Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries

New Idea

Rather than continuing to edit war, how about this:

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

What would then happen in 1947? Do we include Pakistani inventions in the subcontinent list? Huon (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Two lists? One overall list for the geographic area and a sub-list for each modern country? In my mind calling the entire area "India" is factually incorrect. It is either the Indian subcontinent or South Asia (note those are two separate articles). N419BH 12:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

what has been called India had different boundaries along its history. I dont see anything wrong in this article detailing discoveries made in what was and is called India by numberous reliable secondary sourcses. Thanks User:N419BH for your good faith effort. as a compromise, i might warm up to this idea. yes, Huon, you are referring to 1947 the year the subcontinent devided into India and Pakistan. that is up for debate. let us see. --CarTick (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So let me summarize: The idea is to create one article under List of Indian subcontinent inverntions and discoveries or something like that, which would include everything from the IVC up to and including Bangladesh, the Republic of India and Pakistan, possibly also Sri Lanka, Nepal or the Maldives (if there actually are any notable inventions for the latter). Furthermore, we would have separate articles for the modern countries (at least for those with sufficiently many inventions to make this worthwhile) which would duplicate the relevant modern parts of the "Indian subcontinent" list. Did I understand this correctly? I would go along with this, and I have to note that it's surprisingly similar to what Gun Powder Ma tried to accomplish, with the exceptions of some added redundancy and the use of "Indian subcontinent" instead of "South Asian". Our article on the subcontinent claims the terms are usend interchangeably, and I would prefer "South Asian" simply because it's more of an adjective, but it's probably not all that important which of the interchangeable terms we actually use. Huon (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. For that matter, we could call the article List of inventions and discoveries made on the Indian subcontinent/South Asia. Since the terms are interchangeable, why not use both and maintain WP:NPOV? N419BH 22:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

i am not entirely convinced this is the best solution. but, if this is the only way we are going to obtain a consensus, i am willing to support Huon's proposal. --CarTick (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is the difference between "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia"? Indian subcontinent is quite explicit that the terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are used interchangeably, while arguing for the neutrality of the later term. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Gun Powder - there is none, but "Indian subcontinent" will make the patriots happy. It's a shabby compromise, because "South Asia" is better for the reasons you state, but it might be worth going for it purely for the avoidance of drama. Moreschi (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend GunPowder to read any book that says "History of India" to know when History of India begins and how the term India was used to denote geographical areas that are not just part of modern day India. this will also save you the trouble of "defining" it and may be you will also understand why some of the users here oppose you. Moreschi, if that helps release your anger, go for it. damn, these pseudo neutralists. --CarTick (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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

<crash>The whole point of using "South Asia" is that it avoids the problem of multiple uses of the word "India" (historical area, shorthand for republic of India, etc). That was why the split was made in the first place. But it's a minor point not worth fighting over; "Indian subcontinent" will avoid drama now and in the long run and is sufficiently in accordance with WP:ENC for everyone to be reasonably happy. Moreschi (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

nobody likes confusion. your point has been already pointed out and according to "oppose" voters, it is historical revisionism and any confusion is clarified in the lead. --CarTick (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

To be blunt, that's not the impression I get from Zuggernaut, who wants to mix different meanings of the term "India" in the same list. How can we clarify that in the lead? "India is whatever we want it to be, no more and no less?" Besides, I'd say arguing for continuity from Mehrgarh to the Republic of India is revisionism of its own. Huon (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Proposal

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

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

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

Proposed titles:

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

Commentary

• Support overall proposal as nom. Name preferences: Oppose #1, Support, in order of preference: 3, 4, 2. Calling the entire area "India" is confusing and not in keeping with WP:NPOV as it does not respect Pakistan and other countries in the geographic area. Support the combination title because it is not clear to me that "South Asia" is the generally accepted term and our own articles state the two are interchangeable. To be completely neutral we should use both and re-evaluate at a future date. N419BH 00:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

this is a bad idea and is going to get us into more drama. i would recommend we propose just one title, which is List of inventions and discoveries from the Indian subcontinent. --CarTick (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support overall proposal. Order of name preferences: 4, 2, 3, 1. We should avoid the ambiguity of the unqualified term "Indian", and giving both interchangeable names in the title just makes it unnecessarily complicated. Huon (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Indian subcontinent" won't work for reasons detailed in my post-script to Gun Powder Ma in the section above. In other words, if frequency of usage is the reason to not change to "South Asia," there would be even less reason to do so to "Indian subcontinent." CarTick's support here for "Indian subcontinent," consequently, is nothing but hypocritical: there is five times less frequency for "Indian subcontinent" in the secondary sources than there is for "South Asia". Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

PS. Better to work on the timeline proposed above. It gives the editors who are interested in the topic, in contrast to the ones that are interested in ideology, to keep working. I believe Athenean, Gun Powder Ma, Mar4d, SSeagal, Huon, and I have already shown our devotion both to the topic and to the requisite rigor that is needed for the task. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• I also support the proposal (which is basically a recap of what we have already discussed for weeks) and would favour #4 the most (South Asia). The term 'Indian subcontinent' has a very narrow meaning compared to South Asia, plus the Indus Valley site of Mehrgarh wasn't quite in India but instead falls in Balochistan. South Asia is also more NPOV and would allow us to add countries such as Bhutan, Nepal, Afghanistan etc. if neccessary. Having said that, the proposed list should continue only until 1947 and any post-1947 discoveries should be relocated to the respective republic articles. I am a strong proponent of the Republic of India maintaining its own list too, seperated from the South Asian one. Mar4d (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Renaming or moving the current article is really unnecessary. Given that this article was created in 2007, I would like to know what has changed since then to suddenly warrant a change in the name. What is indeed required is removing some of the junk content, nationalistic claims and claims that inventions of the Indian diaspora are Indian even if the inventor has given up Indian citizenship and become, in many cases, an American. Such clean up has already been performed to some extent. If we simply stick to Wikipedia policies like WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and others and apply that to every single claim in the article under its current name, we will find that there is no real need for all of this sudden burst of activity. RegentsPark has already indicated above that reliable sources use India. He even cited one or two reliable sources. India is the common name of the Republic of India and India is the name used overwhelmingly for earlier periods. Other lists (Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Nepali, etc) can similarly follow WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and build their own lists. People need to stop being revisionists. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

