Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indo-Greek Kingdom/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 13:16, 20 November 2007.

---

Indo-Greek Kingdom

Review commentary

All Wikiprojects notified. User:PHG notified.

I am nominating this article for the given reasons:

• (1a) - ""Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." At the moment I think that the article is struggling to meet this criteria, there are some really long sentences and some paragraphs with only one sentence. Some sentences use words like "even" "seem to" "seemingly" and "allegedly" which should be ironed out.
• (1c) does not have really enough citations for such a long, long article. Some paragraphs are uncited.
• (1e) "stability" - well atm there are edit wars from time to time.
• (2b) Four levels of headings may be too much.
• (2c) Citations are at times inconsistent and incomplete
• (4) A long article, might be too long

• (2c/d) ?? I am not sure of this, but the article has been the long term subject of an edit war, and allegations that the article is pro-Greek have been raised. For the record, User_talk:Blnguyen#Re:_Indo_greek_Kingdom

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done*(1c) has been addressed (now 100 citations for 41kb)

 Done*(2b) has been addressed (now 3 levels of heading)

 Done*(4) has been addressed (the body of the article is now 41kb) PHG 11:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blnguyen. It is going to be difficult to address these points if you keep blocking the article. This article is a great FA, which of course could receive some improvement.

• (1a) We could go through a general edit of the text to iron out issues.
• (1c) This article already has 113 references. By FA standards, I would think it is already quite large.
• (1e) The article has been stable for the last few months, until new disruption by Devanampriya. Some users (Devanampriya) want to impose an original research minimalist map. Most other users (including myself) prefer a highly referenced map incorporating three reputable sources.
• (2b) I didn't know levels of heading should be a issue for an FA, especially for a long article.
• (4) We could shorten the article by creating sub-articles if necessary.

• (2c/d) The edit warring is essentially coming from a vandal or quasi-vandal User:Devanampriya (case under discussion at [1]) PHG 17:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am happy to unlock this article if people will vow to engage in nontrivial content and changes and only do the presentation related cleanups. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Devanampriya

• It is neither helpful nor civil to be referring to Devanampriya as a vandal. Content disputes are not vandalism. Based on my brief look at the article, there appears to be a legitimate dispute about the map boundaries that are displayed at the top of the page. PHG seems to want to include a map which has borders that indicate a much larger Indo-Greek kingdom than is usually displayed in other reliable sources. Devanampriya also seems to have legitimate concerns that some facts are being misrepresented in the article, and further, Devanampriya appears to have sources to back up his opinion. I cannot say whether Devanampriya is right or wrong, and I definitely cannot say that Devanampriya has always been presenting his concerns in the most civil way possible (he obviously has not). But, the concerns appear to be legitimate issues of neutrality and undue weight, and should not simply be belittled as vandalism. see WP:VANDAL#What vandalism is not. --Elonka 17:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid Devanampriya is, by Wikipedia definition, a vandal, who also enters into content dispute. First of all User:Devanampriya has also been claiming “Vandalism” towards respectable users such as User:Aldux, User:Sponsianus, User:Giani g or myself. Is he technically a “Vandal”? (according to Wikipedia policy, cf Wikipedia policy#Types of vandalism). I would say probably yes. He resorts to Blanking extensively, by deleting referenced material that he dislikes [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], although I am sure you would argue he at least gives a (usually uncivil) reason to his blanking. He resorts extensively to Discussion page vandalism (To User:Giani g: “You have no knowledge about the subject matter but simply parrot PHG's positions and unleash invective upon me.” To User:Sponsianus: “The only thing nonsensical is your affected claims of objectivity, sponsy” To PHG: “Your claims to fairness are the equivalent of including nazi eugenics theories in modern biology” , “your narrow-mindedness”, “your raging philhellenism in your quest to subvert history”, “you and many of these pseudo-historians”, all this is a sampling of Talk:Indo-Greek Kingdom). He resorts to User space vandalism through various insults of the same kind. He resorts to Edit summary vandalism by making offensive comments there (one of the definitions of vandalism indeed): To Giani g: “you are ignorant in these matters, so stop inserting inaccuracies.” To Kannauj: “it's called fanwank”, To Aldux:”you steamroll over dissent. You are not an objective admin. Recuse yourself”, To PHG ”removed eurocentric fanwank”, all on [8]). And of course Malicious account creation (sock-puppet cases in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Devanampriya to overturn the 3R rule, one of which is detailed hereunder, worthy of account suspension Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User : Devanampriya). PHG 19:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudeness is not vandalism. Violating 3RR is not vandalism. Content disputes are not vandalism. Now, if you think Devanampriya has violated 3RR (and I have not seen any proof of that, even taking the anon edits into account), then take it to WP:AN3RR. But again, please stop referring to Devanampriya as a vandal. It's uncivil, and is not helpful at resolving this dispute. --Elonka 19:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just one example. Making offensive comments in edit summaries is considered as Edit summary vandalism and is a recognized example of Vandalism as per Wikipedia. Check Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism. PHG 19:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Edit summary vandalism is when someone does something like putting in a summary, "John is a jackass, call him for yourself and find out, here's his phone number ###-###-####". Simple rudeness in an edit summary is not vandalism. Content disputes are not vandalism. What vandalism is, is when someone removes a picture and replaces it with a photo of someone's genitals. Vandalism is when someone replaces every other word with a 4-letter epithet. Vandalism is deliberately changing someone's birthyear to 2300. Vandalism is blanking an entire page and replacing it with, "Haha you wankers." Those kinds of things are vandalism (and occur hundreds, if not thousands of times per day on Wikipedia). Disagreements about content, are not vandalism. Now, if someone continues being rude in edit summaries or elsewhere, you should give them warnings at their talkpage, and include diffs of the problematic language. If you have multiple examples of warnings (especially if from multiple users), and the behavior doesn't change, you can report them for incivility at WP:ANI. If that doesn't work, you can start a User Conduct RfC on them, and in particularly egregious cases, if all else has failed and someone just refuses to tone down their rhetoric, you can take them to ArbCom, and the uncivil user could potentially be completely banned from editing on Wikipedia. But that still wouldn't make them a vandal. --Elonka 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you kindly respond to specifics? Wikipedia does say that making offensive comments in edit summaries is considered as Edit summary vandalism and is a recognized example of Vandalism as per Wikipedia, on Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism. Devanampriya has been leaving plenty of offensive comments in his edit summaries (actually, mostly offensive comments). Show me a Wikipedia policy that says this is not vandalism. PHG 19:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's called incivility, which is much more serious. But this is largely a verbal dispute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• To return to the issues at hand: I'm not sure this is the best, or even a workable, forum for an article with a content dispute. It is very hard to review a protected article, and it will encourage our worst tendencies to sit back and demand other people do the work; FAR is intended to improve articles, preferably in large things, but also in small, and a protected article cannot be improved. May I suggest a Request for Mediation? I will gladly join, as an independent reviewer of the sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

May I comment that this FA Review nomination of Indo-Greek kingdom is the result of a request made by our vandal/sock-pupetter/blanker User:Devanampriya to User:Blnguyen?... nothing glorious indeed, but I'm glad Elonka rejoices about it. PHG 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious review that I am attempting to undertake. I am not making this a smokescreen FAR to facilitate harassment. The fact is that two concerns raised. I am raising concerns about the writing and style of the article and not the validity of the content contained therein. Devanamapriya has his own complaints, which may or may not be frivolous. He is going to raise these anyway, so both may as well be done at the same time. PHG, you are a serious contributor so it is best that you only be subjected to one set of paperwork rather than two. I have style concerns about this article and its FA status. Perhaps you do not take this FAR seriously on the writing and presentation issues I have raised... At Wikipedia:Featured article review/Greco-Buddhism, I raised similar concerns about the referencing but you appeared to be confident that the references that were already there were sufficient and you only renovated the article for one day. And later it got delisted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just on the issue of references, in the old days people didn't care so much for them, but they do now. But for the record, in case it might be thought that this is a smokescreen excuse, here are the referencing stats for the 3 FAs that I wrote myself.

• Ian Thorpe: 41k main text; 168 distinct footnotes; 240 footnotes when used multiple times -> One ref for every 0.1708k main text
• Harbhajan Singh: 36.5k main text; 130 distinct footnotes; 200 footnotes when used multiple times -> One ref for every 0.182k main text
• Pham Ngoc Thao: 18.14k main text; 28 distinct footnotes; 39 footnotes when used multiple times -> One ref for every 0.465k main text
• Indo-Greek Kingdom: 94.3k main text; 113 footnotes -> One ref for every 0.835k main text

So the level of referencing is lower than what I tend to expect of myself, and I am not expecting something of another which I am not expecting of myself. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done The article currently has 100 refs for 41kb of content, making it one ref for every 0.41k of main text. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to give Blnguyen more credit than that. Blnguyen is a seasoned administrator, and isn't going to take an action just because a single user makes a complaint. Blnguyen's comments for the justification of the FAR (as posted at the top of this page) appear thoughtful and reasoned. And I too agree that the article has been the subject of disputes, and that a Review seems a reasonable option at this point. --Elonka 23:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

They amount to:

• Not well written
  • In fact, it's better written than several articles we just promoted.
  • There are a few minor points which should be dealt with, once the article's unprotected; but they can wait.
• Sentences like By around 312 BCE Chandragupta had established his rule in large parts of the northwestern Indian territories. are unsourced.
  • And so they can be; that's common knowledge in the field, per WP:WHEN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• There is an edit war.
  • So there is; but we should not permit edit wars to demote FAs. To do so would reward edit warriors. There is another instance on this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have struck the concern over the edit war, since it may be taken to be the fact that it rewards edit-warring and stone-walling tactics. In any case, I think the fact that there is a neutrality concern by another person is sufficient here, which I am not endorsing and am not in a position to comment on the content. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the vandalism point, I've ages ago discovered in wikipedia that even in presence of editors manifesting blatant and undiscussed patterns of disruption to a point that is without doubt vandalism, it's better to abstain from using the word vandalism, because using it is of no use for making understand anything. The problem here is, as Septentrionalis noted, in uncivility, and it's an enormous problem; personally, I hardly remember Devanampriya ever being civil, and this from the beginning (so no Elonka, Devanampriya isn't a poor angel provoked by an evil PHG), and has on at least two occasions resorted to mass canvassing among Indian editors, on May 19 2007 and September 8 2006. While I'm disappointed with Elonka, I must agree fully, 100% and even more, that what you said regarding Blnguyen is deeply unjust. Blnguyen is something more than a good editor: he's one of the most sensible I've met in these years in wikipedia, and when he was chosen for the ArbCom I was greatly happy, because it meant there would be a guy who knew what disputes and edit-wars were, and hadn't just made VfD. As I've already said, Blnguyen's actions are perfectly legitimate, and any admin should have done the same in similar circumstances: and keep in mind he hasn't endorsed Devanampriya's objections but simply exposed them. The other criticisms can be easily dealt with, as Septentrionalis has observed.--Aldux 17:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to the FAR, I am not making a comment on the intellectual validity of this piece of work, nor do I want to impugn anyone with vague inferences of intellectual skulduggery. I have been a regular crew-member at T:DYK for 16 months and I have been AGF the work done by PHG, since I have been selecting his work for display when it has been submitted, and if I did not pick one of his articles, it was not due to POV concerns. I have removed my concern over the stability issue, since it may be seen to encourage people, on this article or elsewhere, to simply revert arbitrarily or out of malice to try and scupper an FA. But simply in looking at the article, I felt that the presentation of the article needs improvement and it would reduce paperwork if all issues relating to the article would be dealt with and cleared out efficiently in one go instead of having a second load of paperwork for no reason. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, the main concerns, are with referencing, and while they may be considered to be more stringent than most reviewers (since I certainly have a higher rate of opposing FACs and GACs than most people), compared to the expectations I put on my own FACs, I do not feel that I am giving worse than I expect from others.

• Eg, "The supposition that such highly Hellenistic and, at the same time Buddhist, works of art belong to the Indo-Greek period would be consistent with the known Buddhist activity of the Indo-Greeks (the Milinda Panha etc...), their Hellenistic cultural heritage which would naturally have induced them to produce extensive statuary, their know artistic proficiency as seen on their coins until around 50 BCE, and the dated appearance of already complex iconography incorporating Hellenistic sculptural codes with the Bimaran casket in the early 1st century CE."
• "The Greco-Buddhist art of Gandhara, beyond the omnipresence of Greek style and stylistic elements which might be simply considered as an enduring artistic tradition, offers numerous depictions of people in Greek Classical realistic style, attitudes and fashion (clothes such as the chiton and the himation, similar in form and style to the 2nd century BCE Greco-Bactrian statues of Ai-Khanoum, hairstyle), holding contraptions which are characteristic of Greek culture (amphoras, "kantaros" Greek drinking cups), in situations which can range from festive (such as Bacchanalian scenes) to Buddhist-devotional."

• This is commentary/analysis, which I presume reflects the views of one or more suitably qualified scholars. It is not hard raw fact or raw data. Since what is known of the Indo-Greeks comes archaeological fragments and analysis/extrapolation/hypothesising from the partial data, this article is packed with similar bits of prose. This is why there are words like "regarded" "might be" "..would be consistent" are non-trivial, and need to be sourced meticulously. There are many such paragraphs, some consecutively, that are uncited and contain many things such as analysis, postulations, which are not black and white, and are yet uncited.

Secondly, the references are not filled out completely and are rather inconsistent.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• These sentences are indeed worth discussing. They may well be consensus of the sources; I haven't read most of them.
• The argument about Megasthenes is so weak that I suspect the source has been misunderstood:
  • Megasthenes was not "mid 3rd century BC". He represented Seleucus Nicator at the court of Chandragupta, who was a conqueror himself (and most conquerors have large armies), and who was facing Seleucus, the master of the Middle East, at a time when no Indo-Greek state existed. Chandragupta's army shows, not how formidable the Indo-Greeks were, but how hard their task could have become.
• Shouldn't it be Indo-Greek kingdoms? There is no proof there was only one, and some evidence there wasn't.
• I agree the references should be tweaked; for example, the quotation from Athenaeus in the notes should be indicated as such. (This is less serious than it might be, because it links directly to the page with the text.)
• The map should probably be replaced by one showing placenames but no boundaries. Given the evidence, any claim on boundaries is guesswork; preferably the guesswork of reliable sources, but why map guesswork at all?

