely spurious claims that the preceding edits were WP:GAME and WP:FAITACCOMPLI. The blanket revert also undid several intervening edits that had nothing to do with the dispute, such as ludicrous claims of Indian invention of the radio and the "universe" (even Babylonian philosophical models of the Universe are far older. Worse, the revert was not accompanied by any discussion on the talkpage, but rather by canvassing on other pages [2] [3]. Even worse, said user hasn't meaningfully contributed anything to the discussion, only the occasional drive-by personal attacks directed against Fowler&fowler. This is disruption of a high order. Is there an ARBCOM case for dealing with Hindutva POV-pushing? Athenean (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"Hindutva POV pushing" seems to be the favorite punching bag of all and sundry. Btw, some other experienced editors have also expressed similar concerns about gaming the system and fait accompli. Regarding the claimed personal attacks on Fowler, he himself is responsible for that. It is he, who provokes other editors by his acerbic comments targeting other editors. That way, even after his valuable contributions, he is not a revered editor. Shovon (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you please explain how WP:GAME and especially WP:FAITACCOMPLI can apply to edits done after consensus had been established and the week-long period to discuss the requested move was over? How much longer should we have waited with implementing the solution so we wouldn't have risked such an accusation? Huon (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Its not me who had raised these objections. If you care to read the the proposal and the Oppose section, you will see the objections along with the justifications. I was merely pointing to Athenean that there are more than one editor who have raised similar concerns. Incidentally, I had supported the move and still stand by that. Shovon (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
So you agree that the claims of WP:GAME and WP:FAITACCOMPLI are baseless, no matter how many people raised them after the week-long discussion period was over? I assume Ohms law didn't notice the timing, but Zuggernaut, who participated early within this period, should have known better. Huon (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(od) (Procedural note) Generally, a move proposal must run a minimum of seven days but there is no well-defined maximum. Consensus is considered reached only when an admin or other established uninvolved editor closes the move discussion. (In other words, though the list of south asian inventions article was apparently created in good faith, it's creation is a tad precipitous.) --rgpk (comment) 20:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for puinting that out, I had only read the short description the template on this talk page offers. Huon (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reply to Ahtenean) Intermediate edits were undone in error. Since I have never violated 3RR and I now stick to 1RR, I will let you fix your revert. When you do so, feel free to remove radio and universe edits.
(Reply to Huon) You should have waited until the move request was closed. And even after its closure, I am not sure there is consensus on Gunpowder Ma's solution because:

  1. What is South Asia? We did not seem to reach a concrete conclusion on this in our earlier discussions.
  2. What about Bangladesh? Gunpowder Ma has not addressed Bangladesh at all
  3. Reliable sources call IVC India so why give in to WP:RECENTISM and use a novel term like South Asia? Zuggernaut (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Huon: No. I do NOT believe that the claims of Gaming and fait accompli are baseless. The way, the List of South Asian inventions was created, even before the move discussion was closed, reeks of fait accompli. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
(Reply to Shovon) My proposal was to move the page. That proposal was not implemented. What was implemented was Gunpowder Ma's proposal, which you supported as well. As far as I can tell, a week (or even eight days) later there were 8 support votes (including yours and AshwiniKalantri's); and only 2 opposes from regular participants. Besides the regular participants have been discussing this endlessly since March 1. Please read my reply to the ANI discussion (linked below). Discussing things for three weeks until everyone was blue in the face is one hell of a way to game a system. It is easy for Zuggernaut to say that, considering he was absent from that discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Please also read my reply to RegentsPark above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Shovon, RegentsPark already pointed out that the requested move process is more formalized than I had realized. While I now see how implementing Gun Powder Ma's proposal might be seen as having happened before the formal closure of the move proposal (which wasn't implemented anyway), I still think that invoking WP:GAME and WP:FAITACCOMPLI involves assumptions of bad faith which are unfounded and which I resent. Huon (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way, Shovon, does your own comment that we can start splitting the article also come under WP:GAME and WP:FAITACCOMPLI in your opinion, or does that apply only to others who acted on what you, too, advised? Huon (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
well, we need to move past what has been done and and do what to do next. since there is no clear consensus to do anything at this point, i propose to bring everything back to where things were before people prematurely started acting upon this. --CarTick (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Next attempt

It seems obvious that there is significant, if somewhat belated, opposition to Fowler&fowler's proposed page move. The move proposal had been modified to one which didn't actually include a move, and I'm not sure how much of that discussion had been taken into account by the latest opposition. Anyway, much of that opposition recognizes that the solution before this discussion, where the article covers the Indian subcontinent until 1947 and just the Republic of India afterwards, is far from perfect, too. I'm not sure whether re-opening the discussion will really yield any benefits, but it seems better than either trying to implement some solution that apparently faces widespread opposition or just keeping the status quo with which hardly anybody is really happy. I see the following possibilities:

  1. Keep everything as it was a few weeks ago, including the change of article scope in 1947.
  2. Split the article content in 1947, with one list covering either the subcontinent or a little more (eg Burma and Sri Lanka?) before 1947 and separate lists covering the Republic of India and Pakistan, under whatever names. There are several possible names for the sub-lists:
    1. Call the pre-1947 list "South Asian" and the post-1947 Republic of India list "Indian". That was suggested by AshwiniKalantri, and it's what is currently implemented.
    2. Call the pre-1947 List "Indian" and the post-1947 list "Republic of India". This would be analogous to the situation at History of India.
  3. Split off the Indus Valley Civilization, which culturally isn't quite "Indian" (as recognized by some of those who opposed Fowler&fowler's proposal, for example Mdw0), keep the remainder under "Indian".

Combinations of proposal 2 and 3 have also been suggested, with one list for the IVC, one for everything post-IVC till 1947, and another list for the Republic of India stuff after 1947.

My personal favorite is solution 2, preferably with the list name "South Asian" for everything before 1947. I would even go one step further and also add post-1947 inventions for countries in South Asia for which we do not have separate lists. That allows us to add inventions which are distinctly not Indian, but which also currently do not have any other place. For example, we could re-add the Sri Lankan hospitals that were removed for not being Indian. Thus, the wider scope of the term "South Asia" is, to me, an advantage. Splitting off sub-lists should then be decided on according to the amount of stuff for the relevant sub-list. The Republic of India and Pakistan offer sufficiently many entries, and the IVC may also do so. If we get enough entries to for, say, the Mughal Empire or for Sri Lanka, I wouldn't oppose the creation of such sub-lists either, all linked to from the central South Asian list. Huon (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

good idea. but, we have to bring everything back to where things were before we start a new proposal. this is otherwise grossly misleading. i redirected the south asian to indian. can someone please add back everything that was taken away as part of creation of south asian fork. i dont want to make a mistake. --CarTick (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
This would only lead to a permanently tagged list, since it has been clear the old version has no majority support. Quite clearly, we don't need to argue over whether the IVC can be called Indian, it cannot. If people have a different solution other than that now, fine. But if people hope going back to subsuming everything in South Asia since from the earliest times under the term "Indian", as the old list, forget it, it's way too much POV and opposition is too strong. Everybody should be ready to compromise otherwise this discussion will have no end. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you say that inventions from the Indus Valley Civilization cannot be included in a list of Indian inventions and discoveries? Indus Valley Civilization is always included in histories of India so what's the problem? --rgpk (comment) 13:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Which books? And do you think the Indus Valley Civilization article, as it now stands, is POV because it calls this civilization not Indian? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
That would take some leg work. But, I'm fairly sure that Thapar's history starts with a discussion of Harappa and Mohenjodaro. And I have Bashyam's "Wonder that was India" in front of me with an extensive discussion on the topic. I must admit to being a little confused that this question is being asked at all. Is it generally accepted to exclude ancient civilizations from the histories of regions? Do we, for example, exclude ancient Egypt from the history of Egypt or Babylonia from that of Iraq? Whether we call it a list of Indian, South Asian, Indian subcontinent or whatever, it seems odd to me to specifically exclude the Indus Valley Civilization from it and I'm curious as to why that appears to be 'unarguably' the case. --rgpk (comment) 14:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
We include Ancient Egyptian inventions from Egyptian inventions because there is a cultural continuity. Whereas we don't include Stonehenge under British inventions, Sumerian items under Iraqi inventions or the achievements of the Peking man under Chinese inventions, because there isn't any cultural continuity. If you want the list of Indian inventions starting with the time when the first men set their foot on what is today Indian soil you have to explain your criteria. Same you have to do if you want Indian history to be started with the earliest neolithic, copper or bronze age cultures. So how far does Indian history back in time? And please don't give now a geographical definition, because then we'd have to include the IVC mainly under Pakistani inventions. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Even a student who makes it to high school in India learns in history that IVC is where the roots of Hinduism and Indian civilization lie. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
CarTick, unfortunately, has no history on this page. He does have a history of opposing me on the Talk:India page. That is the only reason why he is here. He has no history on history pages either that might be relevant to this list, such as History of India page, History of Pakistan page, Greater India page, Indus Valley Civilization page, Indian mathematics page, all of which I have worked on. Neither has Zuggernaut. He hasn't added one byte to these articles. Why are they here and acting like they're the last word on this subject, beats me. But I forget. There's one thing they can do. They can hold forth endlessly about which Wikirule has been violated in which minute of everyone else's life. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) As the template in the section below makes clear, there is already quite a bit of overlap in the various categories. I believe one can have a separate List of inventions in the Indus Valley Civilization, regardless of whether it is also a part of the Indian list or not. The separate IVC list can be more detailed. It can be a timeline and bring out the link between the unfolding of history from Mehrgarh to late Harrapan and the technology. The same goes for the South Asia list, as it can include Sri Lanka as well. I also believe that the current crop of editors who are really interested in the inventions and have been a part of the discussion are mostly either for the South Asia list, or for a separate IVC list. These editors can keep working on these two lists and let the Indian list remain the mess it has always been. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

