Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Invention of the decimal system: China (science not politics)

The earliest evidence of a decimal system is clearly China, as of the 14th century B.C. I quote from the Wikipedia page on Decimals, "According to the Cambridge University scholars, decimal numbers originated in China.[6][7] The earliest evidence of use dates back to the 14th century BC, although it was almost certainly in use long before that." In addition, the article states, "Furthermore, according to the Cambridge University scholars, decimal fractions were first developed and used by the Chinese in the 1st century BC..." The sources cited should be vetted more carefully. We don't know what the Harappans may or may not have used since their script is undeciphered to this day. Hence, any claims of “evidence” of the use of decimals at Harappa or Mohenjo Daro are simply unsubstantiated. Undoubtedly, the people of India should be very proud of their contributions to human culture and advancement. However, we must strictly defend science and reject the hindutva attempts to re-write history for political aims. This is no different than rejecting the European pseudo-history that has poisoned all of official history. The goal of our struggle to free ourselves from the Eurocentric falsification of human history is not then to create a mirror image of the same chauvinism writ saffron. The re-writing of Indian history as the font of all culture, science and creations is a dangerous hoax aimed at promoting jingoism within Indian politics—with deadly consequences. It is no wonder that the right-wing Hindus found much to admire in the Nazis. So, I encourage a review of the article on a scientific basis, free of political agendas, in order to proudly and honestly celebrate the myriad contributions of the many civilizations of the subcontinent of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.245.143 (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


Submission for rating

I think this is an improved article we can be proud of. I have submitted to WikiProject India for review. I can only claim a little credit myself, most of the work has been done by JSP, Exxoo and others. I believe we can look forward to an improvement in the rating. Mdw0 (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination and for your efforts. The article started improving the moment you and Exxoo appeared here. I was here before but no such improvements happened. Again thanks, JSR 0562 06:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. Well actually the one who did he most work for this article was none other than JSR. This was how it looked before he propped it up with assistance from Jagged85. Good job buddy! Exxoo (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
On behalf of WP India assessment team, WP India can give "List" as the best grade for this article. Apply for WP:Featured List for the best grade a list can get. You may initiate a WP:peer review for suggestions for further improvement. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[[This reminds me of a joke, which goes like this: The Germans manufacture a carbon fiber nano-wire, less than a micron thick and send it to Japan as an example of their technological know-how. The Japanese tke the nano-wire and convert it into a nano-tube and return it back to the Germans. The Germans are highly impressed and they now send the nano-tube to many other countries, whose scientists appreciate the invention and return it back with.

However, when it arrives from India, the Germans are observing it the under electron-microscope to find out that the Indian scientists have inscribed on it: Made in INDIA.

Really, get serious: button! Furnace! Cockfighting! Pajamas! Plough! Reservoir!

Is this how Wikipedia keeps track of the information that is posted on it?]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.213.201.165 (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Images

Any particular reason why you want the images all the same size? You'd be eliminating some of the better ones if you do that, such as the prayer flags and the palampore. I dont follow why you'd delete the autocannon image and leave in the Ahabyata statue and circulatory system. The bow drill is a diagram, not a cartoon - can't we leave it there until we find a better one? Mdw0 (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We can still have the prayer flag and palampore. The gun image is no good here since gun is a foreign invention. In an Indian court its best on the 'history of science' article. We should follow one standard size in my opinion. Just to make things standardized and neat. The other encyclopedia I saw also had smaller images with descriptive captions, generally of the same size in one article. The bow drill is just a poor illustration. In an article written in somewhat serious tone this image stands out like it belongs to one of those websites we see so often on Google. I know that someone with a good image tool can probably make this more serious and I can talk to someone tomorrow to see what can be done but in its present state its just humorous. JSR 0562 17:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
This picture looks very nice: [1] Exxoo (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Queries and suggestions