All these, and placement of {{cn}} tags to show which sentences Blnguyen is concerned about, will be much easier to deal with if the article is unprotected. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment (I'm back from two days out). Plenty of books do show boundaries for the Indo-Greeks (and personally know only one map with names only), so I still favour a map with boundaries, even if there are uncertainties (like many ancient maps anyway). Hence the depiction of the various interpretations in map B. Blnguyen, I'll be glad to put in additional reference, if you can lift the article block. Regards to all. PHG 18:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Greek names should be transliterated consistently; if "Antiochus" and "Demetrius", why "Deimakos"? (Having noticed this one, I'll fix it; but why do it in the first place?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson (sig added later).
• Also, it violates WP:GREEK, which while not official policy, is a naming convention that estabilishes that Latinized names should be used, which "is considered a standard that all users should follow". As for the rename, I'm not very convinced by Septentrionalis proposed name, if a rename is done I would prefer simply Indo-Greeks.--Aldux 01:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That's probably a better idea, although these were certainly kingdoms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• More seriously, why is Demetrius I called anicetus with no mention of Narain's insistence that "Demetrius anicetus" is Demetrius II, only? Reading the sources after the article should not produce surprises. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Demetrius I, "ANIKETOS", i.e. "Invincible" (Pedigree coin minted by Agathocles). PHG 10:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Bopearachchi on Demetrius II Aniketos: Collin Kraay attributed the coin to a 3rd Demetrios, Senior ignores the difference between the first and the second Demetrios, although he mentions the portrait looks different, Bopearachchi attributes it to a second Demetrios, circa 100 av JC. Since you're making the above comment, I suppose that you are not aware that Agathokles minted pedigree coins of the first Demetrius (I) with the adjective "ANIKETOS" (See Bopearachchi, and my photograph of one of these coins at the British Museum here). This is actually the first "Demetrius Aniketos" to be documented. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This omits the attribution of the coins to Demetrius II, who was also before Agathocles. But all this should be in the text of the article, not here; what it has now is a statement of fact, assigning them to Demetrius I. That's one view, not the consensus of authority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi PMAnderson. As far as I know the majority view is that Demetrius II was not before Agathocles. Only if Demetrius I and Demetrius II are considered the same can this conclusion be reached (Whitehead, Senior) It was already in the note in the article. PHG 18:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• More seriously still, this seems to be an unwarranted attempt at synthesis. Tarn, Narain, and Bopearachchi disagree, sometimes quite seriously, on the dating and sequence of these kings; we should say this - it is irresponsible not to. We should say, much more clearly than is ever done, that the length of kings' reigns is, for most of them, a pure conjecture from the quantity of coin finds. Overstrikes, and joint strikes, are suggestive, but not conclusive, evidence for sequence; they do not, of course, prove duration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As an example of the approach that we could be taking, I quote Brill's New Pauly on Hermaeus: The last of the Indo-Greek kings in Paropamisadai (modern south-east Afghanistan) in the 1st cent. BC, perhaps a son of Amyntas [8]. Like so many of the Indo-Greek kings, he is only known through his coins, a large amount of which were issued postumously by Indo-Scythians from Bactria, who had removed him (according to [Tarn] after 30, according to [Narain] around 50, according to [Bopearachchi] around 70 BC). He was married to Calliope.
• Why, and on what secondary authority, is the Life of Apollonius of Tyana being treated as a reliable source for India? I grant that, next to Chaucer and Justin, it doesn't look so bad, but still.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Because Life of Apollonius of Tyana is referenced by a quantity of historians of the period.PHG 14:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Both Tarn and Narain agree that "Euthydemia" is wrong; it is a misguided editroial correction, violating the difficilior lectio principle. If a scribe sees Euthydemia, why should he substitute Euthymedia? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done the map was corrected accordingly. Thanks. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Why Barigaza, not the usual Barygaza? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done the map was corrected accordingly. Thanks. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Summary: This article was a great deal of work, much of it verbally accurate, from abstruse sources; these are its virtues. Unfortunately, it is also full of passages like this: Written evidence of the initial Greek invasion survives in the Greek writings of Strabo and Justin. The error here is not so much that Justin was not Greek, although he was not; it is that the problem with Justin (that he is an unreliable summary of an uncertain translation of a lost Greek source) is nowhere mentioned, although Tarn, Narain, and Bopearchchi all discuss it, and all quote Justin (in Latin).

I am not convinced PHG has understood the context of the sources, or, therefore, that he has understood what they mean, or when they are engaged in conjecture. To check whether this article is intelligently done, and note even where it needs correction, would require collating these three thick books and comparing the result with what the article says.

This may still be better than the average article we promote; I may leave that decision to others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Septentrionalis. Thanks for catching the mention about Justin, of course he writes in Latin indeed. Justin is quoted extensively by modern authors on the Indo-Greeks. He is generally considered as a fairly good source by everyone, although sometimes in error or too moralistic, but he is definitely important among the precious few sources on this subject. He is quoted in this article only when quoted by a secondary source. Thank you for your general evaluation of the article "This may still be better than the average article we promote", I do appreciate! Best regards PHG 20:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing like looking on the bright side; but Meiggs' "wildly erratic" is closer to the mean scholarly estimate of Justin. Even his editor, Develin, doesn't really deny it; he argues that what Justin did is understandable once you see what he's up to. What the secondary sources cite from Justin is all he says about the Eastern Greeks, and they do that because his few sentences are a large percentage of all that exists anywhere. You can find a translation of Justin in the links to Justin (historian); all the relevant text is in "Book" 41, and most of that's about Bactria. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please comment on, and preferably fix, the points above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The Wikipedia article does say though "As it stands, the history [of Justin] contains much valuable information. The style, though far from perfect, is clear and occasionally elegant." It is not really important though, what is important is that he is almost systematically quoted by secondary sources on the Indo-Greeks, and is thought to be fairly reliable in that respect, hence the mentions in the article. He is indeed one of the standard, if imperfect, sources on the Indo-Greeks. Best regards. PHG 07:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not my reading of any of the secondary sources, including Tarn. Please supply citations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? Tarn uses Justin, Narain uses Justin about 10 times, Bopearachchi uses Justin etc... etc... C'mon PHG 13:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course they use Justin; there's very little else. Tarn uses Chaucer. One must consider bad sources, even where good sources exist - and here they don't; as historians of Alexander use pseudo-Callisthenes (and everybody uses Diodorus) because his stories may contain a grain of truth somewhere in the pearl. Again, please give a citation, not for their use of Justin, but for a good opinion of him - not of his ultimate original, "Trogus' source". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Stylistic Issues

Comment - the article looks like a trainwreck at the moment. Too long, too rambling. Child articles need to be created urgently for every section and subsection and this article should hold a summary of all those articles per WP:SS. The TOC is way too cluttered and adhering to WP:SS will help greatly in uncluttering it. Pictures are way too many and all over the place. No consistency in size or arrangement. Loads of MoS issues. Long way to go, really. Sarvagnya 03:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• I must disagree with the last point: I don't care what the Mass of Stupidity says. It should not be a criterion here; it should be trimmed, if not deleted, to remove the large portion which represents some editor's prejudices, and has no relation to the clarity or meaning of articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I did some slimming down of the article (one third!), by bolstering History of the Indo-Greek Kingdom, and creating Religions of the Indo-Greeks. Done for today! Best regards. PHG 18:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the stylistic part needs its own subheading. If for no other reason than having a noticeboard of sorts for updates on improvements. I hope nobody minds.

I would second Sarvagnya's statements about the nature of the writing. It is much too long and would benefit greatly from farming out the subsections into independent articles. PHG's recent update helps, but it is still in need of trimming.

I am not sure about which "last point" Septentrionalis is referring to.

I have already raised concerns about the style of the map. I think it is downright misleading at worst, and entirely too cluttered at best. What exactly he is trying to show is obscure as it has too much different information. I will admit, in terms of aesthetics mine was not that great either. Mostly due to how realistic the background looked making it hard to overlay visible, yet subtle text and colors on it. Overall I'd have to agree with Septentrionalist that color coded cities without clearly colored territory is best. The only reason I didn't was because I knew PHG wouldn't go for it, so it was a non-starter.

Many of the pictures are, likewise, extraneous and there is a fair amount of information in there that just seems irrelevant. Most notably the genetic contribution bit.

Windy City Dude 03:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerns with Existing Indo Greek Kingdom Article

Hello All,

Here is a listing of some of the concerns that I, and users Windy City Dude, Pavs, and Vastu, have had with the Indo Greek Kingdom Article. Please feel free to post on my discussion page if you have any questions. I know there are some users who have been commenting on me above, so just to clarify for the record: my only objective here is to ensure accuracy on wikipedia. I hope that all comments will be focused on the content of the article. I apologize in advance for the length, but I just wanted to be thorough. Thank to the new admins who have taken an interest and invested time in this review.

Best Regards,

Devanampriya 02:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

General Points

This Article is not appropriate for Feature Status designation. The topic was an easy candidate for POV pushing due to the dearth of archaeological evidence required to establish a credible timeline of events and boundaries for political territories and an absence of consensus around the extent of political reach and influence. Colonial and neocolonial narratives were interwoven ( Tarn and Bussagli) in the article. FA status should be rescinded for the following reasons:

• Excessive reliance of author W.W. Tarn (a british colonial writer who is famous for his romanticizing of Alexander of Macedon). To attempt appearance of consensus or a majority view, author Bussagli (who also relies on Tarn ’s discredited theory of a Conquest of the Gangetic plain by Demetrius I) is often cited.

Alternative views are welcome. Besides W.W.Tarn, you are free to quoted Thaper or whoever: "However Romila Thaper considers that etc...". PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's a little disingenuous as you removed the consensus (the ones you and vastu agreed upon) maps and used Tarn as the main source for essentially the entire article. Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative views are welcome, as far as I know, you have never contributed anything to this article, except criticizing its content and deleting stuff. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sources were misrepresented or cherrypicked and discredited sources utilize to generate an inaccurate map (see section “The Map”).

The map is rigourously based on three major sources: "Historical Atlas of Peninsular India" Oxford University Press (dark blue, continuous line), A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings" (dark blue, dotted line), Westermans "Atlas der Welt Gesishte" (light blue, dotted line). You are expressing a point of view on these maps, but they are nevertheless properly sourced scholarly works. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Large blocks of primary source material interfere with readability

All writings on the period quote primary material extensively. I actually think primary sources (when quoted by secondary source) bring considerable value to the topic. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• The article is too long. Article should be broken up into Indo Greek Kingdom for political history, indo greek art/architecture, and greco-buddhism for religion.

The article has already been reduced by one third. I am looking at way to shorten it further. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done The body of the article is now 41kb.PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Concerns with original research and unverified statements (see "Inaccurate Facts" section)

Dealt with hereunder. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Map

1. Inaccurate Map

The map in question. PHG 14:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Indo-GreekOxfordNarainWestermans.jpg is overly expansive, improperly cited, and imposes one questionable perspective.

• Verified Indo greek claims are limited to the modern western Punjab. Anything beyond that remains speculation on the basis of stray and vague mentions in classical texts (i.e the works of strabo, Justin, et al) and indian mythological texts (assorted puranas).

This is your own OR analysis of the situation. The point is that numerous reputable scholars do consider as fact that the Indo-Greeks went as far as Pataliputra. PHG 14:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Narain actually considers the Yuga Purana as fully reliable: "But the real story of the Indo-Greek invasion becomes clear only on the analysis of the material contained in the historical section of the Gargi Samhita, the Yuga Purana" Narain, p110, The Indo-Greeks. Also "The text of the Yuga Purana, as we have shown, gives an explicit clue to the period and nature of the invasion of Pataliputra in which the Indo-Greeks took part, for it says that the Pancalas and the Mathuras were the other powers who attacked Saketa and destroyed Pataliputra", Narain, p.112 PHG 15:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• A.K. Narain’s scholarship does not support indogreek conquests of the gangetic plain, gujarat, or Ujjain , yet this map improperly cites him.

I don't know. Narain does say that the Indo-Greeks besieged Pataliputra. And the map in A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings" is extremely clear (reproduced in dark blue, dotted line). I attached a copy of the original map hereunder. PHG 14:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Narain actually considers the Yuga Purana as fully reliable: "But the real story of the Indo-Greek invasion becomes clear only on the analysis of the material contained in the historical section of the Gargi Samhita, the Yuga Purana" Narain, p110, The Indo-Greeks. Also "The text of the Yuga Purana, as we have shown, gives an explicit clue to the period and nature of the invasion of Pataliputra in which the Indo-Greeks took part, for it says that the Pancalas and the Mathuras were the other powers who attacked Saketa and destroyed Pataliputra", Narain, p.112 PHG 15:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• 3 sources are cited to defend against NPOV allegations but this map actually combines all three maps into one in order to impose one perspective of vast Indo greek territorial expansions into eastern India. Casual reader will assume that blue maps simply shows progressive expansion of the Indo greek kingdom. This is purposeful misdirection.

We are not contributing on Wikipedia to accomodate "casual readers". However we have a responsibility to promote a balanced and NPOV between reputable scholarly sources. This map is a synthesis of the main views on the subject of Indo-Greek territories and conquests (strictly based on three major map sources: "Historical Atlas of Peninsular India" Oxford University Press (dark blue, continuous line), A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings" (dark blue, dotted line), Westermans "Atlas der Welt Gesishte" (light blue, dotted line). PHG 14:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

We are contributing to accomodate casual readers; classicists have better sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• The westernmans map was provided by user Sponsianus from a german source of uncertain repute. User Sponsianus himself questioned the display of greek territory in the Southeast (i.e. South central and peninsular India ).

Provide a reference for your "a german source of uncertain repute" for Westermans. I don't think you'll find any. PHG 14:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that there are already issues with that map as even sponsianus noted. The only reason he continues to support the map is because he ardently believes that mathura belongs within the indo greek realm. That he does simply does not justify a completely unsupported extention into central and peninsular India where there are no indications. Also note that as stated by Narain, the geographically breadth of the finds can also be indicative of the quality of Indo greek coins (which is undisputed by any party). Menander coin finds in Britain do not establish indo greek holdings there. That is a point to be mindful of. Also, the oft-cited Maghera inscription still remains debated and its assignment to Indo greeks unconfirmed. There is no scholarly consensus around it--and you will note that Narain does not support Mathura's inclusion in the Indo greek realm and he reprinted with a major supplement in 2003.

Devanampriya 02:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

“Sponsianus: I agree that the south-eastern parts of the Indo-Greek conquests seem less motivated than those in the north ( Mathura ). Also, the “Atlas der Welt Geschichte” map was actually striped for Indo-Greek territory, full colour only for the original Bactrian kingdom. It was however based on the outdated model that all conquests took place under the long reign of Demetrios I, supported by Menander as a sub-king.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Devanampriya

This map is rigourously based on three major sources: "Historical Atlas of Peninsular India" Oxford University Press (dark blue, continuous line), A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings" (dark blue, dotted line), Westermans "Atlas der Welt Gesishte" (light blue, dotted line). It is normal practice to display territory and conquests for any kingdom or empire, even if there are some uncertainties about precise borders. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are sidestepping my point. As Elonka mentioned, to the casual, uninformed reader, it looks like one map showing the gradual indo greek conquest of northern india. It does not show three different views. If you want to show three different views, then make three different maps. However, you would not agree to that suggestion when other users suggested it.

Also the three maps that are "rigourously" cited all differ significantly. Admins are welcome to take a look at them.