PS Russia, for example, has a list as well as a timeline. Islam has both as well. There is no reason why we can't have a "Timeline of inventions in South Asia" and include Sri Lanka in it, and a separate and detailed "Timeline of inventions in the Indus Valley Civilization." The main point is that we have the people who are interested in the topic. They matter more than the name of the page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
CarTick and I are contributing to the title of this page. That is contribution aplenty. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The right way forward here is:

  1. Restore the article to the stage I have described in the ANI.
  2. Have separate lists for Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives, Afghanistan and whatever else comes under South Asia.
  3. That means keep this article as it is since IVC is where the roots of Hinduism and the Indian civilization lie. Per several WP:RS' (some of them pointed out by RegentsPark above), it is a no brainier that IVC inventions belong in the Indian list.
  4. Pakistan can claim IVC inventions too due to the overlapping geography.
  5. I do not know for sure whether the other South Asian countries can claim the IVC inventions. For example, I don't know what Maldives has to do with IVC. Can Bangladesh claim IVC inventions? After all, it was a part of Pakistan from 1947 to 1971. Reliable sources need to be provided for other countries to claim IVC inventions.
  6. An article titled "List of inventions and discoveries in South Asia" sounds childish but if people are insistent about it and if there is consensus for the creation of such an article, please address what happens to Bangladesh and the period between 1947 and 1971. I would caution against the creation of such an article without first clearly defining what South Asia is.

Zuggernaut (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I know of precisely one invention each for the Sri Lanka and Bangladesh lists, and of none for the Burma, Bhutan, Nepal or Maldives lists you propose. That's probably due to my lack of expertise, but I still don't expect there is much content to actually make such lists worthwhile. Thus regarding modern Bangladesh (and Sri Lanka, Burma, ...), I'd say add its inventions to the general South Asia list, probably in a separate section, until there are enough of them to actually make a stand-alone Bangladesh list worthwhile. For pre-1947 inventions, it seems artificial and arbitrary to break apart the inventions made by, say, Mughal inventors depending on whether they happened to live in what is now the Republic of India, Pakistan or Bangladesh.
I'd also say that reinstating the old version of the article should not be seen as a necessary precondition for moving forward - especially not a precondition for debating the direction in which to move. Huon (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
it is absolutely necessary because no consensus was achieved. the default position when no consensus is to do nothing. --CarTick (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see my edit below and try to explain why we need to give special treatment to South Asia which is more of a geopolitical term of a few decades and try to contrast that with what is found in reliable sources (they overwhelmingly use "India"). Bangladesh and the other countries not having inventions is not a reason to have a list on South Asia. If they have one or two inventions, they could add it to their country articles. My question about whether Bangladesh inherits IVC inventions is still not addressed. The same goes for most other South Asian countries. Reliable sources also overwhelmingly say Mughals were Indians. Off the top of my head, I can say that a popular historian William Dalrymple wrote about the descendants of the Mughals in Delhi just a few years back. In short, IVC inventions are Indian, Mughal inventions are Indian, Chola, Vijayanagar, Maurya inventions, etc are Indian. Pakistan can lay claim on some but those articles will clearly need to bring WP:RS to the table to show that they are Pakistani. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't agree with some of your proposals. IVC inventions belong to the Indian subcontinent, not to the Republic of India as you otherwise seem to be pushing. Creating a seperate list for Pakistan while having all IVC discoveries here and the Republic of India mentioned here as well simply doesn't make sense. The Republic of India didn't even exist before 1947. So, there's not a penny of a chance that the Republic of India and the IVC are going to be kept on the same page while Pakistan (where the thing actually mostly existed) is going to be kept seperate. Don't even think about going that way. Mar4d (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the default position and lack of consensus, you're technically right, CarTick, but I have not yet abandoned all hope to reach a new consensus, which would make the current state irrelevant as soon as that new consensus is implemented. I wouldn't revert if someone were to immediately re-add all the pre-1947 stuff to the article. I would prefer trying to establish a new consensus to bickering about the list's current state, though.
Regarding Bangladesh and the IVC, I'd consider that absurd, but since that entire problem would not arise under my preferred solution, I don't see why I should be the one to address that issue. What I'd like to know, Zuggernaut: Under your proposed "everything is India" scheme, what happens in 1947? Does the article change scope and cover only the Republic of India afterwards, not the subcontinent? Or would Pakistan and Bangladesh become part of your India list? If the former, please clarify the criterion that makes Bangladesh less Indian than, say, the Kingdom of Mysore or the IVC. And good luck trying to establish a consensus for having Pakistani inventions become part of a "India" list. ;-) Huon (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
As I've said above, reliable sources consider IVC a part of India and per WP:Commonname, India equates to the Republic of India. So it would be intuitive to continue the IVC list for the Republic of India after 1947. The Pakistani (and other, if any) lists would share some common content until 1947 then continue with inventions in that particular political entity. If there are reliable sources that state the Kingdom of Mysore or IVC are the same/overlap with Bangladesh then they are free to claim that as a Bangladeshi invention. So there really isn't a criterion. We would just need to stick to Wikipedia policies like WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, etc. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. Give me one reliable source that actually equates the IVC with the Republic of India. It is a well known fact that most of the IVC existed in modern-day Pakistan, then known as ancient India. And I absolutely disagree with you that India actually equates to the Republic of India; it does not. The India before 1947 was different compared to the moden India; technically speaking, the Republic of India is probably as much a successor state of ancient India as modern Pakistan. A distinction needs to be made between the two India's. Having said that, I see no need to duplicate material repeatedly across different lists; all modern republics should be seperated from pre-1947 South Asia and IVC should categorically be merged under a South Asia title, rather than being mentioned in an Indian or even Pakistani list. Mar4d (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A timeline