  • "Bell, page 96", " Bell, page 967" Which Bell are these references talking about (2 Bell books)?
  • Missing page nos: Bondyopadhyay (1988), Bag (2005), Murray (1913), Forbes (1860), Linde, Antonius (1981), Wilkinson, Charles K (May 1943), Charles Whish (1835). Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland., Staal, 1999. To name a few
  • Primary reference: Ṛg Veda, Book 10, 34 used. A secondary reference would be appreciated
  • I see "Lal, R. (August 2001), "Thematic evolution of ISTRO: transition in scientific issues and research focus from 1955 to 2000", Soil and Tillage Research 61 (1-2): 3-12 [3]" in "Footnotes", instead put Lal in "References". Then, "Ghosh, page 224" mising year etc. "Footnotes" should have all ref in a consistent format. Suggested format: Author_last name (year) pages xx-yy
  • The lead should be expanded a bit to encompass the entire article as per Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Bell has been fixed, now the date is specified.
  • Basically if there's no specific page number given it means that the reference in its entirety supports the cited statement. Let me explain the examples you've given
[29] Bondyopadhyay (1988) - Bondyopadhyay's paper in its entirety is about J.C. Bose's iron-mercury-iron coherer. The name of the reference is: "Sir J. C. Bose's Diode Detector Received Marconi's First Transatlantic Wireless Signal Of December 1901 (The "Italian Navy Coherer" Scandal Revisited)". How to just pick out one page?
[1] Bag (2005) - Again this journal publication by Bag, A. K. is a 6 page journal that deals exclusively on the subject. What's given in the article is a summary of the publication. The pages of that particular journal are given under references: 431-6.
[15] Murray (1913) - Harold James Ruthven Murray was the first to publish the theory that chess originated in India. His publication A History of Chess is centered around that theory. How can I specify selected pages from such?
[16] Forbes (1860) - Again Duncan Forbes' publication (The History of Chess: From the Time of the Early Invention of the Game in India Till the Period of Its Establishment in Western and Central Europe) entirely supports the theory that Chess originated in India. Again I cannot pick out one or two pages from a publication that entirely propounds that chess originated in India.
[18] Linde, Antonius (1981) - Same as above, Van Der Linde gives an exhaustive account of his findings that chess was invented by the Hindus (Indians) and was received by the Persians.
[19] Wilkinson, Charles K (May 1943) - same as above. The pages of the journal are given in the references section: Wilkinson, Charles K (May 1943). Chessmen and Chess. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin New Series 1 (9): 271–279. doi:10.2307/3257111.
[170] Charles Whish (1835) - There was no reference to this particular name but I've checked it out and it appears to be a notable journal publication. It has been added into the references section. I'm not sure if a specific page is applicable for this one as I don't have access to it.
[183] Stall, 1999. For this the pages of that publication in the journal are given in the references section. I'm not sure if a specific page is applicable. JSR can u please help for these 2 (170 and 183)?
  • Citations to the hymn book/number from the Rig and Atharva veda were for dice and for both I provided secondary references. The sentence reads: Early references to dicing can be found in the Ṛg Veda (c. early 2nd millennium BCE)[54][55][51] as well as the newer Atharva Veda (c. late 2nd millennium ~ early 1st millennium BCE).[56][49]; whereby [54] and [56] are notes of the primary source i.e. book/number of the particular hymn in the Vedas while [55], [51] and [49] are secondary sources that support those statements that it is referred to in the two Vedas.
  • To this I agree that the footnotes should be uniform. However page numbers, as mentioned above, aren't applicable to all. I'll move to get this done.
  • Doesn't the current lead encompass the entire article? Any suggestions what more we can add?
Thanks! Exxoo (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Second set of comments
  • Why keep things to the readers/reviewers imagination? It is better to explicitly state page numbers or some thing like Bag(2005) entire journal, entire chapter but the former is much convenient.
  • Rig and Atharva veda: e.g. If "Ṛg Veda, Book 10, 34" is stated in (say) Basham (2001), page 207, then a combined ref is better: "Ṛg Veda, Book 10, 34 as stated in Basham (2001), page 207". Sanskrit books (verses, manuscripts) always do not have a uniform scheme of numbering, different scholars use different numbering.
  • I insist on a std format: If the primary editors (JSR or Exxoo) can state the format: Author_last name (year) pages xx-yy or Author_last name year pages xx-yy. I can fix it.
  • The lead at the moment are 2 lists of branches of study and various sciences in Republic of India . Mention of the civilizations who developed it and dates like Mohenjo-daro (2600 BCE). Fill in the blanks:" Mohenjo-daro (2600 BCE) was first to invent _____ / make significant contributions in ____. Guptas________. Mughals _____________. Modern researchers like Bose ______" --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Later tonight I hope to complete a rewrite of education in India, an important WP:India article which requires far more attention than it has received. I have been tied up there and once the rewrite goes well I have another trip to Delhi to make by Sunday. I agree with uniform format and basically with much that has been said above by both editors. However, I request some time to answer and to try and do my bit to come up with solutions. JSR 0562 16:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Response to 2nd set of comments
  • I agree that page numders are more convenient but if the entire book / chapter is exclusively about a statement in question (e.g. Chess was invented in India) - with all the relevant evidences etc., there is no way to give a specific page number. What is implied is that a specific publication (e.g. Bag (2005)) says that xxx was from India. Page numbers are only given when the publication does not exclusively support a statement.
  • Here's an idea for the dice thingy. [49] reads:
When we get our first literary texts in India, we find that dice-playing was a common failing of the upper classes. The Rig Veda, which we may reasonably consider to have been in its present form before 1000 B.C., has references to the use of dice, and one of its hymns (Book 10, 34) is a charm to cure an inveterate and unsuccessful gambler of the compulsion to gamble that has ruined him. In the Atharva Veda, also, gambling with dice is mentioned (2.3; 4.38; 6.118; 7.52; 7.109)
To make it less cluttered we can use just this one source for both the Rig and Atharva veda. However for the Rig Veda alone I would strongly advice to use Both [49] and [55] because the [55] (Basham) reference is really good and strong, and offers a translation of the hymn about dicing/gambling. Redtigerxyz, if you have any ideas of putting it under one tag you can do so if it can earn this article better rating.
  • Almost all the footnotes that I've added comply to the format as mentioned above (e.g. McIntosh (2007), page 14). The page number is included only when applicable. Redtigerxyz If you can standardise the sources to this format it would be great.
  • We will jointly tackle the lead section later. Right now I'm researching for other inventions/discoveries that can be included in this list.
Regards Exxoo (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have begun the rewrite of education in India BTW :) JSR 0562 18:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am changing the references.