guess that is a fair point. one can create South Asian, North South Asian, South South Asian, East South Asian, West South Asian or whatever list they want. the current list will remain the same as it is which will potentially include all the discoveries made in what has been called India by plethora of reliable secondary sources over three millenium. If Mehrgarh was not part of India, we should not include discoveries made in that place. we may actually end up with a much shorter list once we throw out all bogus claims. Lot of these claims are referenced to books that cleaning up will require a serious time in the library. --CarTick (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I don't get warm to the idea of multiplying contents over several articles. This duplication runs oblique to standard practices and would also be a management hell. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • clarity take precedence over duplication. for example, List of birds of the United States, Template:North American birds, pretty much every US state has a list. duplication at its height. --CarTick (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Duplication is the opposite of clarity. There are certain exceptions, such as inventions by Muslims in India which could be attributed both to India/South Asia and medieval Islam, but as a rule, we should avoid duplication of material wherever possible. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

it can be in some cases. you very well know, in this context, duplication will result in clarity. you could rather say that you dont like the word "Indian" attributed to all these dicoveries. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. your claim to special exemption of "duplication" for some "articles of your choice" is pretty interesting. --CarTick (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

How precisely will duplication be more clear than a link to a sub-list? And how would having a separate list for inventions in the Republic of India be not attributing the word "Indian" to them? Huon (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"duplication" is a red herring. the goal of the discussion is not to duplicate. it is to create or rather keep an article called List of Indian inventions and discoveries. however, the existence of this article means some level of duplication that has happpened extensively across wikipedia. I have just cited the list of birds from US and its states as an example. this article like millions of other articles in wikipedia passes the WP:Notability test easily. if you are not convinced, please feel free to nominate it for WP:AFD. --CarTick (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being dense, but that didn't help me understand your previous comment at all. You claimed that duplication would result in clarity, and it seemed so obvious to you that according to you, Gun Powder Ma must secretly agree with you. I still don't see why duplication is clearer than, say, use of {{main}} to provide a link to a sub-list. For an example, see List of shopping malls in Thailand and its sub-list List of shopping malls in Bangkok. Could you please explain your reasoning there, or do you mean that your claim about clarity was just a red herring? Huon (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

i dont understand what is your point. the shopping malls list seems to be a list of malls that exist today. as has been explained to you multiple times, this article will list discoveries that has been made in what has been called India by reliable secondary sources. i dont know which part you are not understanding. are you going to remove everything that has happened before 1947 from History of India because it will duplicate content with History of Bangladesh and History of Pakistan. as such, the list seems big enough to be worthy of a separate article. like i said, please feel free to nominate it for WP:AFD. if you dont like the pre-1947 discoveries attributed to "India", wikipedia is not a place to vent your anger. history has been written and i am not going to cooperate with you to rewrite it here. --CarTick (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that you are not interested in cooperation. For the record, I strongly disagree with the scope of the article you intend - it's completely arbitrary. For example, for all I can tell we'd have to remove the rocket artillery because the sources we have don't actually call it "Indian". You seem to have completely misunderstood what Gun Powder Ma and others are arguing; let me repeat that: It was suggested to have one list for all pre-1947 inventions, say under List of inventions and discoveries in the Indian subcontinent, and separate (and disjoint) lists for inventions in the Republic of India, in Pakistan and in Bangladesh that would only cover the inventions actually made in the relevant state. N419BH suggested that the "Indian subcontinent" list should also contain the post-1947 inventions made in the region, thus duplicating every entry of the Republic of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh lists, which would still only include the inventions actually made in those states. Huon (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand his suggestion very well, he has suggested four different titles for the primary article. from my understanding of the discussion, we havent reached a consensus as to what is going to be title of the primary article. while I have warmed up to the indea of the title List of inventions and discoveries in the Indian subcontinent in one of my previous posts, upon reconsideration, i dont think it is a good idea. As fowler pointed out, Indian Subcontinent is less extensively used than South Asia. i agree with him and i think it wouldnt make a lot of sense to have any article have "subcontinent" in its title. Here is the summary of the argument i have been making in my previous posts; every country in the world should have a "list of inventions" article if such a list can have a reasonable number of entries. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are no exceptions. Every country will have such lists for discoveries made in what has been called "that country" by reliable sources. it is also entirely acceptable to have a South Asian list compiling all the discoveries made in countries that form South Asia. I am not going to oppose that. your specific concern regarding rocket artillery is noted. i am not able to access that pdf file cited to that entry. if there are questions and concerns that any of the items in the list were not made in what has been called India, we should bring this up in the discussion page and if sufficient consensus is achieved, can be tossed away. --CarTick (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"That country", in our context, is the Republic of India, isn't it? I'd consider it ahistorical to add inventions to a country's list that were made before that country was founded. And I dare predict that few of the pre-1947 inventions were made in a country called India. Huon (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

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

I did read History of India, including this statement: "This article is about the history of the Indian subcontinent prior to the partition of India in 1947." It uses "India" as a shorthand for "Indian subcontinent" and stops in 1947. It does not claim that India was a country before 1947 (actually, the entire article does not contain the word "country"). Do you want to deliberately confuse the different meanings of the term "India"? Huon (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

that is a silly argument using a disambiguation statement mentioned on the top of the page. please read any History of India book. I have this book at home which i think is pretty reasonable. John Keay's History of India. am sure, you will be able to nitpick another statement from the book to make another silly argument. like i said, i cant help you wean out of this bitter truth. unless, you have any new arguments to make, i am done with this. --CarTick (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you're either ignoring or not understanding such a basic argument; the Republic of India does not = Indian subcontinent. Mar4d (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand, from a Pakistani perspective, it would be hard to digest that reliable history books describe Indus Valley Civilisation as the begining of Indian history. not my fault. couldnt get the historians to exclude IVC or a lot of what happened in modern day Pakistan from Indian history, wikipedia looks like a good place. not really. --CarTick (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