To Mar4d, SSeagal, Gunpowder Ma, Athenean, Huon, Shovon76, and AshwiniKalantri: Why don't we work on a timeline instead, which is much more interesting since it brings out the links between history and technology. How about a Timeline of inventions and discoveries made in South Asia. Since none of the current lists are timelines, they would be no conflict and we can stop the list at 1947. We can define "South Asia" to be region covered by present-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, and Afghanistan. There are historical links between all these cultures. (There are a number of IVC sites in Afghanistan, for example.) This timeline of South Asian Art at the Met would be a good model. (We'd have to leave out Tibet; since, unlike Art (and Religion), there are probably not too many scientific and technological links between South Asia and Tibet.) Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

overkill. same issue. you are not addressing revisionism concerns. it is still an attempt to somehow convert India to South Asia. please come back a few decades later when there is overwhelming consensus in secondary and tertiary sources. you are trying to influence history using wikipedia as a vehicle. please write a book if this topic is fascinating to your academically. --CarTick (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you stop me? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Fowler (and others proposing/supporting a similar position): please explain the obsession with creating a list or a timeline of something about South Asia. Do we have similar a List of European inventions and discoveries or a Timeline of inventions and discoveries made in Europe? Can someone bring reliable sources to the table and define what South Asia is? Zuggernaut (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, a list or timeline of European inventions sounds like a great idea. The only problem I can see is that it would be ridiculously long. As for reliable sources on the usage of South Asia, it's all in F&f's move request (didn't read it the first time?). Athenean (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
that no one has provided a laundry list of reliable secondary sources that will prove otherwise doesnt mean it doesnt exist. it is just too many to list. what fowler provided are recent developments, more or less like aberrations. --CarTick (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You mean in Fowler's move request which bombed 9 votes to 6 or was it 5? You would have to adapt a different approach since Fowler's approach obviously didn't go anywhere. Probably because competent editors know that Fowler's WP:RS have a problem of WP:WEIGHT (See Jimmy's e-mail from many years back cited somewhere on that page). And since when is a list being long a problem? People who have a genuine interest in the topic would relish the abundance of content. Do you a genuine interest here or is it just about an agenda? Zuggernaut (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
No one can stop anyone from creating s Timeline of inventions and discoveries made in Europe. It would bring out the intense interaction that was going on between different centers of innovation in Europe. For example, for only the years 1685 to 1720 and for only the field of mathematics, such a timeline would show how the development of calculus took place and how a discovery in one country led to a related discovery in another. The reason why "South Asia" is a better region to consider is simple, there was wide-ranging interaction between different cultures in this region. No all of them were Indian in the many future senses of the word. How is Mehrgarh Indian? Even the most die hards "History of India" books tiptoe around the topic of Mehrgarh and are generous with using "South Asia," "Indian subcontinent," or "subcontinent" while there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
South Asia is a new geopolitical term which probably originated somewhere in the US State Department. Like I said above, it has the problem of WP:WEIGHT in reliable sources with most people preferring to use India. At Wikipedia, we follow the trend, not lead or create trends. So let's stick to India and forget about South Asia. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to create the timeline. You can complain to ANI, DRR, ArbCom, Jimmy himself. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Right on, it is quite clear that we are going around in circles here, and that productive discussion ceased long ago. Red herrings like the "Europe list" are a case in point. Athenean (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
That would be gaming the system even further not to mention a double confirmation that you are playing WP:FAITACCOMPLI. I will not go to Jimmy's talk page until I have exhausted all other avenues as he asks. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks Athenean. Will do so soon. Let me think it through a little bit. Here, btw, is Britannica's "History of Agriculture" page talking about Mehrgarh:

"Research indicates two early stages of agricultural development in South Asia. In the earlier stage, dating roughly from 9500 to 7500 bp, agriculture was being established in parts of Pakistan, in the northwesternmost part of the subcontinent. At the ancient site of Mehrgarh, where the earliest evidence has been found, barley was the dominant crop and was apparently supplemented with some wheat. ..."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No kidding, including the Neolithic Mehrgarh culture in a list of Indian inventions is stretching the definition of "India" to breaking point. Athenean (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A timeline with the current material is, irrespective of the naming dispute, really not a good idea because a sizable part of the inventions claims need to be carefully checked first. I happen to have an interest in the history of technology and I am in no way convinced of many attributions to the IVC/Indians/South Asians. So, right now, we'd just collaborate in duplicating contents which was created by users with less than stellar knowledge of the subject (I know as I have closely followed the creation process of this list then). However, we could first concentrate on checking the entries instead of indulging into endless debates about the article name (that is not to say we should abandon our position, just to change the focus for now). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not remotely contemplating using the current list or, even more, its attributions! We are both agreed that the current is shabby. We've both in fact been pruning the current list. Unfortunately, I don't see anything much happening on this page. Some of the people who are now opposing the move to South Asia, and many more who will appear if the battle over the lists continues, have no interest in the science or technology, they are here to do ideological battle because they see the removal of "India" as a national affront. However, if that list is left as it is, and allowed, as it currently does, to delight the patriots and turn away the knowledgeable, then two things will happen. We will work on the timeline unencumbered by preexisting errors, and there will be less opposition because "South Asia" in the list will be a larger region: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. I'm of the opinion that outside of the Indus Valley Civilization, there was little interest in technology in the region of what today is India-Pakistan-Bangladesh, until the arrival of the Muslims in the 12th century. Even that was minuscule compared to the state of things once the British arrived. Ancient Indian culture had other strengths (philosophy, religion, mathematics), but not technology. Even stitched clothes arrived with Islam. There were no arch bridges in ancient India. No interest was shown in the Roman arch. The Muslims were the first to build rudimentary (Gothic) arch bridges on the subcontinent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
PS. What I meant to also say is that "Indian subcontinent" is no better and don't kid yourself that changing the name to it will solve any problems. For one, I'm not sure the move will happen, even if there is support for it. There is no precedent for using the term "Indian subcontinent" in such fashion on Wikipedia. CarTick's argument about the South Asia, which he claims is not so memorable in the secondary sources, and one he is now conveniently ignoring, will apply even more, because "Indian subcontinent" is five times less memorable in the secondary sources. Your best bet is to ignore this list and work on a new timeline. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
PPS It might even make sense to include Iran in the timeline because there was much technology transfer (in both directions). Starting with Mehrgarh (which has antecedents in Iran proper) and down through the ages, Iran was pivotal. Indian mathematics was first written up in Persian books that made their way to the west. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
PPPS If nailing down the time window for a timeline is an issue, another option is to work on a List of South Asian inventions and discoveries, in which South Asia will stand for Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka (and possibly Iran). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

New Idea

Rather than continuing to edit war, how about this:

Move: "List of Indian inventions and discoveries" to "List of Indian subcontinent inventions and discoveries". This way it is perfectly clear that the geographic area is what is being referred to and not the modern day country. N419BH 12:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What would then happen in 1947? Do we include Pakistani inventions in the subcontinent list? Huon (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Two lists? One overall list for the geographic area and a sub-list for each modern country? In my mind calling the entire area "India" is factually incorrect. It is either the Indian subcontinent or South Asia (note those are two separate articles). N419BH 12:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
what has been called India had different boundaries along its history. I dont see anything wrong in this article detailing discoveries made in what was and is called India by numberous reliable secondary sourcses. Thanks User:N419BH for your good faith effort. as a compromise, i might warm up to this idea. yes, Huon, you are referring to 1947 the year the subcontinent devided into India and Pakistan. that is up for debate. let us see. --CarTick (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
So let me summarize: The idea is to create one article under List of Indian subcontinent inverntions and discoveries or something like that, which would include everything from the IVC up to and including Bangladesh, the Republic of India and Pakistan, possibly also Sri Lanka, Nepal or the Maldives (if there actually are any notable inventions for the latter). Furthermore, we would have separate articles for the modern countries (at least for those with sufficiently many inventions to make this worthwhile) which would duplicate the relevant modern parts of the "Indian subcontinent" list. Did I understand this correctly? I would go along with this, and I have to note that it's surprisingly similar to what Gun Powder Ma tried to accomplish, with the exceptions of some added redundancy and the use of "Indian subcontinent" instead of "South Asian". Our article on the subcontinent claims the terms are usend interchangeably, and I would prefer "South Asian" simply because it's more of an adjective, but it's probably not all that important which of the interchangeable terms we actually use. Huon (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much. For that matter, we could call the article List of inventions and discoveries made on the Indian subcontinent/South Asia. Since the terms are interchangeable, why not use both and maintain WP:NPOV? N419BH 22:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
i am not entirely convinced this is the best solution. but, if this is the only way we are going to obtain a consensus, i am willing to support Huon's proposal. --CarTick (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Where is the difference between "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia"? Indian subcontinent is quite explicit that the terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are used interchangeably, while arguing for the neutrality of the later term. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Gun Powder - there is none, but "Indian subcontinent" will make the patriots happy. It's a shabby compromise, because "South Asia" is better for the reasons you state, but it might be worth going for it purely for the avoidance of drama. Moreschi (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I would recommend GunPowder to read any book that says "History of India" to know when History of India begins and how the term India was used to denote geographical areas that are not just part of modern day India. this will also save you the trouble of "defining" it and may be you will also understand why some of the users here oppose you. Moreschi, if that helps release your anger, go for it. damn, these pseudo neutralists. --CarTick (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

by the way, List of Indian subcontinent inventions and discoveries doesnt sound right. what about List of inventions and discoveries from Indian subcontinent. --CarTick (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

<crash>The whole point of using "South Asia" is that it avoids the problem of multiple uses of the word "India" (historical area, shorthand for republic of India, etc). That was why the split was made in the first place. But it's a minor point not worth fighting over; "Indian subcontinent" will avoid drama now and in the long run and is sufficiently in accordance with WP:ENC for everyone to be reasonably happy. Moreschi (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
nobody likes confusion. your point has been already pointed out and according to "oppose" voters, it is historical revisionism and any confusion is clarified in the lead. --CarTick (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
To be blunt, that's not the impression I get from Zuggernaut, who wants to mix different meanings of the term "India" in the same list. How can we clarify that in the lead? "India is whatever we want it to be, no more and no less?" Besides, I'd say arguing for continuity from Mehrgarh to the Republic of India is revisionism of its own. Huon (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna go for consensus here; let's see what everyone has to say:

Proposal

One article is created under an appropriate title which will handle all inventions and discoveries made on the subcontinent. Separate articles will be written for each modern country for inventions made there post partition, but the inventions made there will also be listed on the main subcontinent article. As such we will have a geography-based article for the region and a politically-based article for each country.