  • I am using McIntosh (2007), page 14 format
  • If two consecutive sentences have same ref, I am putting the ref at the end of the the lines, instead of having it after every sentence. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I strongly advice you to reconsider putting the ref at the end of the the lines, instead of having it after every sentence for sentences that have the same refs. JSR and I did that (refs after every sentence) to avoid the menace of people coming in later and without even checking the ref at the end of the lines, add a [citation needed] tag, which if unattended to by a Wikipedian who has access to the references (which are mostly books), will cause its deletion. This is all too common on Wikipedia and being a more experienced user u should know. JSR has also voiced his concern on this issue which was earlier raised my Mdw0. See [2] towards the very end of the page. In fact even the List of Chinese inventions which is a featured list has it this way (i.e. refs at the end of each sentence). Exxoo (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You dont need to be scared of unwarranted [citation needed] tags - just delete them like you would any other ill-considered edit, and advise to discuss here. This article too well guarded for the above fears to be an issue., especially when its at the expense of the readability of the text. Excessive citation is just as irritating as the odd [citation needed] tag. The standard way to cite references is at the end of a paragraph if all the information in the paraagraph is from the same source. Mdw0 (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Earliest furnace, reference 64.

Not to split hairs, but the town of Balakot, where the furnace was discovered was in Pakistan.

---

The earliest furnace was excavated at Balakot, a site of the Indus Valley Civilization, dating back to its mature phase (c. 2500-1900 BC). The furnace was most likely used for the manufacturing of ceramic objects. [1]

---

Balakot (Urdu: بالاکوٹ), is a town in Mansehra District in the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan.