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

I'm sure you mean well, but this would be considered disruptive. Consensus is meant to be read by uninvolved parties. (Personally, I don't see a consensus for the move to the south asia title but then I'm an involved party!) --rgpk (comment) 23:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The placement of the content on the South Asia title was done several days ago, and not by me. N419BH 23:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

wait. it is too early to close this discusion. none of the editor commented on the previous move havent done so. --CarTick (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an interim measure. If the consensus changes it can be undone. N419BH 23:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

no. i dont even understand your reading of the consensus. i never indicated support for moving the content. you will need to let the discussion go atleast for a week. this all looks really like a bad idea. someone suggested some place that the move requests are often carried out by administrators. --CarTick (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

My reading of the present consensus from a pure !vote count is as follows:

Overall Move:

Support: N419BH, Fowler, CarTick, Huon, Mar4d

Oppose: Zuggernaut

As for name preferences everyone except CarTick and Zuggernaut indicated support for South Asia.

The weight of arguments cleary falls in favor of South Asia over Indian Subcontinent.

Moves are done by admins when one of the pages is WP:SALTed or when a page needs to be deleted in the process. Since the former title still has a use in the new structure we don't need to have it deleted. N419BH 23:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry. like rgpk, i agree you mean well. i would request you to let an uninvolved editor close the discussion. sorry for being blunt. --CarTick (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support "List of Indian inventions and discoveries". Three reasons below ought to shed some light on why:

Few of the many meanings of the term "South Asia".

A. On large Encyclopedias:

1. Encyclopedia Britannica itself uses the term "India" to refer to the larger "South Asian" region in several articles (eg, history of India), that includes coverage of IVC etc. Encyclopedia Britannica also hosts 'Indian literature' and 'Indian philosophy' instead of 'South Asian'.

2. Another respectable encyclopedia, The Columbia Encyclopedia, also follows suit and contains 'Indian art and architecture' and 'Indian literature'. The term 'South Asia' is not found as an entry in this respectable source.

4. The most reliable encyclopedic sources on the subject, including Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, ed. Helaine Selin, Springer, have "Mathematics in India" written by G.G. Joseph or even "Architecture and Landscape in India" by Alexandra Mack.

B. In context of history of science, "India" has a much wider application. A few examples of the use of the term "India" in standard science and technology histories:

1. Science and technology in world history: an introduction by James Edward McClellan, Harold Dorn has 38 instances of "India".

2. The New Cambridge History of India (3): Science, Technology and Medicine in Colonial India has over 100 references to "India".

3. Zaheer Baber's The Science of Empire: Scientific Knowledge, Civilization, and Colonial Rule in India (State University of New York Press) has over 100 references to "India".

4. Deepak Kumar's chapter on India is quite simply titled "India" In: The Cambridge History of Science (4) - Eighteenth-Century Science, without making any issues as such.

5. From the US Library of Congress one comes across India with a detailed science and technology section covering IVC etc.

Obviously exertions can be made for more examples of leading scholars using the term "India" to be provided if need be.

C. As a term "South Asia" has no single meaning. It includes regions from Persia to Tibet. To harmonize all the varying definitions of South Asia will be impossible. It can never be achieved on Wikipedia.

Needless to say professional encyclopedias such as The Columbia Encyclopedia do not even contain the term. They do have 'Indian subcontinent' though.

The definitions of South Asia are too diverse and varied to warrant a mention here, on user generated Wikipedia where people will add and remove from their regions as they wish.

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

Regards,

115.240.23.156 (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

N419BH, i never supported page move. could you please show me when i did. --CarTick (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've already deleted the content from this article (it's been on the South Asia title for several days already), but since you object and RGPK indicated an issue with me being involved (which is a fair point), I will revert myself on this article. I am reading your support of the "Indian Subcontinent" title as support for the overall proposal, but that might be a reach. N419BH 23:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

for the record, i am 100% against moving this article. but i am for South Asian article. in other words, i want both Indian and South Asian list as two separate articles. that is my position. the issue is too complex. your proposals were made only yesterday and i would say we need atleast two more weeks since any consensus can be judged. and the consensus will have to be judged by comments made before and after your proposal. not just your proposal. the article has been having this title for over 4 years. --CarTick (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The IP, btw, makes a VERY good point. N419BH 23:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

+ "South Asia" has too many meanings. Iran, Tibet will have to be included. And more. Do I have to have a username or is this ok? 115.240.23.156 (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

A username isn't required as far as I'm concerned. Just so long as your IP address doesn't change. N419BH 23:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It won't. Thanks for clarifying. 115.240.23.156 (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the IP, this move effort is a pure waste of time. everything has to have been invented by someone and how can we categorically say that things that are 3000 years old are invented by a specific person or a community in a specific place. Like Athenean removed a couple of entries just a while ago, when all the entries are subjected to that kind of scrutiny, we will end up with a much shorter list. by that time, nobody will be here to claim them anymore. --CarTick (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Let the 'list' be corrected. Its the debate over the 'title' that boggles the mind. What a spectacular waste of human effort, energy and (in some cases) emotion! I like being 'the IP' in all this though.115.240.23.156 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not as if "India" has fewer meanings than "South Asia". For example, John Keay's History of India, the book CarTick advised me to read, claims that even the British Raj, the largest of the empires in India listed, didn't control about 5% of it (diagram on page xxiii). I have no idea where those 5% are supposed to be located, but clearly to Keay "India" is not just the Republic of India or even the Republic of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh combined. Many of the supporters of a "Indian" name to this list argue for a pretty vague definition of India. This is precisely the ambiguity I think we should get rid of. Huon (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean? Now I'll have to go through the Guptas, Mughals, and Mauryas all given in that very readable popular book that Keay wrote, which, has the term "India" in its title (single time) and body (multiple times). Not sure how useful his India: a History is here though. It hardly deals with India's sciences. Keay's contributions in context of science and technology in India may be better found in India Discovered: The Recovery of a Lost Civilization, which, also, has the term "India" in its title (single time) and body (multiple times).