Since we have several title ideas for this primary article, I'm going to list all of them numerically and ask people to state their preference.

Note that the consensus model places weight on arguments, not mere !vote counting. Please try to keep your rationales brief, there's no need for a wall of text.

Proposed titles:

  1. List of Indian inventions and discoveries
  2. List of inventions and discoveries from the Indian subcontinent
  3. List of inventions and discoveries from the Indian subcontinent/South Asia
  4. List of South Asian inventions and discoveries

Commentary

  • Support overall proposal as nom. Name preferences: Oppose #1, Support, in order of preference: 3, 4, 2. Calling the entire area "India" is confusing and not in keeping with WP:NPOV as it does not respect Pakistan and other countries in the geographic area. Support the combination title because it is not clear to me that "South Asia" is the generally accepted term and our own articles state the two are interchangeable. To be completely neutral we should use both and re-evaluate at a future date. N419BH 00:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
this is a bad idea and is going to get us into more drama. i would recommend we propose just one title, which is List of inventions and discoveries from the Indian subcontinent. --CarTick (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support overall proposal. Order of name preferences: 4, 2, 3, 1. We should avoid the ambiguity of the unqualified term "Indian", and giving both interchangeable names in the title just makes it unnecessarily complicated. Huon (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Indian subcontinent" won't work for reasons detailed in my post-script to Gun Powder Ma in the section above. In other words, if frequency of usage is the reason to not change to "South Asia," there would be even less reason to do so to "Indian subcontinent." CarTick's support here for "Indian subcontinent," consequently, is nothing but hypocritical: there is five times less frequency for "Indian subcontinent" in the secondary sources than there is for "South Asia". Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
PS. Better to work on the timeline proposed above. It gives the editors who are interested in the topic, in contrast to the ones that are interested in ideology, to keep working. I believe Athenean, Gun Powder Ma, Mar4d, SSeagal, Huon, and I have already shown our devotion both to the topic and to the requisite rigor that is needed for the task. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I also support the proposal (which is basically a recap of what we have already discussed for weeks) and would favour #4 the most (South Asia). The term 'Indian subcontinent' has a very narrow meaning compared to South Asia, plus the Indus Valley site of Mehrgarh wasn't quite in India but instead falls in Balochistan. South Asia is also more NPOV and would allow us to add countries such as Bhutan, Nepal, Afghanistan etc. if neccessary. Having said that, the proposed list should continue only until 1947 and any post-1947 discoveries should be relocated to the respective republic articles. I am a strong proponent of the Republic of India maintaining its own list too, seperated from the South Asian one. Mar4d (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Renaming or moving the current article is really unnecessary. Given that this article was created in 2007, I would like to know what has changed since then to suddenly warrant a change in the name. What is indeed required is removing some of the junk content, nationalistic claims and claims that inventions of the Indian diaspora are Indian even if the inventor has given up Indian citizenship and become, in many cases, an American. Such clean up has already been performed to some extent. If we simply stick to Wikipedia policies like WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and others and apply that to every single claim in the article under its current name, we will find that there is no real need for all of this sudden burst of activity. RegentsPark has already indicated above that reliable sources use India. He even cited one or two reliable sources. India is the common name of the Republic of India and India is the name used overwhelmingly for earlier periods. Other lists (Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Nepali, etc) can similarly follow WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and build their own lists. People need to stop being revisionists. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
guess that is a fair point. one can create South Asian, North South Asian, South South Asian, East South Asian, West South Asian or whatever list they want. the current list will remain the same as it is which will potentially include all the discoveries made in what has been called India by plethora of reliable secondary sources over three millenium. If Mehrgarh was not part of India, we should not include discoveries made in that place. we may actually end up with a much shorter list once we throw out all bogus claims. Lot of these claims are referenced to books that cleaning up will require a serious time in the library. --CarTick (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Duplication is the opposite of clarity. There are certain exceptions, such as inventions by Muslims in India which could be attributed both to India/South Asia and medieval Islam, but as a rule, we should avoid duplication of material wherever possible. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
it can be in some cases. you very well know, in this context, duplication will result in clarity. you could rather say that you dont like the word "Indian" attributed to all these dicoveries. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. your claim to special exemption of "duplication" for some "articles of your choice" is pretty interesting. --CarTick (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
How precisely will duplication be more clear than a link to a sub-list? And how would having a separate list for inventions in the Republic of India be not attributing the word "Indian" to them? Huon (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
"duplication" is a red herring. the goal of the discussion is not to duplicate. it is to create or rather keep an article called List of Indian inventions and discoveries. however, the existence of this article means some level of duplication that has happpened extensively across wikipedia. I have just cited the list of birds from US and its states as an example. this article like millions of other articles in wikipedia passes the WP:Notability test easily. if you are not convinced, please feel free to nominate it for WP:AFD. --CarTick (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for being dense, but that didn't help me understand your previous comment at all. You claimed that duplication would result in clarity, and it seemed so obvious to you that according to you, Gun Powder Ma must secretly agree with you. I still don't see why duplication is clearer than, say, use of {{main}} to provide a link to a sub-list. For an example, see List of shopping malls in Thailand and its sub-list List of shopping malls in Bangkok. Could you please explain your reasoning there, or do you mean that your claim about clarity was just a red herring? Huon (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
i dont understand what is your point. the shopping malls list seems to be a list of malls that exist today. as has been explained to you multiple times, this article will list discoveries that has been made in what has been called India by reliable secondary sources. i dont know which part you are not understanding. are you going to remove everything that has happened before 1947 from History of India because it will duplicate content with History of Bangladesh and History of Pakistan. as such, the list seems big enough to be worthy of a separate article. like i said, please feel free to nominate it for WP:AFD. if you dont like the pre-1947 discoveries attributed to "India", wikipedia is not a place to vent your anger. history has been written and i am not going to cooperate with you to rewrite it here. --CarTick (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that you are not interested in cooperation. For the record, I strongly disagree with the scope of the article you intend - it's completely arbitrary. For example, for all I can tell we'd have to remove the rocket artillery because the sources we have don't actually call it "Indian". You seem to have completely misunderstood what Gun Powder Ma and others are arguing; let me repeat that: It was suggested to have one list for all pre-1947 inventions, say under List of inventions and discoveries in the Indian subcontinent, and separate (and disjoint) lists for inventions in the Republic of India, in Pakistan and in Bangladesh that would only cover the inventions actually made in the relevant state. N419BH suggested that the "Indian subcontinent" list should also contain the post-1947 inventions made in the region, thus duplicating every entry of the Republic of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh lists, which would still only include the inventions actually made in those states. Huon (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand his suggestion very well, he has suggested four different titles for the primary article. from my understanding of the discussion, we havent reached a consensus as to what is going to be title of the primary article. while I have warmed up to the indea of the title List of inventions and discoveries in the Indian subcontinent in one of my previous posts, upon reconsideration, i dont think it is a good idea. As fowler pointed out, Indian Subcontinent is less extensively used than South Asia. i agree with him and i think it wouldnt make a lot of sense to have any article have "subcontinent" in its title. Here is the summary of the argument i have been making in my previous posts; every country in the world should have a "list of inventions" article if such a list can have a reasonable number of entries. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are no exceptions. Every country will have such lists for discoveries made in what has been called "that country" by reliable sources. it is also entirely acceptable to have a South Asian list compiling all the discoveries made in countries that form South Asia. I am not going to oppose that. your specific concern regarding rocket artillery is noted. i am not able to access that pdf file cited to that entry. if there are questions and concerns that any of the items in the list were not made in what has been called India, we should bring this up in the discussion page and if sufficient consensus is achieved, can be tossed away. --CarTick (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
"That country", in our context, is the Republic of India, isn't it? I'd consider it ahistorical to add inventions to a country's list that were made before that country was founded. And I dare predict that few of the pre-1947 inventions were made in a country called India. Huon (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That clarifies my point that all that you care is that you dont want any pre-1947 inventions associated with the word "India". Please read any history book to know more about India. or minimally, read History of India. it is not my problem to wean you out of this inconvenience. --CarTick (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I did read History of India, including this statement: "This article is about the history of the Indian subcontinent prior to the partition of India in 1947." It uses "India" as a shorthand for "Indian subcontinent" and stops in 1947. It does not claim that India was a country before 1947 (actually, the entire article does not contain the word "country"). Do you want to deliberately confuse the different meanings of the term "India"? Huon (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
that is a silly argument using a disambiguation statement mentioned on the top of the page. please read any History of India book. I have this book at home which i think is pretty reasonable. John Keay's History of India. am sure, you will be able to nitpick another statement from the book to make another silly argument. like i said, i cant help you wean out of this bitter truth. unless, you have any new arguments to make, i am done with this. --CarTick (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that you're either ignoring or not understanding such a basic argument; the Republic of India does not = Indian subcontinent. Mar4d (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand, from a Pakistani perspective, it would be hard to digest that reliable history books describe Indus Valley Civilisation as the begining of Indian history. not my fault. couldnt get the historians to exclude IVC or a lot of what happened in modern day Pakistan from Indian history, wikipedia looks like a good place. not really. --CarTick (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that if the other articles, particularly History of India, end in 1947 then these lists need to follow the same format. I believe even CarTick indicated his support for this above. I believe a strong consensus to perform the move has been reached based on the arguments presented above. As for the title, the consensus is at the present time for the South Asia title. Two editors have expressed opposition to this title (one rejected the entire proposal), while at least four others have expressed support for it. I will redirect the other two to this title and include the term Indian subcontinent in the first sentence. Please do not edit war over this. This does not mean that discussion should end, please continue to discuss this in a civil manner so we can determine the best way forward. I stress that this is an interim measure. The timeline idea is most excellent and the sourcing does need to be improved. While this is being worked on, the pages are still live and viewable by millions. It is important that while working on long-term solutions we keep short term readability and clarity in mind.N419BH 23:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you mean well, but this would be considered disruptive. Consensus is meant to be read by uninvolved parties. (Personally, I don't see a consensus for the move to the south asia title but then I'm an involved party!) --rgpk (comment) 23:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The placement of the content on the South Asia title was done several days ago, and not by me. N419BH 23:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
wait. it is too early to close this discusion. none of the editor commented on the previous move havent done so. --CarTick (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
This is an interim measure. If the consensus changes it can be undone. N419BH 23:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
no. i dont even understand your reading of the consensus. i never indicated support for moving the content. you will need to let the discussion go atleast for a week. this all looks really like a bad idea. someone suggested some place that the move requests are often carried out by administrators. --CarTick (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
My reading of the present consensus from a pure !vote count is as follows:
Overall Move:
Support: N419BH, Fowler, CarTick, Huon, Mar4d
Oppose: Zuggernaut
As for name preferences everyone except CarTick and Zuggernaut indicated support for South Asia.
The weight of arguments cleary falls in favor of South Asia over Indian Subcontinent.
Moves are done by admins when one of the pages is WP:SALTed or when a page needs to be deleted in the process. Since the former title still has a use in the new structure we don't need to have it deleted. N419BH 23:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry. like rgpk, i agree you mean well. i would request you to let an uninvolved editor close the discussion. sorry for being blunt. --CarTick (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support "List of Indian inventions and discoveries". Three reasons below ought to shed some light on why:
Few of the many meanings of the term "South Asia".
A. On large Encyclopedias:
1. Encyclopedia Britannica itself uses the term "India" to refer to the larger "South Asian" region in several articles (eg, history of India), that includes coverage of IVC etc. Encyclopedia Britannica also hosts 'Indian literature' and 'Indian philosophy' instead of 'South Asian'.
2. Another respectable encyclopedia, The Columbia Encyclopedia, also follows suit and contains 'Indian art and architecture' and 'Indian literature'. The term 'South Asia' is not found as an entry in this respectable source.
4. The most reliable encyclopedic sources on the subject, including Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, ed. Helaine Selin, Springer, have "Mathematics in India" written by G.G. Joseph or even "Architecture and Landscape in India" by Alexandra Mack.
B. In context of history of science, "India" has a much wider application. A few examples of the use of the term "India" in standard science and technology histories:
1. Science and technology in world history: an introduction by James Edward McClellan, Harold Dorn has 38 instances of "India".
2. The New Cambridge History of India (3): Science, Technology and Medicine in Colonial India has over 100 references to "India".
3. Zaheer Baber's The Science of Empire: Scientific Knowledge, Civilization, and Colonial Rule in India (State University of New York Press) has over 100 references to "India".
4. Deepak Kumar's chapter on India is quite simply titled "India" In: The Cambridge History of Science (4) - Eighteenth-Century Science, without making any issues as such.
5. From the US Library of Congress one comes across India with a detailed science and technology section covering IVC etc.
Obviously exertions can be made for more examples of leading scholars using the term "India" to be provided if need be.
C. As a term "South Asia" has no single meaning. It includes regions from Persia to Tibet. To harmonize all the varying definitions of South Asia will be impossible. It can never be achieved on Wikipedia.
Needless to say professional encyclopedias such as The Columbia Encyclopedia do not even contain the term. They do have 'Indian subcontinent' though.
The definitions of South Asia are too diverse and varied to warrant a mention here, on user generated Wikipedia where people will add and remove from their regions as they wish.