The map from Narain's The coin types of the Indo-Greeks clearly shows Greek conquests and territory as far as, and including, Pataliputra. PHG 13:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, this map is rigourously based on three major sources: "Historical Atlas of Peninsular India" Oxford University Press (dark blue, continuous line), A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings" (dark blue, dotted line), Westermans "Atlas der Welt Gesishte" (light blue, dotted line).PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too confident about that. The legend makes it seem like that's supposed to be a map of the Graeco-Bactrian empire. My hunch is they just combined three or four different Greek empires into one. Besides, editors have a tendency to just put whatever image happens to be handy on the first page. I saw an edition of Thucydides once with an image of the Battle of Thermopylae on it. I wouldn't take that map to be representative of Narain's arguments. What he actually said is of much greater import.Windy City Dude 01:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I really wonder what you have in mind when you say "three or four different Greek empires into one". Are you a History classmate of Devanampriya? The bottom line is that this map was published by a reputable source (Narain's "Coin types of the Indo-Greeks"), with Narain's agreement (it would be quite incredible that he would dismiss the opening map of his book really!). I don't know if the map was drawn by him or not, but I would suppose so, as I have never seen it from another author, neither is it credited to somebody else, which would be a minimum. Narain does say that the Greeks went to besiege Pataliputra, so I don't see any big discrepancy. Let's stop OR and suputations, this is a good map from a reputable source, and I am afraid your efforts at discrediting it are irrelevant. PHG 12:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Accurate Map

Image:Indo-Greek-territory revision1.jpg on the otherhand, provides a more sober description of actual verified claims of Indo Greek expansions. These are not based upon theory, but actual archaeological evidence. This map is uses the Oxford map as its reference. It is supported by 4 editors.

The map you promote is a minimalist map that displays the smallest possible territory for the Indo-Greeks, and contradicts most of the sources who describe the eastern conquests of the Indo-Greeks (Mathura, Pataliputra etc...). It is POV in that it represent only one view. On the other hand, the larger map is rigourously based on three major sources: "Historical Atlas of Peninsular India" Oxford University Press (dark blue, continuous line), A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings" (dark blue, dotted line), Westermans "Atlas der Welt Gesishte" (light blue, dotted line), gives a fair representation of all major views, and gives a better understanding of Indo-Greek conquests. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, ignoring the question. Your reference of the "Oxford Map" actually misrepresents it. The Oxford map actually promotes the so-called "minimalist map" because the authors had the good sense to rely on archaeological evidence rather than speculation. Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And again, other sources do not follow this minimalist view, hence the need to take a balanced NPOV approach. PHG 11:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Content

Critique of Tarn

Tarn’s objectivity has been stained by his excessive romanticization of hellenistic figures. Moreover, succeeding historians have called into question the validity of key theories (i.e. conquest of gangetic plains, etc). Here are some excerpts from Tarn :

1. "We can now, I think, see what the Greek 'conquest' meant and how the Greeks were able to traverse such extraordinary distances. To parts of India, perhaps to large parts, they came, not as conquerors, but as friends or 'saviors'; to the Buddhist world in particular they appeared to be its champions" (Tarn, p180)
2. Tarn p175. Also: "The people to be 'saved' were in fact usually Buddhists, and the common enimity of Greek and Buddhists to the Sunga king threw them into each other's arms", Tarn p175. "Menander was coming to save them from the oppression of the Sunga kings", Tarn p178

This premise is actually debated by scholar Romila Thapar, among others, as it is unknown as to whether Sungas actually persecuted Buddhists (“Decline of the Mauryas”). This naturally indicates the speculative nature of author Tarn’s statements and how far-fetched and rather colonial they are in world-view.

You are totally welcome to add Thapar's version of the events (as I have often suggested, but you never did). There is no way however you can erase Tarn from the face of the earth: he is still one of the major historians on the Indo-Greeks, even if his views are sometimes dated. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

They are not just dated, they are biased and obsolete. Yes, he was an early scholar, but yes, he also interwove his own biases and admitted much speculation. The problem is the article treats speculation as gospel, thereby misinforming casual readers. Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, sources are not "treated as gospel". More refs from alternative sources are welcome. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Facts

• “Sophytes, may have ruled in northern Punjab until around 294 BCE.”

• Contention: Ambiguous and of uncertain validity. Sophytes is an ambiguous figure who may have been either an Indian king (Saubhuti or a macedonian general/mercenary). This should not be mentioned here as he is a minor figure that most likely ruled in Northern Afghanistan and cannot be confirmed as a greek that ruled any part of India .

*This is partially relevant, yet contains some erroneous cricitism. Sophytes struck coins which closely resemble coinage from the city of Athens, and are closely related to other (anonymous) series which are local copies of Athenian coins. Sophytes' name is in Greek and he uses a portrait of a man in a Greek helmet. No Indian kings even struck portraits until far later, let alone portraits of Greeks! To suggest that he was not a Greek/Macedonian is simply nonsense. Narain argues, in the 1950s, that Sophytes was a Greek settler before Alexander: this may be a respectable view but probably outdated. Bopearachchi (American Numismatic Society SNG9, 1998), dates Sophytes to 325-300 BC. But it is correct that Sophytes may have been based in Bactria. Bopearachchi actually doesn't know. He mentions only that one coin of Sophytes was probably found in a hoard in Pakistan.

Note that the Indo-Greek territory begins in the Kabul valley, which of course is not the same as India in the modern sense. It is quite possible that Sophytes held territories in the Kabul valley or even in northern Pakistan, so he should not be omitted. Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that he is probably not even Greek, and so, should be omitted.

Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• “According to Indian sources, Greek ("Yavana") troops seem to have assisted Chandragupta Maurya in toppling the Nanda Dynasty and founding the Mauryan Empire.[5] By around 312 BCE Chandragupta had established his rule in large parts of the northwestern Indian territories.”

• Contention: This has been discredited. Historian Nilakantha Shastri, topic expert, demolished the theory propounded by colonial historians that Greek troops may have assisted Chandragupta on the basis of some mention of “yavanas” in a play Mudrarakshasa that deals with the figures Chandragupta and Chanakya.

Then, you are welcome to quote Nilakantha Shastri (never heard of him though) to balance the above statement, as long as he can be considered as a reputable scholar. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Politely speaking, the fact that you have not heard of him does not reflect upon the respect for and eminence of his work. And this is not a question of balance, this is matter of erroneous statements being made in spite of expert disavowal of a theory. Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, various scholarly views should be presented and balanced in an NPOV manner. This is basic rule of Wikipedia. A theory does not "demolish" another theory. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is emblematic of a misuse of a primary source. The concern here is that you interpreted primary source material yourself (no scholar cited) even while an actual scholar of sanskrit dismissed that very same interpretation.

Devanampriya 02:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• “In 303 BCE, Seleucus I led an army to the Indus , where he encountered Chandragupta. The confrontation ended with a peace treaty, and "an intermarriage agreement" (Epigamia, Greek: Åðéãáìéá), meaning either a dynastic marriage or an agreement for intermarriage between Indians and Greeks. Accordingly, Seleucus ceded to Chandragupta his northwestern territories, possibly as far as Arachosia and received 500 war elephants (which played a key role in the victory of Seleucus at the Battle of Ipsus):

"The Indians occupy [in part] some of the countries situated along the Indus , which formerly belonged to the Persians: Alexander deprived the Ariani of them, and established there settlements of his own. But Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus in consequence of a marriage contract, and received in return five hundred elephants." —Strabo 15.2.1(9) [6]

• Contention. Inaccurate facts. Unnecessary section. Seleucus led an army in 305 BCE. Accordingly, this section is unnecessary. Seleucus and Chandragupta are adequately catalogued in their respective articles.

Same for rest of Background section. All these matters are not key to the history of the Indo Greeks. Just a lot of unnecessary primary source quotes.

*It is of some interest that there were Greek settlements and interests east of Iran in the period between Alexander and Demetrius I. As a comparison, please look under Alexander II of Epirus in today's Albania, where it is mentioned that his name was known by Ashoka. This is a curiousity but it underlines connection between the Hellenistic and Indian worlds, which were important factors behind the emergence of the Indo-Greek state. Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But it is problematic when it just takes up space with primary references. There's a difference between saying that Alexander left behind or augment greek settlements and jamming three unnecessary paragraphs that express the same point. I hope you now understand my concern. Also, 303 BCE is an error.

Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• The invasion of northern India, and the establishment of what would be known as the "Indo-Greek kingdom", started around 180 BCE when Demetrius, son of the Greco-Bactrian king Euthydemus I, led his troops across the Hindu Kush. In the process of the invasion, the Greeks seem to have occupied territory as far as the capital Pataliputra, before ultimately retreating and consolodating in northwestern India . Apollodotus, seemingly a relative of Demetrius, led the invasion to the south, while Menander, one of the generals of Demetrius, led the invasion to the east.

• Contention: Obsolete theory. See A.K. Narain and E. Seldeslachts. It is not even known if Demetrius I conquered past the khyber pass and expanded into the Indus river valley.

*Here I agree. Demetrius' conquests are only ascertained as far east as Gandhara.

Easily solved. Just balance the text with A.K. Narain and E. Seldeslachts quotes.PHG 14:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is, this was a clear mistake and serious mistake in the article when it was granted FA status. Devanampriya

A theory, even if considered by some as outdated, is never "a mistake". And many of today's theories will be outdated tomorrow. Just balance what is said in the article with what A.K. Narain and E. Seldeslachts say (carefull, A.K. Narain is pretty outdated as well). PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Darwin's theory certainly seemed to demolish the hell out of Lamarck's.

I would like however to mention a modern historian who places the incursions to Pataliputra during Demetrius, Mitchener, The Yuga Purana, 2000, p.65: "In line with the above discussion, therefore, we may infer that such an event (the incursions to Pataliputra) took place, after the reign of Salisuka Maurya (c.200 BC) and before that of Pusyamitra Sunga (187 BC). This would accordingly place the Yavana incursions during the reign of the Indo-Greek kings Euthydemus (c.230-190 BC) or Demetrios (c.205-190 as co-regent, and 190-171 BC as supreme ruler". PHG 14:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Retreat from eastern regions

• The first invasion was completed by 175 BCE, as the Indo-Greeks apparently contained the Sungas to the area eastward of Pataliputra, and established their rule on the new territory.”

• Contention: There is no evidence whatsoever that the Sungas were ever “contained to the area eastward of Pataliputra” or driven from it for that matter. User does not provide any reference.

 Done I streamlined that portion to make the date and territorial issues less central. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• “Conquests east of the Punjab region were most likely made during the second half of the century by the king Menander I.”

• Contention: it is unknown if any were indeed ever made east of the punjab region.

*This is a reference to the conquest of Pataliputra which is well attested in both Indian and western (Strabon) sources. But it is correct that the advance into Pataliputra did not happen in 175 BCE. Definitely not, since Demetrius I was dead by then according to modern sources.Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Most scholars do think you. Referenced in the article. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• It is neither well-attested nor confirmed. It remains speculation. Again, there are issues with readings of Indian semi-mythological texts in that fashion. Funny how you condemn me as a nationalist bent on imposing Rama's bridge to Sri Lanka on history yet conveniently use indian semi-mythological texts (which discuss Rama and his dynastic line) to defend the theorized "conquest of pataliputra".

Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Most modern scholars do use these ancient Indian texts do describe the advance of the Indo-Greeks to Pataliputra. Devanampriya, your personal doubts about the Yuga Purana are totally irrelevant to Wikipedia. What is important is that it is considered as relevant material by numerous reputable scholars: of course Tarn, Narain, but also Bopearachchi or Dilip Coomer Ghose, General Secretary, The Asiatic Society, Kolkata, 2002: "For any scholar engaged in the study of the presence of the Indo-Greeks or Indo-Scythians before the Christian Era, the Yuga Purana is an important source material" or Mitchener: "..further weight to the likelihood that this account of a Yavana incursion to Saketa and Pataliputra-in alliance with the Pancalas and the Mathuras- is indeed historical" (Mitchener, The Yuga Purana, p.65)PHG 18:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Narain actually considers the Yuga Purana as fully reliable: "But the real story of the Indo-Greek invasion becomes clear only on the analysis of the material contained in the historical section of the Gargi Samhita, the Yuga Purana" Narain, p110, The Indo-Greeks. Also "The text of the Yuga Purana, as we have shown, gives an explicit clue to the period and nature of the invasion of Pataliputra in which the Indo-Greeks took part, for it says that the Pancalas and the Mathuras were the other powers who attacked Saketa and destroyed Pataliputra", Narain, p.112 PHG 15:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• “Buddhism flourished under the Indo-Greek kings, and their rule, especially that of Menander, has been remembered as benevolent. It has been suggested, although direct evidence is lacking, that their invasion of India was intended to show their support for the Mauryan empire which had a long history of marital alliances,[48] exchange of presents,[49] demonstrations of friendship,[50] exchange of ambassadors[51] and religious missions[52] with the Greeks. The historian Diodorus even wrote that the king of Pataliputra had "great love for the Greeks".[53]

The Greek expansion into Indian territory may have been intended to protect Greek populations in India ,[54] and to protect the Buddhist faith from the religious persecutions of the Sungas.[55] The city of Sirkap founded by Demetrius combines Greek and Indian influences without signs of segregation between the two cultures.

Alternatively, the Greek invasions in India are also sometimes described as purely materialistic, only taking advantage of the ruin of the Mauryan Empire to acquire territory and wealth.”

• Contention: Original research and POV pushing. Assigning noble motives to violent conquests is not npov. The article should not meant be meant to judge these actions but simply recount them. User’s own post establishes that there is no direct evidence for his “protect greek populations” theory.

All this is highly referenced from reputable sources. If you know alternative theories just list them, but it is totally inadequate to deny sourced material. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• “In Indian literature, the Indo-Greeks are described as Yonas (in Pali) or Yavanas (in Sanskrit), both thought to be transliterations of "Ionians".”

• Contention: Incorrect. Yonas are assigned exclusively to the greeks, but as sanskrit experts and indologists note, Yavanas were assigned to foreigners both before and after greeks. (i.e. central asian tribes, persians, and arabs)

I would be glad to see some references for that, and introduce it in the article.PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

*This has been discussed and the term Yavanas was used for other people only in sources credibly dated after the Indo-Greek kingdom. The Indians met Yavanas of two different types: Greeks from Bactria and Greeks from Alexandria (sea-route) from 43 BC, when the monsoon winds were discovered. Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. PHG 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. The most accessible for all that I could find: Bhasyacharya.N. "The Age of Patanjali". Theosophical Publishing House. Madras. India. 1915 [[9]]

Key Quotes: "That the Hindus apply the term Yavana to all foreigners, not only Greeks, who were living west of the Indus, is plain from the foregoing quotations and considerations: "

"We also come to the conclusion, that in the same way the several Sanskrit authors meant to describe — by the use of the term Yavana — the various foreigners they had known. It might have been applied to the Persians when they invaded India; after them to the Greeks, then to the Bactrians; and at last — also to the Pathans and the Moguls] [Page 13] "

Unless you want to talk about how the God-King Rama's progenitor (Sagara) defeated the Greeks and shaved their heads, I think you see the issue with the strict identification of Yavanas with Greeks only.

Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Narain is actually crystal-clear about the Indo-Greeks being described unambiguously as Yavanas (in Sanskrit):PHG 08:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"These Indo-Greeks were called Yavanas in ancient Indian litterature" p.9 + note 1 "The term had a precise meaning until well into the Christian era, when gradually its original meaning was lost and, like the word Mleccha, it degenerated into a general term for a foreigner"

— p.18, in Narain "The Indo-Greeks". PHG 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that other scholars dispute it's application. Also, Narain states that the Yavanas did not invade the gangetic, let alone Pataliputra. According to him, they merely joined a raid led by Indian kings, yet surprisingly, you don't seem to be embracing that theory...

• “"King of the Wheel" in Western texts.”

• Contention: Incorrectly translated. Actual: “He who turns the Wheel of Dharma”. Or more loosely emperor. Also, chakravartin not solely a buddhist title. The wheel of dharma was a hindu symbol that was adopted by buddhism on account of its descent and dharmic heritage.

Look at Narain: "It is probable that the wheel on some coins of Menander is connected with Buddhism", Narain, The Indo-Greeks, p.122 PHG 15:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, but the point is that it is still an inaccurate translation.

Devanampriya 02:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Size of Indo-Greek armies (see this section on Indo Greek Kingdom Page)

• Contention: Clearly original research. No reference for the statement “That this kind of military strength was needed to confront the Indo-Greeks is indicative of the Indo-Greeks' own military commitment.”

Accordingly, Why must it be presumed that this force was raised only in reaction to the indo greeks?

*Agree. This section is not that relevant. There is only one reference (Justin XLI:6) which is probably exaggerated (either 40 or 60 000 men, in different versions).Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• “Finally, the Indo-Greek seem to have combined forces with other "invaders" during their expansion into India, since they are often referred to in combination with others (especially the Kambojas), in the Indian accounts of their invasions.”

• Contention: Again, Indian mythological sources discussing “Yavanas” mention such a combination; however, the historicity and specific connection to the greeks remains debatable to say the least.

Narain is actually crystal-clear about the Indo-Greeks being described unambiguously as Yavanas (in Sanskrit): "These Indo-Greeks were called Yavanas in ancient Indian litterature" p.9 + note 1 "The term had a precise meaning until well into the Christian era, when gradually its original meaning was lost and, like the word Mleccha, it degenerated into a general term for a foreigner" p.18, in Narain "The Indo-Greeks". PHG 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• “The Indo-Greeks may have ruled as far as the area of Mathura until sometime in the 1st century BCE: the Maghera inscription, from a village near Mathura, records the dedication of a well "in the one hundred and sixteenth year of the reign of the Yavanas", which could be as late as 70 BCE.[94]”

• Contention: Clear speculation. Again, on the basis of the mention of the word yavana, this was instinctively taken by user to mean greek

• Response: Interpretation by R.C. Senior, 2006, p.xv. PHG 06:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

*PHG is right. There are several indications for Greek rule in Mathura (including several coin finds with long sequences of exclusively Greek kings found in the territory), and this one is quite unambigious. If the Greek era was used there, the area had very likely been under Greek rule. Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • Again, indications, but no confirmation. We cannot take as fact or fait accomplit what cannot be confirmed. There are theories that the so-called maghera inscription may refer to the greeks (this has not been confirmed) and may be emblematic of their rule (also not confirmed), but they are no means a clear establishment of it.

Devanampriya 06:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

All we do on Wikipedia is present historical interpretations by reputable sources. Your doubts are no justification to suppress reputable historical interpretations. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

These don't seem like sufficiently fleshed out theories though. I wouldn't even bother talking about them as if they were solid fact. These are more like little "some people think" factoids that would be more at home in an appendix than making up the meat and potatoes of the article. Windy City Dude 01:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• “Some sort of Greek political organization is thought to have existed in the first half of the 4th century after the rule of the Satavahanas.[98] This is also suggested by the Puranas (the Matsya Purana, the Vayu Purana, the Brahmanda Purana, the Vishnu Purana, the Bhagavata Purana) which give a list of the dynasties who ruled following the decline of the Satavahanas: this list includes 8 Yavana kings, thought to be some dynasty of Greek descent, although they are not otherwise known.[99]

• Contention: Clear speculation. Again, on the basis of the mention of the word yavana, this was instinctively taken by user to mean greek. However, these were again speculations based on mentions in the indian mythological-historiographical texts (the puranas). As a point of note, the actual experts on the Satavahanas do not discuss any yavana as a successor state to the Satavahanas as seen in the actual Satavahana article.

• Response: this is from David Pingree, "The Yavanajataka of Sphujidhvaja", p4. Quotes in McEvilley, p385:

""The Yavanas appear to have had some sort of political organization within the state" in the 2nd century AD, and "another such organization existed in formerly Satavahana territory in the first half of the 4th century.""

— David Pingree, 1978, quoted in McEvilley, p.385

Also, details given in Rapson "Catalogue of the Indian coins in the British Museum. Andhras etc...", Rapson, p LXVIII: "These must, no doubt, belong to some dynasty of Greek descent, but it is impossible to determine which dynasty this could have been". The full list, with comments, is given in Rapson "Catalogue of the Indian coins in the British Museum. Andhras etc...", Rapson, p LXVIII: "7 other Andhras kings (called "Andhrabhrytias", or "Servant of the Andhras", probably the Chutus in the Western and Southern districts. 10 Abhira kings, who ruled in the area of Nasik. 7 Gardabhila kings, who ruled in the area of Ujjain. 18 Saka kings, probably the Western Satraps. 8 Yavana kings, thought to be some dynasty of Greek descent. 14 Tusara kings (also called Tuskaras), thought to be the Kushans (who are called "Turuska" in the Rajatarangini). 13 Murunda or Gurunda kings. 21 Huna kings (also called Maunas), probably the Indo-Hephthalites." PHG 06:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Rapson wrote in 1908, and based his conclusions on even earlier work by Cunningham. This should not be cited against more recent authors (especially Narain, who knew Rapson's work well, and does not consider it as refuting his own. So for all the other citations below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Rapson is still quoted by modern historians and numismats. He is a Classic.
  • And like other classics, he should be cited with respect, and with care. He cannot address arguments or evidence which did not yet exist when he wrote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• David Pingree wrote in 1978 (The Yavanajataka, Harvard University Press) PHG 17:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Do mainstream historians recount any such dynasty as succeeding the satavahanas? Again, ignoring the question.

• David Pingree wrote in 1978 (The Yavanajataka, Harvard University Press). Also, guess what, Narain, although in a highly diluted manner: "The Puranas speak of eight Yavana kings, but we do not know who they were and no details of their reigns are given." PHG 13:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the citation? Devanampriya 02:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• According to one theory however, the Southern Indian dynasty of the Chalukyas was named after "Seleukia" (the Seleucids),[100] their conflict with the Pallava of Kanchi being but a continuation of the conflict between ancient Seleukia and "Parthians", the proposed ancestors of Pallavas.[101]”

• Contention: The seleucid theory was discredited by user’s own admission on Chalukya page.

This seems dubious. OK to remove. Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much interest for this kind of stuff, but these kind of theories are indeed expressed by modern scholars: the Indian historian Burjor Avari in the 2007 India: the ancient past:

"There are two theories about the origins of the Pallavas. One is that they were the descendants of a group of Parthians from Iran; and the other as the descendants of north Indian brahman migrants. No one can be entirely certain, but whatever their origins, it cannot be denied that they became one of the great southern regional dynasties"

— Burjor Avari, India: the ancient past, p.186, 2007 PHG 18:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Also Dr. Lewis Rice, S. R. Sharma and M. V. Krishna Rao Arthikaje, Mangalore. "History of Karnataka-Gangas of Talkad". 1998-2000 OurKarnataka.Com, Inc. Retrieved 2007-01-18., about which a Dr. Suryanath U. Kamath, says that it has not found general acceptance because the Pallavas were in constant conflict with the Kadambas, prior to the rise of Chalukyas.... (Kamath's opinion)

At least Burjor Avari it to me very reliable. I think it is rather interesting and worth mentionning although only as theory (as currently presented in the article). PHG 18:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• “At the beginning of the 2nd century CE, the Central India Satavahana king Gautamiputra Satakarni (r. 106–130 CE) was described as the "Destroyer of Sakas (Western Kshatrapas), Yavanas (Indo-Greeks) and Pahlavas (Indo-Parthians)" in his inscriptions, suggesting a continued presence of the Indo-Greeks until that time.”

• Contention: Again, speculation by user. Original research. No reference commenting on the actual association of yavanas with the indo greeks is provided.

Narain is actually crystal-clear about the Indo-Greeks being described unambiguously as Yavanas (in Sanskrit): "These Indo-Greeks were called Yavanas in ancient Indian litterature" p.9 + note 1 "The term had a precise meaning until well into the Christian era, when gradually its original meaning was lost and, like the word Mleccha, it degenerated into a general term for a foreigner" p.18, in Narain "The Indo-Greeks". PHG 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Response: From Rapson, "Indian coins in the British Museum". Following the Gautamiputra quote, Rapson writes: "The Kashtriyas are the native Indian princes, the Rajputs of Rajputana, Gujarat and Central India; and the Sakas, Yavanas, and Pahavas are respectively Scythian, Greeks and Persian invaders from the north, who established kingdoms in variousdistricts of Northern and Western India", p.xxxvii Rapson PHG 05:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Around 200 CE, the Manu Smriti describes the downfall of the Yavanas, as well as many others:

• Contention: The dating of the Manu smriti remains debated. It is often thought to predate the indo greeks by centuries if not millennia.

Then it is the objection that is dubious. Your suggestion "often thought to be centuries if not millenia" before the Indo-Greeks means that the text could be dated at least in the span 2200 BCE-300 CE, but also could be dated later. I refuse to take such a grotesque time span seriously. This seems to be a nationalistic semi-religious source of little historical value. The early dates are probably from the same type of nationalistic scholars who believe that Rama built the sand banks between India and Sri Lanka. Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sponsianus, like I said above, please do not reduce this debate to petty accusations. This is not a point of nationalism, it is fact. Please read up on the actual scholarly debate surrounding these texts. Accordingly, see the contention above regarding the yavanas. Devanampriya 06:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Brihat-Katha-Manjari text of the Sanskrit poet Kshmendra (11th and 12th centuries) (10/1/285–86) relates that around 400 CE the Gupta king Vikramaditya (Chandragupta II) had "unburdened the sacred earth of the Barbarians" like "the Shakas, Mlecchas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Tusharas, Parasikas, Hunas" etc… by annihilating these "sinners" completely.

• Contention: see above regarding use of the word yavana. Original research.

• Response: From Rapson, "Indian coins in the British Museum". Following the Gautamiputra quote, Rapson writes: "The Kashtriyas are the native Indian princes, the Rajputs of Rajputana, Gujarat and Central India; and the Sakas, Yavanas, and Pahavas are respectively Scythian, Greeks and Persian invaders from the north, who established kingdoms in variousdistricts of Northern and Western India", p.xxxvii Rapson PHG 05:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Narain is crystal-clear about the Indo-Greeks being described unambiguously as Yavanas (in Sanskrit): "These Indo-Greeks were called Yavanas in ancient Indian litterature" p.9 + note 1 "The term had a precise meaning until well into the Christian era, when gradually its original meaning was lost and, like the word Mleccha, it degenerated into a general term for a foreigner" p.18, in Narain "The Indo-Greeks". PHG 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

' Influence Of Indo Greek Coinage

• As late as the 13th century, the Sultan of Delhi Mohammad I (1295-1315), one of the first Muslim rulers of northern India, would use on his coins the title Sikander el-sani ("The second Alexander"), in a reference to his famous predecessor in the conquest of India [29] ." AD 52”

• Contention: Original Research. Discredited Sources if any actually used. This is also erroneous placement as it does not indicate numismatic influence, but rather, it is an example of political propaganda or conceit. Where is the actual numismatic influence (i.e style, weight, and other attributes)?

This was from Tarn I think, but I removed it about a year ago following your request... PHG 08:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• “The Kushans (1st-4th century) used the Greek language on their coinage until the first few years of the reign of Kanishka, whence they adopted the Bactrian language, written with the Greek script.”

• Contention: Kushans did not use the Greek language on their coins. They only adapted their language (bactrian) to the first script they came across (greek).

A Kushan coin in Greek: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΟΟΗΜΟ ΚΑΔΦΙΣΗΣ ("Basileus Ooimo Kadphisis"): "King Vima Kadphises", for Devanampriya's benefit.

• Response: the Kushan did use the Greek language on their coins until the time of Kanishka, and shifted to Bactrian early in his reign (See Whitehead, "Indo-Greek coins", Punjab Museum) PHG 05:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• PHG is right and Devanampriya's objection is quite surprising. There are plenty of Greek-language Kushana coins on the Wikipedia pages, as you all can see. One of the Kushana kings calls himself Basileos Soter Megas, which are the Greek words for The Great Saviour King.Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • Accept: I apologize for the slip. The point is correct that the Kushans did use greek in the early periods (see kujula, vima, et al). I will delete this point after a suitable period of time has passed.Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done Obvious lack of knowledge on ancient Indian history I am afraid. This is the basics of the basics. PHG 19:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh can we please dispense with the sanctimonious triumphalism? It is extremely tiresome. Was it really necessary to be that inflammatory PHG? What does that kind of smarmy attitude contribute to this review?Windy City Dude 01:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry to say, but I would rather not spend my time arguing here with people who prove themselves to have not even basic knowledge of ancient Indian history. PHG 06:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your own opinion, but a minor oversight, which I apologized for, does not automatically discredit my understanding of Indian history. If it does, then your uncited statement on how the Yavanajataka was the first Indian treatise on astronomy would correspondingly implicate you as not having a basic understanding of Indian history--serious students know that Astronomy was first treated in the Vedanga Jyotisha centuries prior. I think Windy City Dude's point is to focus less on attempting to discredit individuals and more on discussing content, something which I support.

Regards,

Devanampriya 02:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• “The Guptas (4th-6th century), in turn imitating the Western Kshatrapas, also showed their rulers in profile, within a legend in corrupted Greek, in the coinage of their western territories.[114]”

• Contention: Not an example of influence. The Guptas conquered the Western Kshatrapas . Coins were stuck in Kshatrapas style in their former territories as a political statement of conquest. The guptas are famous for minting beautiful coins in their own unique style.

• Response: "Evidence of the conquest of Saurastra during the reign of Chandragupta II is to be seen in his rare silver coins which are more directly imitated from those of the Western Satraps... they retain some traces of the old inscriptions in Greek characters, while on the reverse, they substitute the Gupta type (a peacock) for the chaitya with crescent and star." in Rapson "A catalogue of Indian coins in the British Museum. The Andhras etc...", p.cli PHG 06:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Still ignoring the point. The article discussed "Examples of Influence". Simply because the restamps of Saka coins by the Guptas were ultimately derived from the greeks does not mean that all gupta coins (see those lovely suvarna standard coins of samudragupta) were influenced by the greeks. You phrasing makes that implication.

Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Silver coin of Chandragupta II, minted in his Western territories, in the style of the Western Satraps.
Obv: Bust of king, with corrupted Greek legend "OOIHU".("Evidence of the conquest of Saurastra during the reign of Chandragupta II is to be seen in his rare silver coins which are more directly imitated from those of the Western Satraps... they retain some traces of the old inscriptions in Greek characters, while on the reverse, they substitute the Gupta type (a peacock) for the chaitya with crescent and star." in Rapson "A catalogue of Indian coins in the British Museum. The Andhras etc...", p.cli)
Rev: Legend in Brahmi, "Chandragupta Vikramaditya, King of Kings, and a devotee of Vishnu" , around a peacock.
15mm, 2.1 grams. Mitchiner 4821-4823.

Of course not, read again, we are speaking only about "the coinage of their western territories" as per Rapson. PHG 19:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, that is not influence. That is a political statement. The satavahanas also restruck kshatrapa coins following their victories.

• “The latest use of the Greek script on coins corresponds to the rule of the Turkish Shahi of Kabul, around 850.”

• Contention: No reference

• Response: in Tarn, "The Indo-Greeks". Page reference coming. PHG 05:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but the point is, you never referenced this statement to begin with. Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what {{fact}} tags are for. PHG 08:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference?

Devanampriya 02:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Genetic contribution

• Contention: The value and validity of this section has been questioned on the discussion page.

• Response: Fully referenced from Kivisild et al. "Origins of Indian Casts and Tribes", as described in the article.PHG 05:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That still does not make it a valid section. 0-15% is a huge swathe. And the paper itself dismisses its findings? what is the validity then? Are we to conduct the same ethnographic study in the middle east or in greece itself (we can always examine the impact on greek bloodlines that 400 years of turkish rule had). Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to evaluate the quality of genetical research made by reputable scholars. We just state the facts and quote if you don't mind. PHG 08:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree. A genetic contribution section just seems superfluous and unnecessary. It's not even like it arrives at in interesting conclusion like the stories about Genghis Khan's contribution. Windy City Dude 01:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Devanampriya 02:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, the article talk page, and the talk page associated with this FAR, can be used for ironing out specifics. Please don't create sub-sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • My mistake, not Devanampriya's. I'd been trying to format the post for readability, and wasn't aware about the section header problem. Sorry, won't happen again. --Elonka 19:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Seriously? I wish we could use sub-headings. It's a serious pain trying to edit this page or discuss anything with each topic being so hard to find. Windy City Dude 01:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist asap. Virtually no effort is being made to clean up the article. The article is a total mess as it stands. Also the content issues that Devanampriya cites are too serious and too prolific to ignore. This is a pointless FAR and the article wont survive it. So delist and stop wasting people's time. Sarvagnya 19:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And btw, who created that map? It is nonsense. The Pandyas ruled the far south of Tamil Nadu, nowhere near the region of what is now Karnataka. Sarvagnya 19:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done Map corrected.PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarvagnya. Thank for the comment on the Pandyans: I moved them down south indeed. You may have to hit the "Refresh" button on your browser to see the modification. Please also note that the article has been modified extensively, and in particular lost 1/3rd of its size. Please do not hesitate to express other specifics you may have. Regards PHG 20:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We can get to specifics only when the article is even half readable. In its present form, the article is a whopping 112kb of rambling prose and images plastered anywhere and everywhere. The surfeit of images gives the articles an ugly look. Almost every section and subsection needs to be moved to its own article and only a condensed summary of those articles should be brought back. (I've said this before already). The article can easily be trimmed down to 70-80kb in a matter of a few days. If you promise not to revert me, I can pitch in with a fair bit of cleanup myself. On my part, I can promise not to make any great content changes to the article content or pov wise. Once that happens, reviewers will be able to get down to the specifics. And once we're down to the 'specifics'(ie., content issues), I feel this article still has an uphill battle. From the looks of it, this article seems to pass off a Greek ancestry for the Chalukyas, Satavahanas and others rather matter-of-factly. While I am fully aware of those theories, some of them are either discredited or are far from being 'mainstream consensus'. You might also want to get Dinesh's opinion on some of these theories - he's written FAs on some of these dynasties. But I really wonder if he'll be able to weigh in on the article in its present confused state. Just try pinging him though. Sarvagnya 20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Done Four sub-articles were created, and now the body of the article is 41kb. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Sponsianus I have added my comments interlinear above.Sponsianus 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

To Septentrionalis, on the modern scholars

Sep, you have a lot of interesting points about the views of scholars and I'll try to answer them. Tarn, Narain and Bopearachchi disagree on many points, in some cases because there is so much time between them. Tarn was the pioneer, he established his theses in the 30s, and he is, as Devanampriya often points out, biased towards speculations and grandelinquence. In many cases: some of his observations were reasonable and even stand today. Narain established his major works, which included a critical reading of Tarn, in the 50s. Narain is important because his more sceptical approach (and he was Indian and knew the Indian sources better) but Narain also made some serious mistakes and his chronology is today just as outdated as Tarn's.

(Later editions of Tarn's and Narain's books may have later dates, but this is the major time frame). Boperachchi's encyclopaedia is from 1991 and outscales any previous work in the studies of coins. Any source which is earlier is outdated regarding chronology, at least for the later kings where there are no sources.

However, Bopearachchi has less to say on the relationship between the kings than Tarn and Narain: his main expertise is in the field of numismatics. Like all encyclopaedias, there are flaws, and some of Bopearachchi's chronology have been contested by R.C. Senior and other modern numismatists. Very likely, Bopearachchi does not rigidly defend his chronology from 1991 in all detail today. PHG has nevertheless applied his system, barring better alternatives, and I have tried to add Senior's views as an alternative.

Then there are later works like Eric Seldeschlachts, which have not taken in the numismatic advances at all but rely on older sources for the original numismatic research, probably since the author is not a numismatist himself. That means there are modern works which still can give outdated views and that situation is very unsatisfying for Wikipedia who would like to present encyclopaedic knowledge.

My point is that for cultural references, interpretation of sources, the extension of the kingdom, Tarn and Narain can still be quoted, but only in those cases where their chronology is obviously outdated and distorted from a more modern view. And to decide when this is the case is indeed very close to crossing into original research. The flaws in this article reflect the confusion in the sources, and by and large PHG and others have made a great job. Sponsianus 18:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sponsianus presents a quite reasonable summary of the sources. The article should probably say this, or much of it.

However, I cannot agree with his evaluation of our article. It gives Tarn's narrative with Bopearchchi's dates, and no hint how extensively Narain and Bopearchchi disagree with him. We should follow them where they agree (and PHG has not always done that); where they disagree, we should do as WP:V requires, and say Tarn says X, Narain says Y, Bopearchchi says Z. Thus, the sequence of the kings is fairly certain (but we should indicate that the absolute chronology is arguable); on the other hand, Tarn attributed many events to Demetrius I which Narain gives to Demetrius II or Menander - and we should say so. Above all, we should admit how much of all these reconstructions is, and must be, conjecture; PHG does not appear to understand that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sponsianus! Septentrionalis, I totally agree with the WP:V approach. Until now, editors who have been complaining basically never tried to put in their own sources though (there are just a few mentions of Narain and Thapar, which I think I had to put in myself). I am all for a balanced presentation of numerous reputable sources: history is anything except monolithic. Regards PHG 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

New References

I added a lot of new refs and many direct quotes today, increasing the ref count to 125. Regards PHG 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Response:

Unfortunately, that is a little disingenous as the primary debate centered around the map, and users PHG and Aldux were unwilling to honor negotiations and compromises on the map (see Indo Greek Talk page). These included a desire to add other references (I have cited Narain and others many times), but our suggestions were ignored and the debate, sadly stonewalled and later stifled. User phg will presumably state that his map is "rigorously based" on three sources, but the truth is, it is only based on one (the erroneous westermans map).

1. The oxford map shows greek holdings essentially only in modern day pakistan

2. Narain specifically spoke out against inclusion of the gangetic plains, central india, or gujarat in indo greek territories and demonstrated this with his map in "The Indo Greeks". Specific references from his work can also be provided as evidence.

See map from Narain's "The coin types of the Indo-Greeks" above.PHG 14:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

PHG simply cites Narain and Oxford to, what I can only assume, confuse the reader and lend legitimacy to his preferred projection of Indo greek territory.

The limits of the "Narain map" are exactly those of the map on the first pages of "Coins of the Indo-Greeks" by Narain. PHG 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If 3 sources are to be represented, then why not have three maps? Why must there only be one, and that too, the most erroneous and extreme projection?

Because there is absolutely no reason why your point-of-view, with its objective of minimizing Indo-Greek territory as much as possible, should prevail with a single representation over the various scholarly views on the subject. It is completely standard to show territory and conquest areas in a single map, even for ancient empires where boarders might not be so accurately known. Wikipedia always favours a balanced presentation of reputable scholarly views on a given subject, which is precisely what this map is achieving. PHG 19:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

To Sponsianus' points:

While Tarn is indeed outdated, Narain is not. His most recent work was published (or reedited if you will) in 2003. While you may disagree with some of his theories, he certainly did not embrace the rather odd reverie that Tarn had about Demetrius' "dream of recreating the Mauryan Empire" and his being a "claimant to the Mauryan throne" through a dubious, and most likely nonexisting, marriage connection. That's just silly, and Narain did not make such wildy speculative errors.

Sponsianus replies: PHG is right that reprints are just reprints. It is true that Narain was active for very long and wrote some articles in the 1990s. This does however not magically update his major works, which are a product of the mid-20th century.. There is no edition of Narain's "Indo-Greeks" which is adapted to Bopearachchi's, Senior's and others recent discoveries. Please correct me if I am wrong, and show me where to find such a book.

Narain's books include several speculations which are just as bad as Tarn's. One of them is the suggestion that Antimachus II was a sub-king first under Menander I and then under his queen Agathokleia, who moved him from the Swat valley to "distant northern Arachosia" (p 112). Narain is surprised that the many coins of Antimachus II "almost seem out of proportion for his position". In reality, it is Narain's own speculative invention that Antimachus II, who has the same title (Basileos=independent king) as Menander I, was a sub-king who could be moved about between different territories.Sponsianus 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, E.Seldeslacht's thesis was on how mythological sources and numismatics are potentially problematic foundations for serious historical research. The problem is the very same modern authors you have been citing are relying on many of these outdated and rather unscientific speculations to advance Tarn's old notions. That is the root of the problem in Indo Greek Studies. From the beginning, the contention has not been that Narain's views must be the only one. The contention has been that since so little can be confirmed, we must enunciate that and rely on what can be established archaeologically, rather than through original research or speculation.

I believe Sarvagnya and Septentrionalis touched on the same point above (I apologize if I am mistaken).

Regards, Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sponsianus replies: No, the problem is that Seldeschlachts (not Seldeschlacht) is unaware of recent numismatic literature. This is very easy to check out: his references include nothing of Bopearachchi after 1990, nothing at all of Senior, and nothing from the ONS journal, the foremost numismatical review. This means that Seldeschlachts is unaware of the modern chronology, so that he repeats the uncertainties of older authors. That is why Seldeschlachts makes a lot of unsupported claims about Demetrius II being the conqueror mentioned by Strabon, and dates other kings unknowingly of overstrikes and recent hoard finds. In discussing the Hathigumpha inscription, he does not mention Amyntas (A-mi-ta), which may well be because he has not read up on the later kings.

You must realise that modern scholarship has long left Tarn's and Narain's controversies behind and focus on systematic analysis of coins and other "hard facts". In Bopearachchi, Senior, Wilson etc, Tarn is very rarely mentioned. The Indian sources play only a minor part in establishing the chronology, though Seldeschlachts' analysis of them is of course mostly a good work. I am just saying that if Seldeschlachts is uncertain on Indo-Greek chronology, that is because he has not read any recent literature.Sponsianus 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Devanampriya wrote: "While Tarn is indeed outdated, Narain is not.": this is probably a misrepresentation. Reprints are just reprints. See Bopearachchi: PHG 16:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"The two classical books of W.W.Tarn The Greeks in Bactria and India (2nd edition, Cambridge, 1951), and of A.K.Narain The Indo-Greeks (Oxford 1957)"

— Bopearachchi, "Monnaies", p.15, 1991

We should be carefull not to diabolize Tarn, and oppose to him a supposedly neutral Narain. Here is an analysis by Olivier Guillaume in Analysis of Reasoning in Archaeology:PHG 13:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"In fact, underlying Tarn's and Narain's reconstructions there are two opposing pre-suppositions which explain many divergences between the two works. Briefly, Tarn is biased towards the Greeks and Narain towards the Indians."

— Olivier Guillaume, Analysis of Reasoning in Archaeology quoted in Narain The Indo-Greeks, p.496

Both should indeed be taken with a grain of salt, although it is surely no reason to dismiss either's account. PHG 13:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course Tarn's account is conjecture; so is Narain's; so is Bopearchchi's. With the actual ancient sources, this is unavoidable. Furthermore, even if Tarn's account were as refuted as Ptolemaic astronomy (and it is not; there is no equivalent of Tycho in this field, and cannot be until someone invents a time machine), we should include it, as we discuss the Ptolemaic system.

• Republications are not, I think, in question; Tarn revised his own work in 1951, and it was republished and updated again in 1985.