Regards, 115.240.23.156 (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh and here is another good one by Keay on science and technology in India: The Great Arc: The Dramatic Tale of How India was Mapped and Everest was Named. Again Keay, undaunted by this spirited discussion, is ok with the use of the term "India" wherever he sees fit. 115.240.23.156 (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute that Keay happily uses the term "India". But what does he actually mean by that, does he mean the same thing whenever he uses that term, and if not, should we too be deliberately ambiguous? I am almost tempted to go look for a 19th century book on inventions by Native Americans. I doubt there are any such books, but if so, they'll probably call the Native Americans, "Indians". Would we then be compelled to include those inventions in this list? Huon (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Could you please tell me what, to Keay, is India? I'm not sure he is consistent in his use of the term, and I haven't seen him actually define what he means. How would I judge if a non-Keay source uses the same meaning of "India" as he does? Could you please further explain how a debate over the term "India" is less complicated than a debate over the term "Indian subcontinent" or the term "South Asia"? Huon (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow many questions. Keay is more or less using India in the sense of History of India. The book you read now is titled India:a History, See?

Have you read the Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, ed. Helaine Selin, Springer, btw?

I own a copy but its also there on google books somewhere.

What you requested in the last question I simply did not get.

115.240.116.24 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't care so much about the title as about an agreed-upon scope which we can put in the lead for reference. For example, Gun Powder Ma's introduction to the list of South Asian inventions and discoveries states: "The area encompasses the modern-day states of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh." If we took the scope you propose per the History of India article which defines "India" as a shorthand for the Indian subcontinent (which itself is ambiguous), we end up with a list of inventions in the Indian subcontinent which we choose to call differently. I don't see how that is supposed to be useful to the reader. Huon (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The nice thing about Indian subcontinent is it is a geographically-defined term: the subcontinent of India aka the Indian tectonic plate. The borders of the area are the mountains surrounding aka the Himalayas. Using this definition for the area avoids the ambiguity of "India", and it is this reason why I support naming the article such. N419BH 01:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. That would indeed be one fixed scope which we could put in the lead. I don't think the IP is even opposed to this scope, it just seems to prefer not calling the Indian subcontinent, "Indian subcontinent". Huon (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Fully support the argument. Indian subcontinent being geographically defined: Agreed. Will support a move there if parties agree. I'll be out for a while so pardon if a quick reply does not reach. Morning here and out of cigarettes already.

But hope this 'title' debate ends soon. Wikipedians have better things to do says this IP.

115.240.116.24 (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Good to see peace prevail,

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

First of all, dear IP, why are you continuing to post as an IP? You seem far too familiar with Wikipedia to be considered an occasional IP visitor. Wiki platitudes about AGF aside, how do we know that you are not one of the signed-in editors, reappearing as an IP, and consequently, not practising here any of the legitimate forms of sockpuppeting? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

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

similar case

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

I agree, so then per that precedent we should have this list for pre-1947 and a List of the Republic of India's inventions and discoveries per History of the Republic of India. Plan? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

CarTick, Closing which case? The page move to South Asia was not implemented. The page move to "Indian subcontinent" you seem to be supporting yourself. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

PS Chipmunk, Please read Talk:List_of_Indian_inventions_and_discoveries/Archive_2#Proposal Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking through the archives, they've been funfunfun. Anyway, the solution everyone's not mentioned is to copy everything pre-1947 to the Pakistan page as well. That would make sure that all successors to British India get their equal treatment in regards to ancient inventions, and this page can keep both definitions of India in a complicated mash. Arguments against CarTick? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That actually is a clever solution. However, don't expect the Wiki India-nationalists to roll over and play dead. They don't take kindly to the history of Pakistan beginning any time before midnight August 14, 1947. Also, as you must have already discovered, India-related pages tend to be plagued with the "All Chiefs and no Indians" disease. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

i support subcontinent? please read this post above (17:22, 1 April 2011). I dont care how Pakistani list will look like. having not read scholarly books on "History of Pakistan" i have no opinion. Fowler, intended or not, your uninformed page move request pitted Indian and Pakistani editors against each other. Indian history comes to my mind. may be Indian editors dont have as much time as some pseudo-academics, but at least they will make sure it is not overrun by wiki-English neocolonialists. --CarTick (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see your post of 17:22, 1 April 2011. Many apologies. I guess we agree on some of the issues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Concluding the Title Debate

On personal identity

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

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

On the options available

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

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

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

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

Personal choices and rationale

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

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

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

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

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

It has got way too complicated. Now I am not so sure about supporting the move to South Asia! Keeping in view all the geographical constraints/pre-conditions of inclusion, I tend to agree with what JSR is saying. Shovon (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There appears no clear (=overall) majority for any name, so we may consider voting again on the basis of a relative majority. However, to do so first requires all participants agreeing that the final outcome is binding for all, otherwise it's not worth it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Copy-pasting Indus Valley inventions into both a Pakistani and Indian list is senseless because a) The republic of Pakistan itself did not exist prior to 1947 and the meaning of the term 'Pakistani' is very recent. b) the Republic of India did not exist before 1947 either and 'India' (in the modern sense) carries a very recent definition too as well as the fact that most of IVC didn't exist along modern India c) It would result in duplication along various pages which is unneccessary. I have already argued that a neutral title needs to be made and the Republic of India cannot be lumped with the IVC on the same page because that historically doesn't make sense. Having said that, I still support the Republic of India and Pakistan having their own seperate post 1947 lists. Everything pre-1947 (including IVC) needs to be moved somewhere else and if Indian subcontinent is the agreed term, then I confer my support; Indian subcontinent also carries a clearer definition as opposed to India. I am starting to get weary of repeating the same arguments over and over again and agree with the IP that this discussion needs a quick outcome. Mar4d (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Towards a solution: The vote can be conclusive. However choice only needs to exist between "India" and "Indian subcontinent". "South Asia" will have to be ignored as an option for it is unworkable because it quite simply is the broadest term encompassing all geographical entities from Iran to Tibet. The scholarly consensus is in terms of history of science and technology is also with the term "India".