This move, and the debate around it, is a needless waste of time. Editors were right when they questioned the veracity of the content and wanted to add or delete items based on merit. That would have been a better use of such a capable gathering.

Regards,

115.240.23.156 (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
N419BH, i never supported page move. could you please show me when i did. --CarTick (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've already deleted the content from this article (it's been on the South Asia title for several days already), but since you object and RGPK indicated an issue with me being involved (which is a fair point), I will revert myself on this article. I am reading your support of the "Indian Subcontinent" title as support for the overall proposal, but that might be a reach. N419BH 23:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
for the record, i am 100% against moving this article. but i am for South Asian article. in other words, i want both Indian and South Asian list as two separate articles. that is my position. the issue is too complex. your proposals were made only yesterday and i would say we need atleast two more weeks since any consensus can be judged. and the consensus will have to be judged by comments made before and after your proposal. not just your proposal. the article has been having this title for over 4 years. --CarTick (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. The IP, btw, makes a VERY good point. N419BH 23:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
+ "South Asia" has too many meanings. Iran, Tibet will have to be included. And more. Do I have to have a username or is this ok? 115.240.23.156 (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
A username isn't required as far as I'm concerned. Just so long as your IP address doesn't change. N419BH 23:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It won't. Thanks for clarifying. 115.240.23.156 (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the IP, this move effort is a pure waste of time. everything has to have been invented by someone and how can we categorically say that things that are 3000 years old are invented by a specific person or a community in a specific place. Like Athenean removed a couple of entries just a while ago, when all the entries are subjected to that kind of scrutiny, we will end up with a much shorter list. by that time, nobody will be here to claim them anymore. --CarTick (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Let the 'list' be corrected. Its the debate over the 'title' that boggles the mind. What a spectacular waste of human effort, energy and (in some cases) emotion! I like being 'the IP' in all this though.115.240.23.156 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not as if "India" has fewer meanings than "South Asia". For example, John Keay's History of India, the book CarTick advised me to read, claims that even the British Raj, the largest of the empires in India listed, didn't control about 5% of it (diagram on page xxiii). I have no idea where those 5% are supposed to be located, but clearly to Keay "India" is not just the Republic of India or even the Republic of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh combined. Many of the supporters of a "Indian" name to this list argue for a pretty vague definition of India. This is precisely the ambiguity I think we should get rid of. Huon (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
See what I mean? Now I'll have to go through the Guptas, Mughals, and Mauryas all given in that very readable popular book that Keay wrote, which, has the term "India" in its title (single time) and body (multiple times). Not sure how useful his India: a History is here though. It hardly deals with India's sciences. Keay's contributions in context of science and technology in India may be better found in India Discovered: The Recovery of a Lost Civilization, which, also, has the term "India" in its title (single time) and body (multiple times).
Regards, 115.240.23.156 (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh and here is another good one by Keay on science and technology in India: The Great Arc: The Dramatic Tale of How India was Mapped and Everest was Named. Again Keay, undaunted by this spirited discussion, is ok with the use of the term "India" wherever he sees fit. 115.240.23.156 (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't dispute that Keay happily uses the term "India". But what does he actually mean by that, does he mean the same thing whenever he uses that term, and if not, should we too be deliberately ambiguous? I am almost tempted to go look for a 19th century book on inventions by Native Americans. I doubt there are any such books, but if so, they'll probably call the Native Americans, "Indians". Would we then be compelled to include those inventions in this list? Huon (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