::Sponsianus replies: No update from 1985 could be credited to Tarn himself, who was long dead by then (he should have been 116 that year). Even in 1951, Tarn was 82. No, one must admit that Tarn's work belongs mainly in the 1930s. Sponsianus 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• I fail, in this context, to see a distinction between archaeological and numismatic evidence; most of the archaeological evidence, and almost all of it which deals with the sequence of political events (and thus with the quite limited differences between Tarn and Narain), consists of the coins.
• I do not see that the present text relies on "mythological" evidence at all, but then I'm not sure what Devanampriya means by it; certainly the Yavanas of the Mahabharata are not mentioned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• I reluctantly agree that this article should be delisted until rewritten to state where it is following conjectures and whose. It is not now balanced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is not the time for voting yet, as we are still working on improving the article (the voting occurs in the next phase I think). Size and reference issues have been addressed, and now I am going to have to put Narain quotes by myself in the place of those who keep complaining without ever putting material by themselves. PHG 19:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a quantity of quotes from Narain. PHG 20:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Including the footnote wherein you cited Narain in support of a position (that Menander took Palinputra for Demetrius I) with which he expressly disagrees in some detail. Really, this will not do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Let me disagree here. Narain did write: "There is certainly some truth in Apollodorus and Strabo when they attribute to Menander the advances made by the Greeks of Bactria beyond the Hypanis and even as far as the Ganges and Palibothra (...) That the Yavanas advanced even beyond in the east, to the Ganges-Jamuna valley, about the middle of the second century BC is supported by the cumulative evidence provided by Indian sources", Narain, "The Indo-Greeks" p.267. This was in support of "In the process of the invasion, the Greeks seem to have advanced as far as the capital Pataliputra". I think this is totally legitimate. As far as I know, Narain contends that the Indo-Greeks did not take Pataliputra, but he recognizes that they besieged the city. I will reinstate the quote. PHG 19:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Attaching that quote to a sentence which claims that Menander acted for Demetrius I is academic fraud. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Not to mention the one in which you quote Narain as calling Sagala Menander's capital on the basis of his paraphrase of someone else, when he himself sees the Milindapanha as clearly showing that it was not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ha, I see what you mean, it seems to be a paraphrase of Whitehead. I will therefore reinstate the reference as a paraphrase of Whitehead. Thanks PHG 19:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Whitehead wrote in 1914 before the question had been seriously discussed. Undue weight. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• This is just a single reference, and if Whitehead is considered relevant enough to be paraphrased by Narain, I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't mention that. Regards. PHG 05:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This is an article, not a book. We should treat Tarn, Narain, and Bopearchchi equally; not inflate our source count with citations from before they began to discuss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yavanas=Indo-Greeks

Narain is actually crystal-clear about the Indo-Greeks being described unambiguously as Yavanas (in Sanskrit):

"These Indo-Greeks were called Yavanas in ancient Indian litterature" p.9 + note 1 "The term had a precise meaning until well into the Christian era, when gradually its original meaning was lost and, like the word Mleccha, it degenerated into a general term for a foreigner"

— p.18, in Narain "The Indo-Greeks". PHG 08:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How long is it going to be necessary to put up with unfounded claims by User:Devanampriya? PHG 19:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Not Necessarily

Please don't mischaracterize this and others as unfounded claims. Your fellow contributors agreed with at least two of my contentions and user Sarvagnya appears to have seconded several of them--so your position is hardly sparkling clean at this stage. Politely speaking, I believe Elonka had a similar complaint about this tendency of yours.

Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that other scholars dispute its application (as seen in the reference I have provided). Also, Narain states that the Yavanas did not invade the gangetic, let alone Pataliputra. According to him, they merely joined a raid led by Indian kings, yet surprisingly, you don't seem to be embracing that theory...

Devanampriya 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As stated above:

Done. The most accessible for all that I could find: Bhasyacharya.N. "The Age of Patanjali". Theosophical Publishing House. Madras. India. 1915 [[10]]

Key Quotes: "That the Hindus apply the term Yavana to all foreigners, not only Greeks, who were living west of the Indus, is plain from the foregoing quotations and considerations: "

"We also come to the conclusion, that in the same way the several Sanskrit authors meant to describe — by the use of the term Yavana — the various foreigners they had known. It might have been applied to the Persians when they invaded India; after them to the Greeks, then to the Bactrians; and at last — also to the Pathans and the Moguls] [Page 13] "

Unless you want to talk about how the God-King Rama's progenitor (Sagara) defeated the Greeks and shaved their heads, I think you see the issue with the strict identification of Yavanas with Greeks only.

Devanampriya 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn’t it quite ironic that you, of all contributors, after continuously claiming Narain as the authority on the Indo-Greeks now conveniently throw away his understanding of the Yavanas as Indo-Greek, in favour of an obscure religious author who wrote a hundred years ago? Although the Yavana word came to mean foreigners generally after the 1st century CE, most modern authors I know, if not all of them, do equate Yona/Yavanas with the Greeks and Indo-Greeks, at least for the time-period being considered (4th century BCE-1st century CE). Another quote from a modern, reputable, Indian author: PHG 17:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"All Greeks in India were however known as Yavanas"

— Burjor Avari, "India, the ancient past", p.130, 2007 PHG 08:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, I said no such thing. All I am saying is that this is the problem with the study of the Indo Greeks. There obviously have been scholars who have pointed out problems with the usage of the word yavanas. Unless we want to also add "Sagara defeated the greeks and shaved their heads" in your preliminary background section, you see the problem with position.

Devanampriya 01:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Of course there are some philological issues with the definition of the word Yavana over time, and I am glad to acknowledge them, but for most scholars Indo-Greeks= Yavana/Yona for the time-period being considered (3rd century BCE-1st century CE). PHG 06:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Since a contributor (User:Pmanderson) has asked the question, here are the books I personnaly own and have read, which bear some relation to the Indo-Greeks, complete with a complimentary photograph of a part of my Indo-Greek library: :)

My "Indo-Greek" books (well, most of them).PHG 14:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bopearachchi, Osmund (1991). Monnaies Gréco-Bactriennes et Indo-Grecques, Catalogue Raisonné (in French). Bibliothèque Nationale de France. ISBN 2-7177-1825-7.
• Avari, Burjor (2007). India: The ancient past. Routledge. ISBN 0415356164.
• Faccenna, Domenico (1980). Butkara I (Swāt, Pakistan) 1956–1962, Volume III 1 (in English). Rome: IsMEO (Istituto Italiano Per Il Medio Ed Estremo Oriente).
• McEvilley, Thomas (2002). The Shape of Ancient Thought. Comparative studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies. Allworth Press and the School of Visual Arts. ISBN 1-58115-203-5.
• Puri, Baij Nath (2000). Buddhism in Central Asia. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 81-208-0372-8.
• Tarn, W. W. (1984). The Greeks in Bactria and India. Chicago: Ares. ISBN 0-89005-524-6.
• Narain, A.K. (2003). The Indo-Greeks (in English). B.R. Publishing Corporation. "revised and supplemented" from Oxford University Press edition of 1957.
• Narain, A.K. (1976). The coin types of the Indo-Greeks kings (in English). Chicago, USA: Ares Publishing. ISBN 0-89005-109-7.
• Cambon, Pierre (2007). Afghanistan, les trésors retrouvés (in French). Musée Guimet. ISBN 9782711852185.
• Keown, Damien (2003). A Dictionary of Buddhism. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860560-9.
• Bopearachchi, Osmund (2003). De l'Indus à l'Oxus, Archéologie de l'Asie Centrale (in French). Lattes: Association imago-musée de Lattes. ISBN 2-9516679-2-2.
• Boardman, John (1994). The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03680-2.
• Errington, Elizabeth; Joe Cribb; Maggie Claringbull; Ancient India and Iran Trust; Fitzwilliam Museum (1992). The Crossroads of Asia : transformation in image and symbol in the art of ancient Afghanistan and Pakistan. Cambridge: Ancient India and Iran Trust. ISBN 0-9518399-1-8.
• Bopearachchi, Osmund; Smithsonian Institution; National Numismatic Collection (U.S.) (1993). Indo-Greek, Indo-Scythian and Indo-Parthian coins in the Smithsonian Institution. Washington: National Numismatic Collection, Smithsonian Institution. OCLC 36240864.
• 東京国立博物館 (Tokyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan); 兵庫県立美術館 (Hyogo Kenritsu Bijutsukan) (2003). Alexander the Great : East-West cultural contacts from Greece to Japan. Tokyo: 東京国立博物館 (Tokyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan). OCLC 53886263.
• Lowenstein, Tom (2002). The vision of the Buddha : Buddhism, the path to spiritual enlightenment. London: Duncan Baird. ISBN 1-903296-91-9.
• Foltz, Richard (2000). Religions of the Silk Road : overland trade and cultural exchange from antiquity to the fifteenth century. New York: St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 0-312-23338-8.
• Marshall, Sir John Hubert (2000). The Buddhist art of Gandhara : the story of the early school, its birth, growth, and decline. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. ISBN 81-215-0967-X.
• Mitchiner, John E.; Garga (1986). The Yuga Purana : critically edited, with an English translation and a detailed introduction. Calcutta, India: Asiatic Society. OCLC 15211914 ISBN 81-7236-124-6.
• Salomon, Richard. "The "Avaca" Inscription and the Origin of the Vikrama Era" Vol. 102.
• Banerjee, Gauranga Nath (1961). Hellenism in ancient India. Delhi: Munshi Ram Manohar Lal. OCLC 1837954 ISBN 0-8364-2910-9. (I don't have this one with me right now)
• Bussagli, Mario; Francine Tissot; Béatrice Arnal (1996). L'art du Gandhara (in French). Paris: Librairie générale française. ISBN 2-253-13055-9.
• Marshall, John (1956). Taxila. An illustrated account of archaeological excavations carried out at Taxila (3 volumes) (in English). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
• (2005) "Afghanistan, ancien carrefour entre l'est et l'ouest" (in French/English). Belgium: Brepols. ISBN 2503516815.
• Seldeslachts, E. (2003). The end of the road for the Indo-Greeks? (in English). (Also available online): Iranica Antica, Vol XXXIX, 2004.
• Senior, R.C. (2006). Indo-Scythian coins and history. Volume IV. (in English). Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.. ISBN 0-9709268-6-3.

PHG 07:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

More refs

I added today a bunch of quotes and references from Bopearachchi, and streamlined several portions of the article. PHG 17:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

These again fail to note the extent to which Bopearchchi disagrees with the history stated almost without question in the present text. For example, Bopearchchi dates Demetrius I 200-190 BC; he must therefore disagree that he invaded India in 180 BC, and is unlikely to agree that Menander (regnavit apud B. 155-130 BC) was his general. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can add this bit information if you wish (or you could as well). Am I supposed to add every possible little bit of information from Bopearachchi? Following you request I added: "Bopearachchi dates the reign of Demetrius slightly earlier to 200-190 BCE"

For Menander, here is what Bopearachchi says: "Numismats and historians are very divided on the chronology of his reign and on this territories. FOr A.Cunningham he would have reigned between 160 and 140 BCE, whether A. von Gutschmid suggests a very low date, from 125 to 95. According to E.J.Rapson, followed by Tarn, Menander would be contemporaneous with Eucratides, whether A.K.Narain considers him as his immediate successor. More recently A.D.H. Bivar proposed to see in him a successor of Apollodotus I and of Antiamachos Nicephoros, and considers him as a contemporary of Eucratides I. In the analysis we did of the numismatic and archeological data, we developped the hypothese of Bihar, and showed that Eucratides I and Menander were contemporary" I added this as reference to the article PHG 05:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

But the text of the article still says: while Menander led the invasion to the east [for Demetrius I] as though this were an uncontested position, if not a certainty. It is, of course, neither. Until all of this is cleaned up, and Tarn's position is attributed to him, and Narain's to Narain, and so on, this does not belong in FA. Doing so will take more time, and more space, than FAR can be reasonably expected to tolerate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

How about simply making it "According to Tarn..." then? PHG 18:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be a start; but that qualifier would be justified on almost every sentence in this section and most sentences in the article. What an FA would do is to indicate both that Narain and Bopearchchi disagree with him and what they believe. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, I am afraid it is untrue. This article relies on about 20 reputable authors overall. Indeed, there was very little on Narain, because nobody made the effort to quote him. I had to do it myself (about 10 references now). Everyone is welcome to add their own sources to the article. PHG 05:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Article body size 41Kb

After creating sub-articles such as History of the Indo-Greek Kingdom, Religions of the Indo-Greeks and Legacy of the Indo-Greeks, I also created Art of the Indo-Greeks to outsource more material. The body of the article now stands at 41 Kb PHG 07:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Map

In the map, I did one spelling correction Barigaza>Barygaza pointed out by Pamanderson, and suppressed the mention of Euthydemia, which is apparently a disputed emendation of a text by Ptolemy. PHG 08:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Update on reasons for nomination by User Blnguyen

•  Done(1c) has now been addressed (now 100 citations for 41kb)
•  Done(2b) has now been addressed (now 3 levels of heading)
•  Done(4) has now been addressed (the body of the article is now 41kb) PHG 11:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Map sources

The map from Narain's The coin types of the Indo-Greeks clearly shows Greek conquests and territory as far as (and including) Pataliputra. PHG 13:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A published map from Westermann Verlag showing the extent of Greek expansion in India. PHG (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, the current map is rigourously based on three major map sources: "Historical Atlas of Peninsular India" Oxford University Press (dark blue, continuous line), A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings" (dark blue, dotted line), Westermans "Atlas der Welt Gesishte" (light blue, dotted line). I am showing Narain's map here, as it seems its existence has been challenged repeatedly, especially by user Devanampriya.PHG 11:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, please stop misrepresenting me. I never said that the The coin types of the Indo-Greeks map never existed (I own a copy). What i did say was that this map (which was from a book compiled in collaboration with another author--H.K.Deb), is in conflict with Narain's stated positions as treated in his authoritative book on the topic "The Indo Greeks". "The Indo Greeks" is a 585 page tome where he discusses territories and campaigns at great length (and there is a more restrictive map that is provided that is in line with his views of greek territories on the subcontinent). He does not believe the greeks conquered and ruled the gangetic plain and gujarat as seen in the excerpts I provided above. "The coin types" is hardly even a tenth of that and, as evidenced by the title, is a catalogue of Indo Greek coins with virtually no discussion of the indo greek history.

Again, you cannot say it is "rigourously based on three major maps sources" when 1. The Atlas der Welt Gesishte map was already described by its owner and submitter as flawed 2. The narain map you provided was based on his coin catalogue book and not his map from his actual detailed treatise on the indo greeks, which conflicts with that projection. 3. And the oxford map that is cited is in direct conflict with PHG's misdirection:

The joining of three maps on one map makes it needlessly confusing for readers who will just think that the map demonstrates a progression of conquest rather than three different perspectives. This is the central complaint with the map as it stands now

Devanampriya 01:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot rely on your own original research and personal analyis to reject maps published by reputable sources. On Wikipedia, what is important is to rely on published material by reputable sources. Individual POVs are irrelevant. These three maps are indeed published by reputable sources, although all three of them probably have their shortcomings:

• 1) The map of Narain's The coin types of the Indo-Greeks is perfectly valid, even if you dislike it. It was published by a reputable source, with Narain's agreement (it would be quite incredible that he would dismiss the opening map of his book really!). I don't know if the map was drawn by him or not, but I would suppose so, as I have never seen it from another author, neither is it credited to somebody else, which would be a minimum. Narain does say that the Greeks went to besiege Pataliputra, so I don't see a big discrepancy. The other map from Narain which you are mentionning is not really relevant to this discussion: it is just names thrown around, and has no territorial boundaries. It is unusable for our purposes.
• 2)The Atlas der Welt Gesishte map is, again, a map published by a reputable source. One of her shortcomings (shared by User:Sponsianus who supplied it) is that it attributes the conquests to Demetrius. But many modern author do attribute the conquests to Demetrius indeed (see Bopearachchi for example, quoted in the article). Its southern territorial extent is probably based on the existance of coin hoard east of Ujjain etc.. ("A distinctive series of Indo-Greek coins has been found at several places in central India: including at Dewas, some 22 miles to the east of Ujjain. These therefore add further definite support to the likelihood of an Indo-Greek presence in Malwa" Mitchener, "The Yuga Purana", p.64) and the analysis by the authors of the map of the archaeological finds in Vidisa and Bharhut.
• 3) The Oxford map is a minimalist territorial map which happens to fit your point of view, but which I am glad to include anyway.