My reading of Mar4d based on his well articulated post above is that he supports Indian subcontinent.

My stance, as articulated earlier, is: Preference 1: India. The term must be equated with History of India rather than the Republic of India. The post 1947 nation states get their own articles.

My case is unique for I have an additional preference to act as a well intentioned and quick tie-breaker if need be, i. e., Preference 2: Indian subcontinent. Most precise term that we have. The post 1947 nation states get their own articles.

If all others make their preferences known like Mar4d and I have then we'll have a set of actionable preferences. This debate can then die within the next 48 hours. 115.240.109.72 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I support 115.240.109.72/User:JSR's proposal. I would ask that Fowler treat IPs per WP:AGF. A couple of comments before we take JSR's approach:

• Please read the how-to guide on splitting and use one to the templates found there such as {{Move portions}}, {{Splitsections}} , {{Split section}}, {{Split-apart}}, {{Split2}}, etc to make a proper, structured, well-organized and unambiguous move request or multiple move requests.
• We also need to ensure that the previous move request is closed so that people are not confused with the multiple moves/splitting requests. If we are OK with this, I can post at WT:IN to ask an editor to close the previous move request. If none can be found, we can nominate one of those who are active now to close it (I am okay with 115.240.109.72/User:JSR closing the previous move request).

Zuggernaut (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid, the IP/JSR is either unaware or is being disingenuous. Britannica (the adult version) has a long article on "South Asian mathematics" by Kim Plofker, and a very very long article on "South Asian arts" collectively written by A. K. Ramanujan, J. A. B. van Buitenen, the Harvard art historian Promod Chandra, and others. South Asia doesn't stretch from Iran to Tibet. It has fewer meanings than pre-1947 "India." In one of them (the UN's), Iran is included, but not Tibet. In others, such as Burt Stein's History of India, or Kulke and Rothermun's History of India it is just the modern name for the old India. According to the Wikipedia South Asia page, it is the same thing as the Indian subcontinent. The main problem with the "Indian subcontinent" is that it is primarily a geographical term. There is no precedent on Wikipedia for using it in a political sense. There is only one page other than Indian subcontinent that has "Indian subcontinent" in it, and it is a list of earthquakes. Besides, there is five times less frequency for "Indian subcontinent" in the secondary sources than there is for "South Asia". There is no Wiki-argument for preferring it to "South Asia." I would support having a separate IVC (including Mehrgarh) list. As I've already stated earlier, outside of the Indus Valley Civilization, there was little interest in technology in the region of what today is India-Pakistan-Bangladesh, until the arrival of the Muslims in the 12th century. Even that was minuscule compared to the state of things once the British arrived. Ancient Indian culture had other strengths (philosophy, religion, mathematics), but not technology. Even stitched clothes arrived with Islam. There were no arch bridges in ancient India. No interest was shown in the Roman arch. The Muslims were the first to build rudimentary (Gothic) arch bridges on the subcontinent. If IVC will have a separate page, then the measly list post-IVC to 1947 can be called anything people want, I don't particularly care, since it doesn't have much in it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Britannica's long article on the History of Technology has just this much to say about India:

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

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

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

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

On Fowler&fowler 4 April 2011

Authors (in order of appearance)

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

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

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

The 'Five Times Frequency' hypothesis

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

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

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

Encyclopedia

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not convinced by this evidence. Firstly, titles of works are much less relevant than what the actual text says. There, I was most impressed by the Burt Stein quote Fowler&fowler gave above which explicitly addressed the naming of the region. The Google Books search is completely meaningless because while I'm not surprised that "India" leads, one cannot tell what those books mean by "India". We'll get lots of books that deals with the Republic of India (seven of the first ten hits do so), but this article shall not just cover the Republic, shall it? Similarly, the encyclopedias which don't have South Asia entries both cover the Republic of India under "India", and the articles themselves actually support "South Asia" as an article name:

• India, Country, South Asia. (Britannica Concise)
• India officially Republic of India, republic (2005 est pop. 1,080,264,000), 1,261,810 sq mi (3,268,090 sq km), S Asia (Columbia)

I also don't see why we shouldn't be able to define South Asia (or the Indian subcontinent, or whatever title we actually choose) to include what we want to cover, as long as the list is consistent about the inclusion criteria. I'm pretty sure that no matter what we ultimately want to cover, we'll find a reliable source that names it whatever we want to name it. Huon (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I never bought forward those authors. They were proposed to me as protagonists for putting "South Asia" in the title.

Needless to say the very authors bought to support "South Asia" in the title were found to use "India" for their own titles. The scope of their work is consistent with using "India" in terms of "History of India"

The 'title' is of utmost importance here since this is a 'title' debate, a needlessly long one.

"South Asia" is unworkable because it has a bewildering range of meanings across a breathtaking geographical scope stretching from Iran to Tibet. We may choose one definition but it will always be open to being challenged and upset by another competing one because there are simply too many.

As for Burton Stein: He himself uses the term "India" in his famous A History of India. His inclusion to the 'title' debate is in favor of using the term "India" equated to history of India. Hundreds of mentions of the term "India" occur throughout the same book.

"India" equated to "History of India" is the most used option. "Indian subcontinent" is the most precise. "South Asia" is a needless irritant that does not even exist as an entry in The Columbia Encyclopedia or the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia.

Others please make your opinions known like user:Mar4d (Indian subcontinent), User:CarTick (India), User:N419BH (Indian subcontinent, 01:37, 2 April 2011) and I (India or Indian subcontinent) have.

We have all the facts we need to head towards a close now. Let's get this closed conclusively.