See now you're getting the point. Just use India like Keay does. The rest belongs in a Debate over the term India article somewhere. Uncomplicate. 115.240.116.24 (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what, to Keay, is India? I'm not sure he is consistent in his use of the term, and I haven't seen him actually define what he means. How would I judge if a non-Keay source uses the same meaning of "India" as he does? Could you please further explain how a debate over the term "India" is less complicated than a debate over the term "Indian subcontinent" or the term "South Asia"? Huon (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow many questions. Keay is more or less using India in the sense of History of India. The book you read now is titled India:a History, See?
Have you read the Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, ed. Helaine Selin, Springer, btw?
I own a copy but its also there on google books somewhere.
What you requested in the last question I simply did not get.
115.240.116.24 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


Oh and since we're asking questions: How do you plan to keep out Tibet and Iran from South Asia? What if one definition of 'South Asia' compels me to include inventions from these parts into the current page?

The term "India" will never warrant a whole scale inclusion of those two but "South Asia" will. That's why we don't do South Asia.

115.240.116.24 (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't care so much about the title as about an agreed-upon scope which we can put in the lead for reference. For example, Gun Powder Ma's introduction to the list of South Asian inventions and discoveries states: "The area encompasses the modern-day states of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh." If we took the scope you propose per the History of India article which defines "India" as a shorthand for the Indian subcontinent (which itself is ambiguous), we end up with a list of inventions in the Indian subcontinent which we choose to call differently. I don't see how that is supposed to be useful to the reader. Huon (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The nice thing about Indian subcontinent is it is a geographically-defined term: the subcontinent of India aka the Indian tectonic plate. The borders of the area are the mountains surrounding aka the Himalayas. Using this definition for the area avoids the ambiguity of "India", and it is this reason why I support naming the article such. N419BH 01:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. That would indeed be one fixed scope which we could put in the lead. I don't think the IP is even opposed to this scope, it just seems to prefer not calling the Indian subcontinent, "Indian subcontinent". Huon (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Fully support the argument. Indian subcontinent being geographically defined: Agreed. Will support a move there if parties agree. I'll be out for a while so pardon if a quick reply does not reach. Morning here and out of cigarettes already.
But hope this 'title' debate ends soon. Wikipedians have better things to do says this IP.
115.240.116.24 (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


Currently three articles: List of South Asian inventions and discoveries, List of Indian inventions and discoveries, and List_of_Pakistani_inventions_and_discoveries#Indus_Valley_Civilisation have the exact same content (word for word).

They just exist because a naming debate got the better of some of the very best Wikipedians.

I propose that these three be merged and redirected to form a single Inventions and discoveries of/in the Indian subcontinent article.

For the simple reason that the notion, nature, scope, and extent of the term "Indian subcontinent" is unambiguous.

Content: Obviously pre-1947, before distinct and modern nation states emerged. The Post 1947 republics of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan etc. can have there own pages if people are energetic and knowledgeable enough. I see there already is a Pakistan page which is a welcome step in the right direction. I recall some of Pakistan's scientists having made some valuable contributions to science and may help if asked.

Good to see peace prevail,

115.240.98.219 (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, dear IP, why are you continuing to post as an IP? You seem far too familiar with Wikipedia to be considered an occasional IP visitor. Wiki platitudes about AGF aside, how do we know that you are not one of the signed-in editors, reappearing as an IP, and consequently, not practising here any of the legitimate forms of sockpuppeting? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
PS. Second, Britannica doesn't use "India" for everything, dear IP, it only does in its Indian History article, which has long been a part of the India page. For examples of the use of "South Asia," see my proposal statement in Requested move section. Third, "India subcontinent" is not the Indian tectonic plate. Rather it refers collectively to India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka (and possibly Nepal and Bhutan.). Not all these countries lie (in their entirety) on the Indian plate. Most of Baluchistan does not, nor does Mustang (kingdom) in Nepal, but both do lie on the Indian subcontinent because Pakistan and Nepal, respectively, do. The usage "subcontinent" predates "tectonic plates" by a century and was formerly applied to "South Africa," which is not on its own plate. Also, the Indian subcontinent does include Sri Lanka, which the old term "India" does not. As I've already indicated, the term "India" is itself imprecise. It has meant different geographical regions in different historical periods. What is regarded as India in the history books today is essentially what the British chose to include under "India" in the history books they wrote for the educational institutions of their Indian dominions. Consequently, what "India" meant in James Stuart Mill's 1823 History of British India is quite different from what it meant in Vincent Smith's Oxford History of India published a century later. None of the terms, "South Asia," "Indian subcontinent," or "India" are precise. The Britannica articles on "South Asian mathematics" and "South Asian arts," simply define what they mean by South Asia. The former does not include Sri Lanka in its definition; the latter does. We too can define it in the "South Asian" list lead, much as we would need to in any of the other versions of this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

similar case

i would like to bring to note to the editor closing this case to look at a similar case, when an effort was made to move History of India to History of the Indian subcontinent failed. the link is here. 16th section in Archive 4. --CarTick (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, so then per that precedent we should have this list for pre-1947 and a List of the Republic of India's inventions and discoveries per History of the Republic of India. Plan? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
CarTick, Closing which case? The page move to South Asia was not implemented. The page move to "Indian subcontinent" you seem to be supporting yourself. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
PS Chipmunk, Please read Talk:List_of_Indian_inventions_and_discoveries/Archive_2#Proposal Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking through the archives, they've been funfunfun. Anyway, the solution everyone's not mentioned is to copy everything pre-1947 to the Pakistan page as well. That would make sure that all successors to British India get their equal treatment in regards to ancient inventions, and this page can keep both definitions of India in a complicated mash. Arguments against CarTick? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
That actually is a clever solution. However, don't expect the Wiki India-nationalists to roll over and play dead. They don't take kindly to the history of Pakistan beginning any time before midnight August 14, 1947. Also, as you must have already discovered, India-related pages tend to be plagued with the "All Chiefs and no Indians" disease. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
i support subcontinent? please read this post above (17:22, 1 April 2011). I dont care how Pakistani list will look like. having not read scholarly books on "History of Pakistan" i have no opinion. Fowler, intended or not, your uninformed page move request pitted Indian and Pakistani editors against each other. Indian history comes to my mind. may be Indian editors dont have as much time as some pseudo-academics, but at least they will make sure it is not overrun by wiki-English neocolonialists. --CarTick (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see your post of 17:22, 1 April 2011. Many apologies. I guess we agree on some of the issues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(od) I wouldn't mind copying the History of India solution: Make one list under the "India" title which deals with the pre-1947 inventions on the subcontinent (which would be clarified in the lead) and have a separate list under "List of inventions and discoveries in the Republic of India" which deals with the post-1947 stuff. I still think that it'd be smarter to have the page which deals with the subcontinent under "Indian subcontinent" and the page dealing with the Republic of India under "India" (just as the Republic of India is found under India), but if the other solution is preferred, so be it - as long as the article scope is well-defined, I can live with it. I'm not sure whether that makes me an India-nationalist, but I strongly oppose duplicating the same inventions on India and Pakistan lists. Firstly, determining what makes a certain pre-1947 invention "Pakistani" could become a nightmare. Secondly, I expect the "India" list would still cover inventions made before 1947 in what is now Pakistan, and we would still have the bizarre 1947 shift of article scope from "subcontinent" to "Republic". Huon (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Inventions

I think contributions to Mathematics, Medicine and Science are inventions and not disoveries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.33.107 (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Concluding the Title Debate

On personal identity

Since my identity has been questioned a few sentences: Two years ago I used to be user:JSR. I choose to operate at this instant as an IP because I cannot remember my password or e-mail which I made for Wikipedia. Needless to say that I can't log in. I won't make another account here because I work very hard as a journalist and have not had time to contribute since I retired, and doubt that I will in the coming years as well.