Please remain open to the variety of sources. Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." (Wikipedia:NPOV). PHG 05:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarn vs Narain

We should be carefull not to diabolize Tarn, and oppose to him a supposedly neutral Narain. Here is an analysis by Olivier Guillaume in Analysis of Reasoning in Archaeology:

"In fact, underlying Tarn's and Narain's reconstructions there are two opposing pre-suppositions which explain many divergences between the two works. Briefly, Tarn is biased towards the Greeks and Narain towards the Indians."

— Olivier Guillaume, Analysis of Reasoning in Archaeology quoted in Narain The Indo-Greeks, p.496

Both should indeed be taken with a grain of salt, although it is surely no reason to dismiss either's account. I am personally weary of Narain's positions, since I read his light-handed dismissal of one of the greatest accounts of the 1st century, the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, saying that "the account of the Periplus is just a sailor's story" (p.118), or his partisan mantra: "They (the Greeks) came, they saw, but India conquered" (p.499). PHG 13:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Narain came up with an extremely detailed reconstruction, and airily waved away all inconvenient evidence; so did Tarn before him. Evidence has been found since that would be inconvenient for both; but both narratives are still possible. We should deal with them equally. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with that. PHG 18:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

And until it is so, and it is not so now, this should not be an FA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• This article relies on about 20 reputable authors overall. Indeed, there was very little on Narain, because nobody made the effort to quote him. I had to do it myself (about 20 references now). Everyone is welcome to add their own sources to the article. I don't think it is right for a few POV-pushers to complain without ever adding anything to the article, and use the lack of representation of a source they favour to apply for a FA review. PHG 05:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

More stylistic issues

Being as how coinage was the Indo-Greeks' major contribution to Indian history, I can certainly see why we have pictures of Indo-Greek coinage all over the article. But they just don't seem especially germane where they are. I would just put in a small section (emphasis on SMALL) about them and put all the pictures of coinage in there. They're kind of cluttering up the article as is. As for the other pictures of architecture and art, I'd say we should keep them in the art section. Those hand-drawn little sketches aren't especially instructive or helpful either. I think we can cull them entirely. Of course, these are just issues to make the article better. But I would still say it's not FA material. Besides the organizational and aesthetic problems, the article is written in such a way that it doesn't draw clear lines between established scholarly consensus and various theories that happen to be floating around. It doesn't do a good job of giving the reader a good sense of the proportional reliability or importance of any theory. It's a big uphill battle to fix the article and unfortunately, I don't think any of the editors who have been arguing in the article's talk pages prior to FAR are unbiased enough to do it. Unless we can get an unbiased, knowledgeable editor who can broker a consensus, I don't think the article should be within 100 feet of any accolades. Windy City Dude 01:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• That's new. Most of the artifacts which are known from the Indo-Greeks are coins. This is specific to the subject-matter. It is only normal for an article on them to use coins extensively, as does any reputable book on the subject. I made a few drawings in order to represent some important (referenced) artifacts without raising copyright issues. We can definetely reduce them, in the main article at least. PHG 05:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've reduced the number of drawings to just two. PHG 08:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

References

I added a quantity of new quotes and references from Narain, Senior, J.Cribb, and Mc Dowall.PHG 08:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Although this FA review was raised following a questionable request by a user (User:Devanampriya) with an appalling history of incivility (top of this page), near-zero contributions to Wikipedia, and who proved he had but a very limited knowledge of ancient Indian history (Kushan coins above), I am glad that this review was an opportunity to:

• Dramatically reduce article size and create sub-articles.
• Introduce a lot more references with actual quotes (now 120 refs for 41kb of article material).
• Better balance the article between sources (although I am sure this will never be perfect!).
• Visually clean-up the article.
• Give better exposure to this arcane subject of the Indo-Greeks.

I believe this article has progressed greatly during the last 2-3 weeks. Thanks to all for your time and contributions. PHG 09:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yuga Purana

Devanampriya has been constantly criticizing the account of the Yuga Purana as a mythological fable unworthy of any mention. This is however unsupported, even by someone like Narain: "But the real story of the Indo-Greek invasion becomes clear only on the analysis of the material contained in the historical section of the Gargi Samhita, the Yuga Purana" Narain, p110, The Indo-Greeks. Also "The text of the Yuga Purana, as we have shown, gives an explicit clue to the period and nature of the invasion of Pataliputra in which the Indo-Greeks took part, for it says that the Pancalas and the Mathuras were the other powers who attacked Saketa and destroyed Pataliputra", Narain, p.112. Devanampriya's point of view on this issue is visibly purely personal and not supported by reputable sources. How long are we going to have to put up with Devanampriya's personal theories? PHG 15:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Enough.

I would try to fix this article; but that cannot be done while PHG continues to edit it, and quote the authorities in this manner. It is certainly POV: that is to say, it is written from Tarn's POV; I do not agree that this means that it is colonialist as some voices . It is misleading to the point of factual error. Strong and immediate delist and oppose any and all relisting unless PHG walks away from it for six months. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• (1a) Although I stand by the position that this is better written than most of what we promote, it does contain phrases like more than thirty Hellenic and Hellenistic kings. What is this supposed to mean? (The normal distinction here, that Hellenic is before Alexander and Hellenistic between Alexander and the Romans, is false, by anybody's chronology.) And whatever it means, we should probably say that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• (lb) It is not comprehensive; it omits the nature and condition of the sources; it omits a clear picture, and indeed, any but a few words, on Narain's and Bopearchchi's views.
• (1c) It is not accurate; it does not accurately represent the current body of published knowledge; instead it presents Tarn's conjectures, only, as statements of scholarly consensus.
• (1d) It is not neutral; for the same reasons.

Fixing this article will take a large amount of time. If PHG continues to edit it in this fashion, it will be impossible. I suggest boldly moving this to FARC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted attacks…

Hi Septentrionalis/Pmanderson. So much aggresivity on your part seems hard to understand and rather unwarranted. I, and other users, have demonstrated one-by-one that most of the claims brought against this article are unfounded. I will gladly correct, as always, any remaining issues.

• You asked me to give you the list of the books I own, which I did, complete with an authentifying photograph: you saw I probably have one of the best “Indo-Greek” libraries around, and I believe this article does indeed largely cover most of the theories on this subject. You asked me to better balance sources and provide more references: there are now 140 references/quotes from a variety of sources and Narain’s (disputable) opinions are amply represented, but you now admonish me for editing to bring these very references in (!!).
  
• I am proud that I have built this article (and many related ones) from scratch, and that it does provide one of the best available sources anywhere on the Indo-Greeks (as also recognized by other users). This article has already been approved by the Wikipedia community and deemed worthy of FA status (FAC) for nearly 2 years, and has improved ever since its nomination.
• On the other hand, User:Devanampriya, who requested this review, has been insulting the community by his incivility (top of this review), lack of knowledge (Kushans above), and extremist/nationalistic views (rejection of the Yuga Purana against of all scholarly sources, rejection of maps showing Indo-Greek conquests).
  

You’ll do as you want, but I am afraid you are not taking the right approach here. Your claim to rewrite this article to your own personal taste is both irrealistic and illegitimate: just contribute and collaborate with others, like the rest of us do on Wikipedia.PHG 17:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

PHG, please stop attacking other editors. It is more useful for you to be focusing on the article, instead of the individuals who are critiquing it. --Elonka 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Elonka, you have no lessons to give to anybody for making unwarranted personal attacks (here). On the contrary, it is a known fact that User:Devanampriya has been profoundly incivil with numerous Wikipedia editors who disagreed with him for the last two years. He clearly proved himself not to have the most basic knowledge of ancient Indian history (Discussion on the Kushan above). These are just facts, and it does not reflect very well on you to ally with such a user ([11], [12], [13])PHG 18:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; this is projection. Has PHG ever managed to edit cooperatively with anybody? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have never had any problems to cooperate with PHG during the time I've been on the Indo-Greek page. PHG even went so far as to translate parts of Bopearachchi for me when I asked him.Sponsianus 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Should you need to evaluate my skills as cooperating and creating great, referenced, content, you might just as well check some other of my FAs: Imperial Japanese Navy, or Boshin war.PHG 18:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• The present text of the article is an argument in favor of Tarn's interpretration; this is not neutrality and not acceptable.
• I have reviewed several of those 140 references, as this and this and this. Of those I have reviewed, an absolute majority have either been irrelevant to the point at issue, or citations out of context which represent an author as supporting a position he does not. I have no reason to believe the rest are any better.
• PHG, please let us know when you are done with this article so it can actually be reviewed. This review will, by the nature of the case, take longer than FAR can reasonably be expected to tolerate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• References: all references are exact, and I corrected the one case where a reference was arguably misattributed. In case 1 ([14]), you just replaced a reference by McEvilley with references by Tarn, Wheeler etc… Your additions are welcome, but you are not supposed to delete existing and proper references. In the case 2 ([15]) you just pointed out that Narain was actually paraphrasing Weatherford, which I immediately acknowledged. In case 3, you just added a reference ([16]), and I will now add a reference to the contrary (from Tarn). Your above claims against my references are thus baseless: please check other reference, I will gladly show you that they are exact as well.PHG 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to see you have had rethought citing Tarn as though he disagreed with LSJ; had he done so, his reliability would be in question. Of course he does not; he chose one meaning of proerchomai, the one which suited his argument. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the exact quote then: "The word Proeltontes shows that a military expedition is meant" (Tarn, p.144)!! I have absolutely no interest in your own personal analyis whether Tarn is right or wrong. Please stop double-guessing secondary sources and trying to dismiss them with your own original research!! I can also see that you misread Proeltontes for Proerchomai from the original Strabo, so I suppose you original research is really, really wrong. PHG 18:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• The proper transliteration is proelthontes.
• That is Tarn's argument; it should be cited as such. It's not a bad argument, but it is not conclusive; and it has verifiably failed to win consensus. 18:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• I really don't known about consensus on this question. Do you have a reference for your claim? And should we erase you reference regarding Proerchomai, a different word altogether? PHG 19:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for confirming that you know no Greek. Proerchomai is a composite verb, with an irregular conjugation, like all the other derivatives of erchomai (LSJ gives the principal parts); proelthontes is its aorist participle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I never claimed I spoke Greek (I speak French, English and Japanese... 日本語で議論しようか？). But I known what secondary sources say, and Tarn was something of a Classicist: do you have any sources for your claim that Tarn "is not conclusive; and it has verifiably failed to win consensus"? PHG 19:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Narain expressly disputes the argument (1957, p.36), although he acknowledges other evidence of the expedition; other authors ignore it; and the Loeb Strabo translates "advance". The word unquestionably implying military action would be proelauno. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Fine, so let's give these references indeed (Tarn/Narain, and maybe Loeb Strabo, although this is getting very close to original research). This is still a far cry from your "it has verifiably failed to win consensus", but no big deal really. PHG 18:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • <sigh> I said not consensus, which is demonstrated. If I had meant has a consensus against it, I would have said so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(left) <sigh> again. This entire section is an example of quotation out of context. Show is from Tarn's footnote; his text says The language used imports a military expedition. (emphasis mine). It does indeed import ("imply" OED) a military expedition, although Narain denies this; it does not demonstrate it, and cannot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I have finally got around to having a proper read of the fabulous Indo-Greek article. Congratulations! It is truly great - a detailed yet clear, balanced and well-referenced account of an extremely difficult, shadowy and contentious period of history. Well-done! I have fixed a few typos and corrected a few spelling mistakes but also changed the "Notes" section to "Footnotes" and moved it above the "References" section so it is easier for readers to check. I highly recommend it for Featured-article status. John Hill 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• • A canvassed comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• • As far as I know, sending a neutral message to a user who is knowledgeable in the field (Central Asia in this case) has nothing to do with canvassing: “it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions” (Wikipedia:Canvassing). If you complain about this, should I complain because User:Elonka coached User:Devanampriya to attack me ([17], [18], [19])? Let’s not have double standards please.PHG 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Let me see: Elonka requested that Devanampriya, having already posted to ANI, explain himself so that editors not knowledgeable in this obscure field could understand him, use diffs, and use short posts. I gather he didn't. I'm shocked, shocked to see such misconduct. ;> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

“Totally disputed” tag

Some users have been adding a “Totally disputed” tag at the top of the article, although it is unclear in what sense this article would be totally disputed. For those wishing to have this tag in, please justify. PHG 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research paragraph by Pmanderson

I am very surprised by an entire original research paragraph recently inserted by User:Pmanderson. Entitled “Nature and quality of the sources” it amounts to a personal essay and critique aimed at challenging the use of ancient sources made by modern scholars. It really has no place in a summary of the History of the Indo-Greeks, neither on Wikipedia in general. Here is the paragraph in question:

“Some narrative history has survived for most of the Hellenistic world, at least of the kings and the wars;[18] this is lacking for India. At least one such existed in antiquity: the Roman author, Pompeius Trogus, used it in his history of the world. This is also lost, but we have a much shorter abridgement or anthology by Justin. Justin tells the parts of Trogus' history he finds particularly interesting at some length; he connects them by short and simplified summaries of the rest of the material. In the process he has left 85% to 90% of Trogus out; and his summaries are held together by phrases like "meanwhile" (eodem tempore) and "thereafter" (deinde), which he uses very loosely. Where Justin covers periods for which there are other and better sources, he has occasionally made provable mistakes.[19] Justin does find the customs and growth of the Parthians, which were covered in Trogus' 41st book, quite interesting; in the process, he mentions four of the kings of Bactria and one Greek king of India, getting the names of two of them wrong.[20] In addition to these dozen sentences, we have a few passing mentions of India in the geographer Strabo, and there is half a story about Bactria (only) in one of the books of Polybius which has not come down to us intact.[21]” PHG 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I should like to believe that this description of a paragraph with four footnotes, mostly to Justin himself or the introduction to the 1994 translation of Justin, is mere inadvertence. This paragraph is in fact kinder than than, for example, Tarn's

[Justin] ultimately goes back or may go back to a good source and one has to weigh carefully what he says. But he has the same faults; he does not always summarize correctly, he has no interest in history as such and omits whole chapters of Trogus on the Further East which to us would be invaluable, for Trogus himself gave a comprehensive account; and accuracy to him is of small importance compared to the chance of drawing a moral lesson. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), POV (1d), MoS issues (2), and focus (4). Marskell 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, I don't think we've ever had a FAR section 125k long. Try and keep it brief in the FARC section and maybe use the discussion page for lengthy brainstorming. Marskell 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong and immediate delist Tendentious; notes are unreliable and deceptive. see above for examples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please see WP:FAR instructions; there is no immediate delist. The goal of FAR is improvements, and each review period is two to three weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think this can be made presentable in two to three weeks. I checked a sample of the footnotes, and more than half were simply wrong; Blnguyen has checked others. For example, when I surveyed the article (here) footnote 4, about Taxila as a capital, cited the following phrase: a new and orderly Taxila with a rectilinear street plan of established Hellenistic type. There are two problems with this:
    • Our article was claiming that Taxila was refounded as a capital. The source doesn't say that.
    • More seriously, on looking up what it actually did say and on what authority, I found that, where our article claimed this as 180 BC, Taxila's foundation as a Hellenistic city is of uncertain date, anywhere from 200 BC to 100 AD; it may even have been given a Hellenistic plan by the Kushans, who learned about such cities in Bactria.