115.240.11.251 (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support India. for reasons I have explained in previous threads and compellng reasons provided by IP/User:JSR. --CarTick (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I first thought that user:JSR/IP was not aware; now I do think he is cherry-picking deliberately. I'm well aware of Kim Plofker's book, having used in the Indian mathematics page. It doesn't matter what Plofker's book is called, her Britannica article is called "South Asian mathematics." Why is that important? Because, for naming purposes, tertiary sources are more important than secondary ones and Wikipedia guidelines say so. The Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English) says, "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works) ...." Earlier versions of the guideline were even more explicit, they simply said "other encyclopedias and reference works," and not in parentheses. The more general WP:Article titles page says, "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals, ..." The major tertiary sources are now using "South Asia" for descriptions involving history of arts and sciences, as I've indicated above. Again, it doesn't matter whether the authors of the "South Asian arts" article have (in their other writings) used "India" or not, what matters is that in their Britannica (tertiary source) article, they have collectively signed off on "South Asian arts." Please, JSR/IP don't go cherry picking wildly. Please consider the argument first. Columbia Encylopedia is now a dead encyclopedia. It hasn't been revised in decades. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Am I supposed to now cite examples from the formidable Encyclopedia of India or Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures? Kindly give me the word.

Since you want to limit the source type to tertiary would it help if a list of a dozen encyclopedia be bought forth which discredit the "South Asia" terminology? It can be done though it would be an exertion that would take some time, say two days.

It is well known by now that "South Asia" does not even merit an entry in The Columbia Encyclopedia or the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia.

Finally, the claim 'Columbia Encyclopedia is now a dead encyclopedia. It hasn't been revised in decades' also does not stand scrutiny.

The "Muhammad Ali Jinnah" entry in The Columbia Encyclopedia has J. Singh, Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence (2010) in its bibliography.

115.240.11.251 (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Columbia Encyclopedia, as its Wikipedia page informed us, had its last major revision in 1963. Its last minor revision was in 1999-2000. There are no references in it later than 1999, including in its Jinnah page. I can't imagine the Columbia Encyclopedia referring to a Hindu Nationalist pseudo-historian's book, no matter when it was published. Anyway, I've wasted enough time on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry to know you feel that way. BTW The newer revisions to The Columbia Encyclopedia even include Bobby Jindal as an entry. That took even me by surprise. Singh, mentioned in Jinnah's bibliography, has a reputation all right but his Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence did get published by Oxford University Press after the first edition (Rupa and co.) gained publicity. 115.240.11.251 (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Inventions

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

"Indian"/Hindu Intransigence Leading To ANOTHER Partition

I hate to say it but the intransigence displayed by some "Indian" and Hindu editors is leading to a demand for separate articles, I dare say it seems that these Indian editors have learnt nothing from the mistakes of their ancestors by refusing agreeing to a moderate and acceptable position to all parties, It led to the partition of the sub continent, and it is leading to a partition of this article.

The only solution is see is that this article is partitioned along the current internationally accepted and globally recognised frontiers, boundaries and borders. Therefore if an invention took place in what is within the territorial limits of what is state of Pakistan then it should be listed in the Pakistani list, If the invention or discovery took place within what is now the republic of India it can remain under the heading indian, If it took place in what is Sri Lanka or Bangladesh they will be split accordingly.

The problem for Indians is that the majority of the list of inventions took place in Pakistan, Pakistan is not claiming any invention that took place in what is now modern India because no important inventions of any magnitude whatsoever took place in India, It is Indians wish to lay claim and to lay siege to Pakistani inventions not vice versa. I so no alternative but for a partition of this article. S Seagal (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems the most absurd proposal yet. We certainly shouldn't sort Mughal inventors' works by the country where their home town would be situated hundreds of years after their deaths. Huon (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Huon I see no other alternative, The Indian and Hindu editors are dragging thier feet and deliberately slowing any solution to the naming dispute, I have said before the Indians are trying to hijack inventions which took place in Pakistan not vice-versa, Perhaps these Indian editors would prefer it if Pakistan did not exist? If not by modern borders how else would we possibly attribute the inventions made in the pre-1947 era to todays world? Instead of adopting terms like "India", "south asia" or "subcontinent" its easier to just divide the list according to current borders and its more geographically and historically accurate.S Seagal (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's "more historically accurate" to divide the Indus Valley Civilization or the Mughal Empire along to modern borders? Could you please elaborate? Why would we even want to attribute inventions made before 1947 to today's world? And while I could agree that some editors like to subsume inventions under the label "Indian" that were made in what is today Pakistan, the pre-1947 inventions technically didn't "take place in Pakistan" because Pakistan didn't yet exist. Neither did the Republic of India, of course, and since "India" without qualifier commonly means the Republic of India, we shouldn't name the list "Indian inventions" either to avoid confusion. Huon (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this whole debate is pointless as Pakistan is likely to soon breakup into many smaller nations ( just like they did once before in 1971 - with a gentle nudge from Indian army). If no country called Pakistan - no articles with that name. the easiest and the simplest solution in my mind.--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think its pointless my wasting any more time on a hate filled Hinduvatas who hate Pakistan more than they love India, Everyone and his kid brother has ruled and conquered India, I have said before because of Hindu intransigence it led to the collapse and partition of British India in 1947 and lost an area the size of Austria in Kashmir to the young nation of Pakistan which was barely a few months in the first war and lost to china in 1962 and again to Pakistan in 1965 and then in 1971 they caused the death of millions of east Pakistani Hindus. India since independence has been riven with insurgencies, Kashmir, Nagaland, Punjab et al, Like you say you would prefer it if Pakistan just didnt exist so you could claim Pakistani history as being India, Unfortunately for you a nuclear armed Muslim dominated state called Pakistan sits and occupies the seat of ancient Hinduism, My only fear for the future is that Indians are unable learn from the past and they may just commit national sati (self immolation) by attacking Pakistan and Pakistan destroying not just India but the entire sub-continent Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, I daresay If Pakistan goes it will take the entire sub-continent with it :) S Seagal (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

well the honor of being one of the top Failed states belongs to Pakistan and not a week goes by before a bunch of Pakistanis are blown to smithreens by fellow muslims. The nuclear armed Muslim country unfortunately has no missile defence system and it is about 10 minutes flying time from Minot Air Force Base for the LGM-30 Minuteman missiles. there comes a time in world history when nuking a country of 180 million is the ethical and right thing to do. I am afraid that time is approaching soon from what I hear and see in the USA. Hindus are the last thing Pakistanis need to worry about;)--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are we bothering?

