Talk:History of India

Needs a complete rewrite

This article is a quite messy:

• Many sections are simply copies of lead sections of the various articles on dynasties. There is little attempt to describe a connected history. E.g. There is a section on the Empire of Harsha, and ten paragraphs later, there is a section on the Chalukya kingdom. But there is no mention of the conflict between the two.
• Because of above, there is no chronological order: you read about Dynasty X (year n to year n+500). Then, you read about Dynasty Y (year n-100 to year n+100). The article should not be organized by dynasties, but by periods.
• There is undue weight on certain dynasties / events, resulting from the various editors adding content about the history of their own regions. At the same time, many significant events / dynasties are not mentioned at all.
• In general, there is a lot of unnecessary detail, which should be limited to the articles on the respective dynasties. In many cases, a one-sentence description with a link to the articles on respective dynasties / events would be sufficient. This article is 240k, way above the recommended article size.

I'll attempt a gradual rewrite. Others are welcome to join. utcursch | talk 03:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Prehistoric era section

I'll start with this section. Proposed changes:

• A more organized (and brief) description of Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic sites
• A section on Indus valley civilization: early to late, decline and successor cultures
• Remove the subsection "Dravidian Origins": it is unnecessary detail for this article, especially when it's a conjecture without unanimous support.

Suggestions and objections welcome. utcursch | talk 23:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Bump. Any objections to these suggestions? utcursch | talk 18:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

None whatsoever!--regentspark (comment) 22:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

i tried to remove Dravidian origins hypothesis yesterday, but it was reverted by user @Highpeaks35 citing vandalism.115.135.130.182 (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100120085302/http://www.en.articlesgratuits.com/the-last-years-of-cholas-the-decline-and-fall-of-a-dynasty-id1804.php to http://www.en.articlesgratuits.com/the-last-years-of-cholas-the-decline-and-fall-of-a-dynasty-id1804.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Delhi Sultanate

The disputed content recently added by Maestro2016 and being removed by a user and the regular IP[1] with valid reasoning that it is irrelevant to this article is all correct. But another issues is that source doesn't support the information either.[2][3] You don't find mention of "Delhi Sultanate" anywhere in that book or website. Capitals00 (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

That paragraph is meant to be about the late medieval era in general, not specifically the Delhi Sultanate. It's relevant to the article (about the economic history), but probably shouldn't be under the Delhi Sultanate section specifically. Maestro2016 (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Where do you find any analysis of the figures from ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htm? It is still irrelevant. Geunineart (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I have removed that paragraph about population and economy. We can't make our own conclusion by looking at graphs, those conclusions have to be supported by the sources. Lorstaking (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I have restored your original edit since it read like you had removed not just the objectionable content but also the remnants. And your next edit was probably an accident? Geunineart (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes second edit was a mistake caused by slow internet. Thanks. Lorstaking (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

75,000 years ago

As for this edit[4] where is the discussion? I could only find an edit from an IP couple of months ago[5] that removed it with a misleading edit summary. Geunineart (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@IP, don't remove something that stood for over 10 years.[6] I was only restoring what I had seen when I had edited this article last time before I edited it today.[7] Lorstaking (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see your post. As mentioned, your snippet is already mentioned in History of India#Stone_Age. It is redundant to use it in the lead, plus it is pre-history. (2600:1001:B015:C4CB:2877:33B2:1F43:C3B3 (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC))

Your standalone opinion can't change the consensus that is held for over 10 years, and even right now you are not following WP:BRD. Yes it is needed, see History of United States, History of Egypt, all of them provide pre-history context, this article needs to do that as well and it always has, in fact it started that sentence from the first sentence of the lead until 2015, still it should make the mention. Lorstaking (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