Of course I cannot prove that I am user:JSR. This is an entirely different internet connection and entirely different location where my work took me. People will have to take that on face value or ignore that I ever said it.

On the options available

Gathering from all of what has been said above the following can be conclusively said:

1. That "South Asia" is unworkable and will have to be rejected is certain. Too many definitions stretching from Iran to Tibet exist. Inclusion of inventions + discoveries from all these areas is going to be impossible. Moreover, perfectly respectable encyclopedias such as The Columbia Encyclopedia, or even the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, choose to reject even the inclusion of "South Asia" as an entry.

2 "Indian subcontinent" can be used. This is by far the most precise definition that we have out of the three. However, as Fowler&fowler points out, will lead to deletion of all inventions from Mehrgarh.

3 "India" can be used but this term must be equated with History of India rather than the Republic of India. Overwhelming scholarly consensus exists on using the term "India" in context of historical science and technology. The post 1947 nation states get their own articles. If "India" is used then inventions from Mehrgarh can also be included because it was a part of the History of India.

Personal choices and rationale

I was ok with "Indian subcontinent" but given Fowler&fowler's alarm on inventions from Mehrgarh being left out I personally say just use "India" in terms of "History of India". Merge List of South Asian inventions and discoveries and List_of_Pakistani_inventions_and_discoveries#Indus_Valley_Civilisation to List of Indian inventions and discoveries. Leave well enough alone. Follow the example of History of science and technology in India, Science and technology in the Republic of India, and Science and technology in Pakistan.

However, if use of "Indian subcontinent" appeases the sentiments of a chosen few then I have no real problems with it as well. It would be a shame to not have inventions and discoveries of people from Mehrgarh though. If editors feel that their constant efforts in this debate must result in some change then I'll go along albeit with a heavy heart.

Finally, please stay on-topic without accusing each other of wrongdoing this time. Let us try and reach consensus in this section itself. Take a side don't sit on the fence. Briefly select the title of the article we keep. Lets form a final and conclusive consensus on either "India" or the "Indian subcontinent".

Once that's done we act on it, merge, then get on with our lives. This title debate has already lived for more than its natural life.

115.240.86.25 (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It has got way too complicated. Now I am not so sure about supporting the move to South Asia! Keeping in view all the geographical constraints/pre-conditions of inclusion, I tend to agree with what JSR is saying. Shovon (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
There appears no clear (=overall) majority for any name, so we may consider voting again on the basis of a relative majority. However, to do so first requires all participants agreeing that the final outcome is binding for all, otherwise it's not worth it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Copy-pasting Indus Valley inventions into both a Pakistani and Indian list is senseless because a) The republic of Pakistan itself did not exist prior to 1947 and the meaning of the term 'Pakistani' is very recent. b) the Republic of India did not exist before 1947 either and 'India' (in the modern sense) carries a very recent definition too as well as the fact that most of IVC didn't exist along modern India c) It would result in duplication along various pages which is unneccessary. I have already argued that a neutral title needs to be made and the Republic of India cannot be lumped with the IVC on the same page because that historically doesn't make sense. Having said that, I still support the Republic of India and Pakistan having their own seperate post 1947 lists. Everything pre-1947 (including IVC) needs to be moved somewhere else and if Indian subcontinent is the agreed term, then I confer my support; Indian subcontinent also carries a clearer definition as opposed to India. I am starting to get weary of repeating the same arguments over and over again and agree with the IP that this discussion needs a quick outcome. Mar4d (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Towards a solution: The vote can be conclusive. However choice only needs to exist between "India" and "Indian subcontinent". "South Asia" will have to be ignored as an option for it is unworkable because it quite simply is the broadest term encompassing all geographical entities from Iran to Tibet. The scholarly consensus is in terms of history of science and technology is also with the term "India".
My reading of Mar4d based on his well articulated post above is that he supports Indian subcontinent.
My stance, as articulated earlier, is: Preference 1: India. The term must be equated with History of India rather than the Republic of India. The post 1947 nation states get their own articles.
My case is unique for I have an additional preference to act as a well intentioned and quick tie-breaker if need be, i. e., Preference 2: Indian subcontinent. Most precise term that we have. The post 1947 nation states get their own articles.
If all others make their preferences known like Mar4d and I have then we'll have a set of actionable preferences. This debate can then die within the next 48 hours. 115.240.109.72 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I support 115.240.109.72/User:JSR's proposal. I would ask that Fowler treat IPs per WP:AGF. A couple of comments before we take JSR's approach:
  • Please read the how-to guide on splitting and use one to the templates found there such as {{Move portions}}, {{Splitsections}} , {{Split section}}, {{Split-apart}}, {{Split2}}, etc to make a proper, structured, well-organized and unambiguous move request or multiple move requests.
  • We also need to ensure that the previous move request is closed so that people are not confused with the multiple moves/splitting requests. If we are OK with this, I can post at WT:IN to ask an editor to close the previous move request. If none can be found, we can nominate one of those who are active now to close it (I am okay with 115.240.109.72/User:JSR closing the previous move request).
Zuggernaut (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid, the IP/JSR is either unaware or is being disingenuous. Britannica (the adult version) has a long article on "South Asian mathematics" by Kim Plofker, and a very very long article on "South Asian arts" collectively written by A. K. Ramanujan, J. A. B. van Buitenen, the Harvard art historian Promod Chandra, and others. South Asia doesn't stretch from Iran to Tibet. It has fewer meanings than pre-1947 "India." In one of them (the UN's), Iran is included, but not Tibet. In others, such as Burt Stein's History of India, or Kulke and Rothermun's History of India it is just the modern name for the old India. According to the Wikipedia South Asia page, it is the same thing as the Indian subcontinent. The main problem with the "Indian subcontinent" is that it is primarily a geographical term. There is no precedent on Wikipedia for using it in a political sense. There is only one page other than Indian subcontinent that has "Indian subcontinent" in it, and it is a list of earthquakes. Besides, there is five times less frequency for "Indian subcontinent" in the secondary sources than there is for "South Asia". There is no Wiki-argument for preferring it to "South Asia." I would support having a separate IVC (including Mehrgarh) list. As I've already stated earlier, outside of the Indus Valley Civilization, there was little interest in technology in the region of what today is India-Pakistan-Bangladesh, until the arrival of the Muslims in the 12th century. Even that was minuscule compared to the state of things once the British arrived. Ancient Indian culture had other strengths (philosophy, religion, mathematics), but not technology. Even stitched clothes arrived with Islam. There were no arch bridges in ancient India. No interest was shown in the Roman arch. The Muslims were the first to build rudimentary (Gothic) arch bridges on the subcontinent. If IVC will have a separate page, then the measly list post-IVC to 1947 can be called anything people want, I don't particularly care, since it doesn't have much in it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Britannica's long article on the History of Technology has just this much to say about India:

Islam also provided a transmission belt for some of the technology of East and South Asia, especially that of India and China. The ancient Hindu and Buddhist cultures of the Indian subcontinent had long-established trading connections with the Arab world to the west and came under strong Muslim influence themselves after the Mughal conquest in the 16th century. Indian artisans early acquired an expertise in ironworking and enjoyed a wide reputation for their metal artifacts and textile techniques, but there is little evidence that technical innovation figured prominently in Indian history before the foundation of European trading stations in the 16th century.