I'm a little confused. There is already a List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. Unless, people here are requesting that that page be deleted (and they don't seem to be), why is everyone worked up about the Indian page. There was a handful of people (Athenean, Mar4d, Mdw0, Gun Powder Ma, S. Seagal, Huon, and I) who took part in the original discussion and who are knowledgeable and rigorous about the list. Why are we wasting our time on the Indian list page? Why not work on improving the South Asian list? This discussion will go on ad nauseum, as newer and newer editors arrive on the talk page, as JSR/IP just has, and repeat all the old arguments, believing all the while that what they are offering is new and unconsidered. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it doesn't make sense to have two lists that are substantially identical and because that list has undoubtedly been created out of process. A bit like Spiff, I'm not going to be upset if this list is at South Asia rather than at India though I believe that the current title is more in line with WP:AT and WP:COMMONNAME. However, the fact remains that the continued existence of the South Asia list is divisive and disruptive and that attempting to build that list rather than this one can easily be construed as attempting to game the system. (Just saying what I think fowler, I continue to respect your opinions, the seriousness you bring to your research and to your work on the encyclopedia.) --rgpk (comment) 17:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

exactly. just make sure South Asia is defined properly. right now, the article lists only three countries and as it is, it is a WP:POV fork of this article. South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation has Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan as members. This 2004-2005 UN report on South Asia includes India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Iran, Sri Lanka. CIA world fact book defines Afghanistan Nepal, Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives as South Asian countries. --CarTick (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you repeating all the definitions again? They've only been mentioned half a dozen times before! The Britannica South Asian arts page (longer than any Wikipedia page) defines South Asia to be Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka. That is good enough for us. We don't have to conform to every definition of South Asia, just as the Indian page doesn't conform to every definition of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

PS This is my last communication on this page. I am now taking it off my watchlist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason that the land-locked countries of Nepal and Bhutan, part of the Indian Sub-continent and on the Indian side of the Himalayas should not be considered as"South Asia". This hankers back to the old British view that the kingdoms of Nepl and Bhutan, who accepted suzerainty of the Empire but were never formal possessions of the British were not part of the generic term "India". AshLin (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Proper processes were not followed in creating the South Asian page (consensus was ignored). Since there is a pending ANI case for this and I've already requested the closing admin to delete the page in the ANI, it does not make sense to nominate it for deletion now. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

fowler, by being inflexible to properly define South Asia (despite numerous evidences presented to you)and duplicate contents exactly from India to South Asia, your goal apparenly is to equate Indian to South Asia in the hope that some day someone will delete this article as a duplication. i am leaving this note here as a reference. --CarTick (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel that we should view this issue of how to name the article title through detached, academic, almost machine-like thought. My personal sentiment is that some of us got emotionally involved. Not a good idea to do so in an academic debate but only points to our being human.

Having said that, my respect for the veteran editor Fowler&fowler is well known and it is my thought that his involvement in the process was out of genuine interest. This is my last comment on the venerable academic Fowler&fowler since he has left and may feel compelled to reply.

If there is another place where a move/deletion process is ongoing can someone please drop me a link to it? I seem to have lost my Wiki-sense of following multiple discussions over the years that I have been away.

All duplicated content has to merged under a single title. The name of the title is yet to be decided since many have not contributed. I will ask the remaining to do so tomorrow.

115.240.43.154 (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 115.240.43.154 (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. Fowler invites only people whom he agrees with for discussion, Huon, S. Seagal, Athenean, Gun powder and Mar4d. --CarTick (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Reading the talk page of that article, especially the discussion on inclusion and exclusion, one does wonder if the silly season has arrived at wikipedia. :) --rgpk (comment) 16:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It very definitely has RGPK ;);). Now as an admin you have to watch out not only for vandals but also idiots per WP:CIR--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

All the talk on that page is rather disturbing. Especially editors juggling Iran or Afghanistan on whim.

This was to be expected for the "South Asia" term is unworkable and makes its proponents look silly. Especially when they struggle on which definition to keep and which to lose.

What bothers me further is that one of those editors is a very respectable veteran. I am not pleased to see him in this position. Perhaps he should remove that page off his watch-list as well. In my opinions that page is not worth his while.

I post here to notify that I will remain busy through much of today so might delay any progress by a few hours.

115.240.80.76 (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there an 'India v South Asia ANI' somewhere? Could someone drop me a link to it if it exists? 115.240.80.76 (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Found it 115.240.80.76 (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Journalists like you whose primary occupation is writing and communication should consider registering and coming back to Wikipedia even if it means spending only 10-15 minutes per day on Wikipedia. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Tag

Just a reminder. As soon as the article is unlocked, it needs to be tagged again as none of the six issues has been remotely addressed here so far. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Move?

List of Indian inventions and discoveries → List of inventions and discoveries in the Indian subcontinent —

• On further reflection, delaying this discussion doesn't seem to be right and things have unfortunately turned way too messy and ugly. In agreement with my new support for the title "Indian subcontinent," I am proposing the page title to be moved as also seems to be the opinion of many of the editors who previouly opposed the change to South Asia for understandable reasons. Moving the title to Indian subcontinent will provide better clarity and avoid the too much ambiguity associated with the term India. The article should preferable only discuss pre-1947 inventions; a new post-1947 list could be created (List of inventions and discoveries in the Republic of India) which is based on the modern country of India while the already existing List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries can stay. The current List of South Asian inventions and discoveries can be redirected here once the title is changed, as in my opinion, the concept has totally flopped especially after proposals for inclusion of Iran and Afghanistan. Persia has historically always been a seperate civilisation from the Indian subcontinent and adding Iran and Afghanistan defeats the original purpose of this discussion, whose focus was solely only based on scientific innovation that took place in what is considered historical India (even Afghanistan is a bit of a raw term for the scope of historical India).