We agree that this was always on this article until removed by the IP. I would still keep it on lead. Capitals00 (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Assuming this discussion is about the prehistoric hominid evidence, we need a better source. Since it refers to archeological evidence, it shouldn't be hard to find.--regentspark (comment) 15:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree. I also wondered about that source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This, "The Human Body in Minutes," is not what's being meant with "better sources." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Partha P. Majumder and Analabha Basu (2017), A Genomic View of the Peopling and Population Structure of India: "India ha s been peop led by contemporary humans at least for the past 55,000 years." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a site that is considered to be the oldest homo sapiens site in India is dated to 77,000 BCE.[8][9][10] These are reliable sources. Geunineart (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

From Petraglia et al. (2010), Out of Africa: new hypotheses and evidence for the dispersal of Homo sapiens along the Indian Ocean rim, Anna ls of Hum an Bio logy, May–June 2010; 37(3): 288–311, p.299:

The Middle Palaeolithic artefact assemblages dating to between 78 and 74 ka at Jwalapuram in peninsular India were suggested to be the product of H. sapiens, based in part upon their close technological similarity with MSA assemblages of Africa (Petraglia et al. 2007). However, such a date range for H. sapiens in the subcontinent does not correspond with genetic coalescence ages, which indicate a younger dispersal event, at ca 70–55 ka. This temporal disjuncture led to the suggestion that the Jwalapuram assemblages may mark the presence of earlier human populations for which there is no surviving genetic evidence (Endicott et al. 2009).

So, there's more to these dates than only Patraglia's datings. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC) See also Mellars et al. (2013), Genetic and archaeological perspectives on the initial modern human colonization of southern Asia, PNAS June 25, 2013 vol. 110 no. 26:

It has been argued recently that the initial dispersal of anatomically modern humans from Africa to southern Asia occurred before the volcanic “supereruption” of the Mount Toba volcano (Sumatra) at ∼74,000 y before present (B.P.)—possibly as early as 120,000 y B.P. We show here that this “pre-Toba” dispersal model is in serious conflict with both the most recent genetic evidence from both Africa and Asia and the archaeological evidence from South Asian sites. We present an alternative model based on a combination of genetic analyses and recent archaeological evidence from South Asia and Africa. These data support a coastally oriented dispersal of modern humans from eastern Africa to southern Asia ∼60–50 thousand years ago (ka).

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the work but lead should only highlight what is not disputed, if 70,000 is the highest estimate (according to Endicott et al.), then it should go on the lead, as "Evidence of anatomically modern humans in the Indian subcontinent is recorded as earlier as 70,000 years ago, or with earlier hominids including Homo erectus from about 500,000 years ago." Geunineart (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

No, to your proposal. You said it yourself: it is disputed. Interpretations which are disputed are no "evidence," which by the way is itself not a neutral term. The lead summarizes the article; presenting disputed interpretations as undisputed facts is a violation of WP:NPOV. The concencus seems to be that India was populated ca. 60,000 years ago; that should be presented in the lead, not the WP:CHERRYPICKING of one author claiming 75,000 years ago. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

An estimate of 73-55,000 would be good enough. See [11] a source written by experts like Bridget Allchin, Petraglia, Michael D. This source was provided by Fowler on Talk:India[12] and also agreed by editors like Abecedare. Capitals00 (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Add Petraglia et al. (2010) p.299 (see above), and I think it seems reasonable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

See also Review article on the origin of modern humans: the multiple-dispersal model and Late Pleistocene Asia, on Petraglia et al. (2017), On the origin of modern humans: Asian perspectives. Interesting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Highpeaks35: Given the content was removed without discussion or consensus, I assume that above conversation was more than enough to restore it. If you any objections you can highlight them here. Lorstaking (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The consensus was for the 75,000 to 55,000 years, not for the 500,000 year early hominids. Anyway, the references don't validate the homo erectus claim so I've made that part more general. --regentspark (comment) 15:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

european periodization applied on indian history

indian historic periodization in terms of european models is totally a irrelevant, circumstances in india were not the same as the european ones. i would also request adding bhimbhetka rock cave art as the base of evolution of indus arts as proposed by Erwin Neumayer Prehistoric Rock Paintings and Ancient Indus Motifs 2, i would also like to add recent discovery of ratnagiri petroglyps which has artistic depictions on par with gobekli tepe, i-e arts which appear in later civilization like Master of Animals 115.135.118.112 (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

second urbanisation seem inaccurate generalizations

second urbanisation dates seem to be pretty misleading, several sources do indicate that by 600 BC, india was already urbanised for several centuries for instance