  I've fixed this, and so far the fix has stuck; but all the notes will have to be checked before we can put this on the front page without embarassment. When they are, and the balance is straightened out, I would be happy to renominate it myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• All the references in this article are authentic, as well as the quotes, you can check them and I am ready to discuss them one by one in the FAR above. The example you are mentionning only points to a discrepancy between the text speaking about a Hellenistic capital, and the reference speaking about an Hellenistic city: when I added it, I just wanted to add a source about the city of Taxila being Hellenistic, and I even later deleted the mention of the "capital" (which was not put by me in the first place) as I had no specific references regarding that (I added refs about Sagala being a capital though). Your accusations are simply unjustified, and, again, I am ready to discuss any refs you are challenging, and correct if something was claimed wrongly. PHG 20:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - 'nuff said. Sarvagnya 05:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - Still many problems: Many single sentence paragraphs. Some paras have no source. Many analytical/conjecture/prediction type statements are not sourced and need to be sourced. Notes are not in the same format in a consistent manner. Also, aside from the unsourced stuff, a lot of the notes did not correspond to what teh article said when I checked it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• There are references now in essentially all paragraphs I think. A lot has been streamlined. As far as I am aware, all the references in this article are exact. Please point to specifics. You never explained what discrepancy you may have found between text and sources, despite my specific requests on your Talk Page or in this page. PHG 06:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please note there are now 179 references and quotes (for a 42k article body size), making it one of the most referenced articles around. PHG 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (strong). Great and highly referenced article on an arcane subject. All claims were either solved or responded to. PHG 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The modesty of this claim of the nominator and principal author is a shining example to us all. The most serious claims were responded to with promises to make the article more balanced; which would indeed, if fulfilled, be a large step to make this article FA; but they have not been. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe this article quite fairly represents current knowledge on the subject. More than 20 reputable sources are represented, with over 140 quotes and references. PHG 18:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Many of them irrelevant citations, of quotes that have been misunderstood or are being cited out of context. The text reasonably, but imperfectly, represents the views of 1938; in a 1938 Wikipedia, use of scholarship from before the First World War as though it were current would not be unreasonable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
        • You are mistaken. And please discuss on the FAR, not here. PHG 18:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (with minor changes) I have just reread all the comments on the Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indo-Greek Kingdom page and the many notes I found this morning on my Talk page and had a good think about it all.

This subject, as I noted in my earlier comments, deals with "an extremely difficult, shadowy and contentious period of history." I should have also noted that we lack good historical sources for much of the period and so, much (often too much) of the "history" has been reconstructed solely on interpretations of the numismatic data which is further compromised by the many uncertainties surrounding the provenance of the coin finds - and whether or not they are genuine.

On top of the fact that many, if not most, of the coin finds are not provenanced properly, there has been a long history of faking coins, sculptures and inscriptions in the region (something now reaching epidemic proportions). Many of the faked coins (and inscriptions) are of high quality and it is very difficult to determine if they are fakes.

I have a somewhat damaged old B&W photo which I took in 1981 of the gate to the Taxila Museum which says: "BEWARE: FAKE SCULPTURES AND COINS ARE SOLD IN PLENTY AROUND HERE." This sign highlights some of the difficulties numismatists face in these regions - and why they seem so often to go astray.

In my experience it would be just about impossible to get two scholars to completely agree on a reconstruction of any major part of the history of the Indo-Greek kingdom(s) - just look at the differing positions of Tarn, and Narain, to give only two examples.

PHG has certainly put a great deal of work into this article and, I thought, tried very hard to meet with the various criticisms made of his work. It seems to me that he has met with most of the criticisms quite well, amending his position when mistakes were pointed out. I also think he has done rather a good job of making some sense out of a very cloudy period of history. I especially like the excellent illustrations and disagree with the criticisms of the map - I think PHG has made it quite clear on the map that the various experts disagree - and shows several interpretations of the data (such as it is) very well.

An article on this subject is always going to be somewhat controversial. I think you would be hard-pressed to get a better article on the subject, or any which would attract less criticism, but maybe there should be an overall statement about the general lack of hard data and the hypothetical and controversial nature of the "historical" reconstructions. Perhaps, because of the uncertainties, the article should not attempt such a detailed reconstruction of the period - particularly some of the less certain datings. John Hill 22:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I made clear that they disagree. PHG simply repeated Tarn's version as fact. No dating here is certain to less than 5 years (Bopearchchi systematically rounds his estimates to the nearest multiple of 5); the only one for which we have any external evidence is uncertain by 20 years.

How old is the (competent) coin-faking? Most of the coins used in the discussion existed in 1950; many of them in 1900; and most of the more recent evidence was not found in markets, but in digs, like the several Guillame published; coins with uncertain provenance might be ignored in this subject anyway, because the find-spot is much of the data.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pmanderson. I am afraid you are disrupting the voting process by adding negative comments everytime someone is not following your opinion. I am not sure you are supposed to try to influence voters by making comments on their Talk Page either ([20]). Please make your comments in the FAR. Please try to be fair and follow the rules. PHG 18:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (with minor changes)

As I've said, if there's confusion in this article, it reflects only the confusion in the academic field. The article is a sterling work on a nearly impossible subject, though some of the criticism (length, some old quotes) is relevant. I've redone the history section today and hope that is an improvement. Sponsianus 21:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks. That's a definite improvement; I'll add the 180 BC date for Demetrius I, since it was consensus before Bopearchchi, and should therefore be mentioned. (While imbalance towards Bopearchchi's 1991 book is better than imbalance towards Tarn's 1938 book, I would prefer balance.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist for now for the very simple reason that - were this article up for FA today - it wouldn't pass. The {{disputed}} tag aside, FA requires an article to be stable (heck, even GA requires this) but the spate of recent significant edits suggests that it isn't. The feedback that *this* FA review has generated would - under normal circumstances - be part of a pre-FA peer review stage, so I suggest formally stepping back the state of this article to that stage as well.
  Of course, the FA review process can be re-initiated at any time, and I think that this article would deserve it. -- Fullstop 00:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  ps: Considering that the issue of who-is-being-cited-how-often-and-for-what is a bone of contention, this article *really* needs to re-think its referencing style. It should also begin quoting more inline instead of delegating to footnotes. That is NOT what footnotes are for! And direct quotations of historiographers have absolutely no business being in an encyclopedia. If this were being FA reviewed today, I'd quick-fail it solely for use (leave alone dependency, which is also true here) of such primary sources.

• The "Disputed" tag has been added by the same ones who are trying to have this article delisted. I am not even sure if it is fair to add a "Disputed" tag during a FAR. I suggest your evaluation of the article should make abstraction of that. Also this article used to be very highly stable (except for a dispute on the map): the recent edits and improvement have been made in an effort to respond to the people who brought this FAR forward. Regards. PHG 20:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist for the simple reason that the article's contents seems to be disputed, OR tags, sections lack citations and the existing citations are inconsistent and incomprehensible in some cases. Footnotes are what they should be, not paragraphs themselves. Whole commentaries and dialogues need to be removed/reworded. It will simply fail an FA review if put up today. Delist it, let the authors work on the article and sort out the issues. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 02:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Amar. The "Disputed" tags have been put up by the very people who are trying to have this article delisted. Please make abstraction of that in your evaluation. The numerous quotes from reputable historians have been added in order to objectivize the debate. Regards PHG 20:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi PHG, the very fact that the disputed tag is there in the article indicates one of the two things below:

• There is a majority opinion that the article is disputed.
• The authors who think that the contents are undisputed are not presenting facts that convince others to remove the disputed tag.

If it is the first case, then the article is certainly not an FA. If it is the second case, then the article's authors have significant work to do to present a case of why it is not disputed. They also have to address the utter lack of citations in sections like 1.2, 2.1.5, 2.3.3, 2.4 and also find a better way to handle the plenty of quotes in the article which are currently making the article difficult to read. All these issues do not gel well with what an FA should be. In either case, the only option I see is to delist. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 02:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I added references for, I think, all the paragraphs you mentionned. PHG 21:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist per below comments.

  The Indo-Greek kings seem to have achieved a very high level of cultural syncretism - {{fact}} tagged. Certainly not acceptable in a featured article.

  Too many subsections and sub-sub-sections...especially in the History of the Indi-Greek kingdom section. This is having an adverse affect on the TOC.

  A very high density of one-line, two-lines paragraphs through out the article. They need to be rewritten/reorganised into bigger paragraphs.

  I see a lot of "not in citation given", "citation needed", "original research?" tags scattered all over the article. All of them need to be addressed.

  The entire section of "Legacy of the Indo-Greeks" has just 3 sentences. Can easily be merged into other sections, probably to the history section.

  A thorough copyedit is very much required after all the above issues are addresssed. The copyedit by expert copyeditors would help resolving MoS issues, and to handle the plenty of quotes mentioned in the article through out in a better way.

  I'll add more comments, if I find any. - KNM ^Talk 22:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

KNM, the cultural syncretism of the Indo-Greek is a basic observation which is understood in most sources dealing with the matter. The fact that the coins are bilingual (a first in world history) and mix Olympic and Indian deities should suffice. Your grammatic objections are better founded, but the complications under the history section are due to the fact that what we are dealing with are cautious reconstructions. It is impossible to write much without reservations. Best regards Sponsianus 09:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And my chief objection to the present text is that there aren't enough reservations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep

It had all qualities of a Featured Article in the first place. Nevertheless, I counted 17 changes (just counting {{Done}} tags) according to suggestions in this discussion. It is obvious that PHG is addressing one by one all suggestions, bringing the article to an even higher quality level. --FocalPoint 19:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you FocalPoint for your support! I think the article has become even better than before, more balanced, and much much more referenced. In any case, this is a fascinating subject, and this article clearly offers one of the best summary available anywhere on the Indo-Greeks. Regards PHG 20:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been filled with irrelevant and misleading notes, and quotations out of context, by an editor who does not understand the secondary sources and has not consulted the primary ones. I stand with Strong delist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks Pmanderson. All quotes and references are exact and quoted in good faith. We may sometime have small differences on how the quotes are understood and interpreted, but that's what discussions are for. Regards PHG 07:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• For the administrator

I have had real difficulty in understanding what is really the problem. I am reading through this review and I see:

• "...it's better written than several articles we just promoted..There are a few minor points which should be dealt with....Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)"...some minor points...become...reluctance two weeks later:
• "I reluctantly agree that this article should be delisted until rewritten to state where it is following conjectures and whose. It is not now balanced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)" and then...reluctance goes away...
• "delist and oppose any and all relisting unless PHG walks away from it for six months. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)"

Furthermore, I am writing my opinion and Septentrionalis presents a position (again) where he acknowledges the notes and quotations but he finds them "irrelevant and misleading ... out of context".
Following that, he complains that the author has not consulted the primary sources. If that is true, what is the problem? Wikipedia's authors are not supposed to interpret primary sources, as this is research.
I think that this is not a discussion on the article. It is a personal attack on the author.
I am led to believe that User:PHG has really upset Septentrionalis, so therefore what we see here is a personal attack rather than critisism on the article and its status.
--FocalPoint 22:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

PHG (in several passages above, and more on the article talk page) has failed to understand what the secondary sources are saying. They spend much of their time discussing the primary sources, under the (not unreasonable) assumption that their readers either know the primary sources or will consult them, and have the necessary linguistic skills to do so; Tarn, in particular, does quote them in Latin and Greek, often without translation. As a result, PHG has often quoted the secondary sources out of context, to "prove" what they never meant to say; in one case, he quoted Narain's summary of his opponent's argument as Narain's view: He has repeatedly attributed to the ancient geographer Strabo views that Strabo not only explicitly cites from another author, but disbelieves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Beyond this, there is a wider controversy as to which of three contending schools of thought on the reconstructed history is to be presented as fact:

• PHG has been presenting Tarn's 1938 view as factual.
• Sponsianus rewrote a portion of the article to present Bopearachchi's 1991 views as fact (with some modifications by Senior in 2004); but has left other parts expressing Tarn's views.
• Devanampriya would like more weight (since he has not actually written much, I'm not sure how much weight) to Narain's 1957 views, which he reprinted in 2003.
• I would like to state the views of all three, with prose attributions. Both PHG and Devanampriya have agreed to this in principle, but it would be a very large job, and little of it has been done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Pmanderson. Interesting to see how you go balistic everytime somebody says they would like to keep this article an FA. Besides your behaviour being quite unfair to the voting process, may I suggest you cool down a bit: Narain is probably now the single most referenced and quoted author in this article. Bopearachchi, which I also favour, is also referenced and quoted between 20 to 30 times. Tarn is rather marginally treated in comparison. All quotes and references are exact and quoted in good faith. We may sometime have small differences on how the quotes are understood and interpreted, but that's what discussions are for. Regards PHG 07:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist:
  • From the above, it seems that the references used in the Legacy of the Indo-Greeks sections were called out as not referencing the material it was appearing as, and hence you shortened down the section. In addition to casting doubts about the rest of the article, this section now is far too short (a second-level heading consisting of four sentences and an image).
  • The notes and references section is mashed together (extended amounts of notes and references), too heavy with explanatory notes, and the references that are in there are not consistently formatted.
  • The subsectioning within the History of the Indo-Greek kingdom section isn't very encyclopedic, especially the one-paragraph sub-sub-sections.

All in all, between the notes and the structural issues, this (in my opinion) does not meet the featured article criteria. I believe it should be delisted. Daniel 04:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Daniel.  Done: I expanded Legacy of the Indo-Greeks with a third paragraph on religious influences. The short Legacy of the Indo-Greeks section has been made so in response to requests for a much shorter article overall (it used to be circa 160k). All material and references are in the sub-article Legacy of the Indo-Greeks.
• I am not sure what you mean by "The notes and references section is mashed together".
•  Done I suppressed the subsectioning in History of the Indo-Greek kingdom. Regards. PHG 11:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist:
  • For the reasons noted by PMAnderson and others. It abuses sources and is not neutral POV.
    • Stylistically, it lacks flow and is still loaded up with too much extraneous information.

Windy City Dude 03:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist:

While the article should have been judged in a static form, even with the current edits, it miscites sources (i.e. the Oxford map does not cite "Demetrias in Patalene", but it is credited as doing so). The map continues to mislead as does the article. Accordingly, it is very difficult for casual readers to get an accurate and simple overview of the topic in this state. Regards,

Devanampriya 04:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Closing: I don't know why this became the longest FAR ever. The balance, unfortunately, is in favour of removal. Marskell (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.