Like I said. This ultimately is much ado about nothing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Right now, I don't see more support for "Indian subcontinent" than for either "South Asian" or "Indian". If "Indian subcontinent" were indeed more popular, then certainly its supporters would not mind setting up an offical move request to demonstrate this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I will remain outside of the Wiki-realm till the 6th of this month. Good to see genuine academic discourse coming from the respectable veteran Fowler&fowler. I will submit a full rebuttal of my own to make things clearer with only the most reliable sources published as soon as possible. They will require exertion which I can presently not take. Work pressure and prior engagements such as these were the original reason for my departure. My compliments to Fowler&fowler who manages to edit here after work and family responsibilities. For he seems to be made of far tougher material than I am. It would be further welcome if he assumes as good of my intentions as I do of his. 115.242.5.225 (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


On Fowler&fowler 4 April 2011

Authors (in order of appearance)

A list of authors was presented by Fowler&fowler 4 April 2011 for support of the "South Asia" title. Their seminal works with brief description are found below:

Author Sample Comments
Kim Plofker Mathematics in India (Princeton University Press, 2009) The use of Kim Plofker as an argument for displacing "India" in the title is erroneous. She herself prefers the use of "India" for the title of her book Mathematics in India.
A. K. Ramanujan The many faces of Murukan̲: the history and meaning of a South Indian god (co-authored with F. W. Clothey, Walter de Gruyter, 1978) If Ramanujan is to be taken as a protagonist of the displace "India" hypothesis then he fares very badly indeed. He has been using "India" as a title of not only the sample mentioned here but for others as well. Examples: Folktales from India : a selection of oral tales from twenty-two languages (Pantheon Books, 1991) and A Flowering Tree and Other Oral Tales from India (University of California Press, 1997).
J. A. B. van Buitenen Tales of Ancient India (University of Chicago Press, 1969) van Buitenen's masterpiece. Needless to point towards the use of "India" in the title again.
Pramod Chandra The sculpture of India, 3000 B.C.-1300 A.D. (National Gallery of Art, 1985) It turns out that the formidable historian Chandra has been using "India" in the title as well. Not "South Asia". Other examples: On the study of Indian art (Harvard University Press, 1983) and Studies in Indian temple architecture: papers presented at a seminar held in Varanasi, 1967 (American Institute of Indian Studies, 1975)

By the evidence gathered above it becomes crystal clear that the very authors cited in support for a change to "South Asia" for the article title, in fact, prefer to use "India" for the titles of their own scholarly contributions.

The 'Five Times Frequency' hypothesis

For a change to "South Asia" it is claimed that 'there is five times less frequency for "Indian subcontinent" in the secondary sources than there is for "South Asia"'. This hypothesis is inaccurate because it assumes that Google book search numbers form a conclusive result. Though results of such an experiment are, in reality, far from conclusive the data gathered using this method is as follows:

  • For "India": 15,800,000 results
  • For "South Asia": 553,000 results
  • For "Indian subcontinent": 120,000 results

Therefore it is clear that "India" leads the results. By no less than over 28 times the frequency of "South Asia".

Encyclopedia

Encyclopedia South Asia India Indian subcontinent
The Columbia Encyclopedia Entry does not exist Entry exists Entry exists
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia Entry does not exist Entry exists Entry exists
Encyclopedia Britannica Entry exists Entry exists Entry exists

Conclusion

Though I will keep busy till the 6th of this month I found that it is not necessary for me to exert myself to submit a full rebuttal since the arguments for the "South Asia" title do not stand scrutiny. I want to point out that even the veteran editor Fowler&fowler 3 April 2011 himself notes that: 'The Britannica articles on "South Asian mathematics" and "South Asian arts," simply define what they mean by South Asia. The former does not include Sri Lanka in its definition; the latter does.' Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka out can be done there but not here.

"South Asia" just became unworkable for a number of more reasons than I originally provided.

The choice is between "India" and "Indian subcontinent". I urge others to make up their minds and move forward. This debate is over and so should be our efforts and exertions.

As an IP I have obvious problems making move requests and such. These formalities are best handled by named users such as user: Shovon76 or user:N419BH. It is also emphasized that the arguments above were made in the spirit of academic discourse and should be received as such.

Regards, 115.242.97.96 (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by this evidence. Firstly, titles of works are much less relevant than what the actual text says. There, I was most impressed by the Burt Stein quote Fowler&fowler gave above which explicitly addressed the naming of the region. The Google Books search is completely meaningless because while I'm not surprised that "India" leads, one cannot tell what those books mean by "India". We'll get lots of books that deals with the Republic of India (seven of the first ten hits do so), but this article shall not just cover the Republic, shall it? Similarly, the encyclopedias which don't have South Asia entries both cover the Republic of India under "India", and the articles themselves actually support "South Asia" as an article name:
I also don't see why we shouldn't be able to define South Asia (or the Indian subcontinent, or whatever title we actually choose) to include what we want to cover, as long as the list is consistent about the inclusion criteria. I'm pretty sure that no matter what we ultimately want to cover, we'll find a reliable source that names it whatever we want to name it. Huon (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I never bought forward those authors. They were proposed to me as protagonists for putting "South Asia" in the title.
Needless to say the very authors bought to support "South Asia" in the title were found to use "India" for their own titles. The scope of their work is consistent with using "India" in terms of "History of India"
The 'title' is of utmost importance here since this is a 'title' debate, a needlessly long one.
"South Asia" is unworkable because it has a bewildering range of meanings across a breathtaking geographical scope stretching from Iran to Tibet. We may choose one definition but it will always be open to being challenged and upset by another competing one because there are simply too many.
As for Burton Stein: He himself uses the term "India" in his famous A History of India. His inclusion to the 'title' debate is in favor of using the term "India" equated to history of India. Hundreds of mentions of the term "India" occur throughout the same book.
"India" equated to "History of India" is the most used option. "Indian subcontinent" is the most precise. "South Asia" is a needless irritant that does not even exist as an entry in The Columbia Encyclopedia or the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia.
Others please make your opinions known like user:Mar4d (Indian subcontinent), User:CarTick (India), User:N419BH (Indian subcontinent, 01:37, 2 April 2011) and I (India or Indian subcontinent) have.
We have all the facts we need to head towards a close now. Let's get this closed conclusively.
115.240.11.251 (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I first thought that user:JSR/IP was not aware; now I do think he is cherry-picking deliberately. I'm well aware of Kim Plofker's book, having used in the Indian mathematics page. It doesn't matter what Plofker's book is called, her Britannica article is called "South Asian mathematics." Why is that important? Because, for naming purposes, tertiary sources are more important than secondary ones and Wikipedia guidelines say so. The Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English) says, "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works) ...." Earlier versions of the guideline were even more explicit, they simply said "other encyclopedias and reference works," and not in parentheses. The more general WP:Article titles page says, "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals, ..." The major tertiary sources are now using "South Asia" for descriptions involving history of arts and sciences, as I've indicated above. Again, it doesn't matter whether the authors of the "South Asian arts" article have (in their other writings) used "India" or not, what matters is that in their Britannica (tertiary source) article, they have collectively signed off on "South Asian arts." Please, JSR/IP don't go cherry picking wildly. Please consider the argument first. Columbia Encylopedia is now a dead encyclopedia. It hasn't been revised in decades. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Am I supposed to now cite examples from the formidable Encyclopedia of India or Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures? Kindly give me the word.
Since you want to limit the source type to tertiary would it help if a list of a dozen encyclopedia be bought forth which discredit the "South Asia" terminology? It can be done though it would be an exertion that would take some time, say two days.
It is well known by now that "South Asia" does not even merit an entry in The Columbia Encyclopedia or the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia.
Finally, the claim 'Columbia Encyclopedia is now a dead encyclopedia. It hasn't been revised in decades' also does not stand scrutiny.
The "Muhammad Ali Jinnah" entry in The Columbia Encyclopedia has J. Singh, Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence (2010) in its bibliography.
115.240.11.251 (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The Columbia Encyclopedia, as its Wikipedia page informed us, had its last major revision in 1963. Its last minor revision was in 1999-2000. There are no references in it later than 1999, including in its Jinnah page. I can't imagine the Columbia Encyclopedia referring to a Hindu Nationalist pseudo-historian's book, no matter when it was published. Anyway, I've wasted enough time on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh sorry to know you feel that way. BTW The newer revisions to The Columbia Encyclopedia even include Bobby Jindal as an entry. That took even me by surprise. Singh, mentioned in Jinnah's bibliography, has a reputation all right but his Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence did get published by Oxford University Press after the first edition (Rupa and co.) gained publicity. 115.240.11.251 (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Indian_inventions_and_discoveries/Archive_4&oldid=1211785482"