So here's the summary: Rename to List of inventions and discoveries in the Indian subcontinent; keep seperate lists for the modern republics, titled: List of inventions and discoveries in the Republic of India and List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries. The latter two articles should contain no pre-1947 material (and that includes the removal of IVC from the Pakistani list subsequently) as the Indian sub. article focuses on that. Seperating Indian subcontinent and Republic of India in my opinion is the best solution and also follows what we have done for History of India and History of the Republic of India. Mar4d (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment We have many articles already on Wikipedia which are named as 'Indian subcontinent; they include: Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent, Islamic rulers in the Indian subcontinent, History of metallurgy in the Indian subcontinent, Silk in the Indian subcontinent, Monsoon of Indian subcontinent, Culture of the Indian subcontinent etc. The use of the term to refer to the peoples in this region is therefore not alien here on Wikipedia and something similiar should be done for this article. Mar4d (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Move, Merge and Unify. I was always all right with a single article beginning with either "India" or the "Indian subcontinent". If this is a time to conclusively choose and end this then "Indian subcontinent" it is. You have my support. Get rid of the shoddy List of South Asian inventions and discoveries article for even the custodians of that article realize that it was made out of emotion and not reason, and frankly it has become an embarrassment for them. Also request all others to please vote here for one final time. We need to reach consensuses. 115.242.40.134 (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Same. Mdw0 (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment not that i am going to support this move. as your proposal includes redirecting South Asia list to here, few issues need to be worked out before. a lot of debate going on about improving the South Asian WP:Fork. we can not have this discussion unless something is done about the article that was created from this article outside the consensus. i would recommend deleting that article or wait a couple of months and see how that article develops into. until everything is sorted out about that article, i consider this request unnecessary. --CarTick (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear, CarTick. I have already asked for such an advice here. Let us worry about this article first and take a side. If this article is free of 'title debates' then things become less complicated. That article is a copy/paste and will be removed in whatever time or exertion it takes. Even if material outside of the subcontinent is added to it that will just move into another list but the "South Asian" article will have to go. But let us follow due process. 115.242.40.134 (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

i understand IP. doesnt sound like a fair deal to me. first suggest A to B and create B anyway even without consensus and then propose A to C and B to be deleted in the process. --CarTick (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Extremely well put. It is nevertheless the best way we have at the moment. Trust me :) 115.242.40.134 (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: People of Indian subcontinent were called Indians for a long time by English speakers around the world and are described as such by majority of WP:RS. We clearly should keep post 1947 Pakistani/ Bangladeshi inventions out of the list. I think we have had enough WP:DRAMA here.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - as I said above, I don't care that much whether we name the article "Indian subcontinent" or "South Asian" as long as we don't have it bizarrely shift meaning in 1947. "India" may be taken to commonly mean the Republic, or it may be taken to commonly denote the entire subcontinent, but it should not be taken to mean one and the other in the same article. Besides, natives of America were called Indians for a long time by English speakers around the world too, so I fail to see how that's a valid argument. Huon (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

OK then why are you not asking for a move to List of discoveries and inventions by Asian Indians? Even though Indigenous peoples of the Americas were called Red Indians in a classic case of mistaken Identity by Columbus most people and RS talk about "Asian Indians" when they use the word "Indians".--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Merge and Unify under Indian-subcontinent. - I think this is a settled issue in diplomacy now. What next? rename the Indian Ocean to Indo-Pak Ocean or South Asian Ocean or even Indonesian Ocean (incidentally these attempts have been made in the real world and they failed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiragPatnaik (talk • contribs) 01:14, 10 April 2011

• Oppose "Indian subcontinent" is mostly a geographical term, not a political one; besides, there is five time more use of the term "South Asia" in the secondary sources, regardless of its alleged unsettled state in never never land of diplomatic cocktail parties. The main problem with this page in any case is not nomenclature. This is a shabby list, full of grandiose claims (and predictably Indian vanities), in support of which the authors have gone scurrying every which way in a bibliographic jungle, using every tool except rigor. The authors are flattering themselves, if they think it was the intention of the creators of the List of South Asian inventions and discoveries to copy the list. The intention was merely to have the list as a place holder to be discarded as soon as the more rigorous list began to take shape. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what I have said all along. The grandiose poorly sourced claims need to be deleted. Title of the article needs to stay.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And Fowler&fowler«Talk» you are making some pretty serious allegations ( of violating WP policies) against Mar4d who started List of South Asian inventions and discoveries and has also requested this move. We do not want people creating articles in the mainspace for use as a "place holder" so that it can be later deleted. You can always do that sort of thing in your userspace. I would suggest some WP:AGF here--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No I am not, Wikilawyer. People copy and paste material from other Wikipedia articles all the time. Mar4d and I are on the same side of this argument. In fact I told him to go ahead and create the article, when he asked who should do it. Please take me to the Supreme Court of Wikipedia if you'd like. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

PS The reason why I want the article to carry the same name is that this way it will remain identified with poor quality control. This is because all the people (except Mdw0) who want to keep "India" have shown little interest in improving the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not expecting any improvement at all in the alternate list created, let alone a more rigorous one. Tell you what - give it a month and then get back to me regarding the improvements in the alternate list compared to this one, and we'll see how many of those motivated by politics are capable of channelling some of their political energies into doing a bit of work on the list. Mdw0 (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is now working on the List of South Asian inventions and discoveries (if that's the alternate you have in mind. They can't because it has been locked down until April 19. This way it will remain a copy of the Indian list and it will give the powers-that-be an excuse for deleting it. As for editors such as Athenean, Gunpowder Ma, and a few others, they (as you well know) were improving (or at least pruning) the Indian list long before they got into the naming dispute. I am working on the three timelines (see my contribs) a little bit each day. You are welcome to check on those in a month. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:POINT --CarTick (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(unident) WP:DONT WRITE HAIKUS unless you have rice paper, soy ink and a calligraphic pen. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment there is an active discussion in Archive 3 -- see Talk:List_of_Indian_inventions_and_discoveries/Archive_3#Requested_move. Shouldn't that be disinterred? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Please add playing cards to list

Playing cards are believed to have been invented in Ancient India.

--92.12.147.15 (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you sorted out the rivalling Chinese claim? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought the Arab's did that! At least, that's what it said in my history book, and the book was written by a white guy (hence, I'm assuming no bias). Ratibgreat (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehe funny, perhaps he is married to a beauty of 1001 nights? ;-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)