Dieter Schlingloff cites G.R. Sharma's monograph in which he states that kausambi city fortification was already completed btw 1025-955 BC and the moats were completed btw 855-815 BC 1, which means the city was already urbanized from period of 1000-800 BC. secondly, Buddha's death has been recently revealed to have occured in the sixth century BC 234, Dieter Schlingloff also compares parallel emergence of indian cities with the emergence of greek cities, which have been thought to have arisen in 900 BC

“This is an important moment in the archaeological study of ancient Buddhism,” says Lars Fogelin, an archaeologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

Although we can’t be sure that the ancient tree shrine had links to Buddhism, Fogelin says it is the most plausible explanation. “Depictions of tree shrines in friezes on other early Buddhist sites make the Buddhist affiliation of the tree shrine the most likely.”

hence buddha must have been born before 600 BC by which time the area that is east india where he belonged to had already been urbanised.

the punched mark coins are also thought to date from seventh century BC according to Jhon, E. Page 5

jain Parshvanatha is also thought to have lived around 800 BC by the historians.

Both Mahabharatha and ramayana epics have been thought to be be first composed around 900-800 BC.

the Northern Black Polished Ware also appear around 700 BC and the same is the time period when black polished ware appear in etruscan civilization 900 BC–100 BC

Both Buddhist and Jain calendars seem to begin in 6th century BC, which means that they were born in an urbanised era.

115.135.118.112 (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The Buddha tree site again... See Talk:Gautama Buddha/Archive 9#New Archaeological Evidence for Birthdate. Compare this to Christian churches in Europe, built on the remains of Roman temples, which in turn were built on the location of Celtic temples. See also WP:RS and WP:FORUM. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

you can keep your sentiments to yourself i have posted a reliable source, you have a habit of cherry picking mate, indulge in the rest of the sources which i have posted as well. 115.135.118.112 (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Size split and summary style

The article is huge (currently 338kb) and way past the length where a split should be considered. Since this article is already in Summary style, that means first, a careful proportional balancing to assure due weight of different sections and that they have the right level of detail, and then moving off at least 50% of the article (moving 75% would not be too much) into already existing, or new, child articles. This is a big job, and would require an outline or plan of work on a subpage here to organize it. I'll help, but don't want to play lead on this one. Any takers with good suggestions, and a good head for managing a task like this, who's willing to take this on? Ping, please. Mathglot (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot The 338kb figure is somewhat misleading; it's inflated by a large number of images. I'm not denying its too long, but the page is at 125kb of prose size, which for an article this size, I would say needs to be trimmed by 30-40%.@Fowler&fowler: If you could take a look at this, I'd really appreciate it. Based on a quick look, I think many sections could afford to lose a little material, but the World War sections, the Second Urbanisation, and first half of "Late Medieval Period" certainly need to be trimmed. Several sections are also strewn with unencyclopedic language, both in terms of puffery and pushing a particular POV; the "Growth of Muslim populations" and "Hindu renaissance" sections stand out. Vanamonde (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

aryan mythology, not mentioned in european history articles

the myth of aryan migration has nine maps/images alone in this article, so called vedic period but i noticed that none of the european articles themselves do this, i tried to add indo european migration maps in the history of greece and italy but it was immediately removed. might i ask why this myth is tolerated/forcefully enforced only specifically in the indian history articles and why this mythology is not tolerated in european articles even in iranian articles? i tried to remove autronesian origin of bengali people mythology from one west bengal history article which was also unsourced and this mythology too was enforced by reverting my edits which included more archaeological aspect rather than aryan mythology. i tried to remove dravidian origins mythology from this article which seems controversial and yet it was reverted and forcefully enforced by european users. 60.54.13.118 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)