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.184.72 (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

why many Arab inventions be claimed by other nations ?

the facts are europe used almost all Arab/Moslem Inventions in history, why now many claims around the world like india, china etc that some Arab Inventions were origins from india or china....how can you prove that ? we only knew that europe got sciences from Arab/Moslem in Islamic golden age, and India got influences too from Arab culture and sciences...i did not see any indian influences in Arab countries but Arab influences were spred around the world. so how you can prove indian gave sciences influences to Arab ? I said proves not claims. OK ! like the invention of "Zero" and the notation of numeral that we used today, as far as i know Arab got Zero Concept from the word "Zarro" from verse in Koran that means ( very small number/thing ) and then adopted as zero number, and now why it claimed as indian inventions...HOW come ? europe got many many things from Arab/moslem....if u indian had many inventions before then u should got indian golden age than Arab/islamic did but the facts are sciences and inventions were produced in Islamic golden ages...thats all.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatree (talkcontribs) 12:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC) 
It cuts both ways - there was adaptaion of inventions from Europe in Asia and vice versa. Also, new technology is based on current technology, and the history of invention has many instances of concurrent inventions and discoveries in different areas of the world at the same time. That's why lists of inventions such as these need to be so stringently referenced, indicating the item was first invented or used at this time in this place, and then its up to other editors to disprove its value in the list with other references. Also, dont forget that millions of Muslims live and have lived in India. Just becuase etymology links something back to the Qur'an that doesnt mean it was invented in Arabia and not India. As to scientific 'golden ages' it could be argued that India has had several. Mdw0 (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Universe

The claim that of the "The earliest known philosophical models of the universe are found in the Vedas, the earliest texts on Indian philosophy and Hindu philosophy dating back to the late 2nd millennium BC." is rather fanciful. First it is unsourced. Only the last two sentences of this entry are sourced, and these concern atomism, not the universe. So those two sentences should be moved to the atomism entry, and a cn tag should be added to the entry on the "universe". Athenean (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OK Mdw0 (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Good article nomination

A list cannot be a "good article" according to the good article criteria. The only process that would assess this list would be featured lists, but you may want to seek a peer review first for extra guidance. BencherliteTalk 08:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Indian?

Many of the historical inventions listed here are not strictly "Indian" at all; Mohenjo-daro is a site which existed along the Indus River in the Sindh province of modern-day Pakistan, and is an extremely important archaeological site of the country. And Muslin originated in Dhaka, modern-day Bangladesh. It would be a distortion to attribute some of these findings under India. I think the title of this article should be changed from "List of Indian inventions and discoveries" to something like "List of inventions and discoveries in the Indian subcontinent". Or something like that. Once this is done, the scope of this article should be extended to WikiProject Pakistan and WikiProject Bangladesh. The reason why 'Indian subcontinent' should be used in place of 'India' is basically as following:

The Republic of India only has a recent political history and emerged in 1947. Meanwhile, this India is an ancient land which has existed since thousands of years, and encompassed a much wider region. In historical context, the term "Ancient India" does not mean today's India; it means the subcontinent which has always consisted of the modern-day republics of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (the history of these three countries are intertwined). Please express your comments and thoughts about what you think, here; Mar4d (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The term Indian here does not mean Republic of India but the region known as India (we've had a similar discussion on the naming of History of India). Reliable sources including those from over two thousand years ago to until the actual split to two and subsequently to three countries refer to the region itself as India so I don't see a problem. As to the other point on whether this should come under WP:Pakistan and WP:Bangladesh, the answer is a clear yes, and I'll add them right now. —SpacemanSpiff 08:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
also would point out that ancestors of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis were all Indian ( vast majority being Hindus/Buddhists prior to the islamic invasion/colonisation of the subcontinent). so any invention that originated in the subcontinent prior to 1947 can legitimately be called Indian. Unlike the countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh which came into being in 1947 and 1971 respectively the subcontinent has been called India for much longer time and its residents Indian.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, this is a fantasy page. Two-thirds of the claims are bogus. It needs to be deleted or moved to the humor Wikipedia.
PS. BTW, increasingly historians in the US and Europe are using "South Asia" for the pre-1947 history. Claiming that Indians invented the dental drill, when it was found in Mehrgarh, whose discovery and excavation was due to French and Pakistani archeologists in the 1970s, and which lies in the Kachi plane of Baluchistan, is a little ludicrous. Baluchistan became a part of British Indian empire only in the 1870s. Before that, most "Indian" empires did not include Baluchistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
PPS Indians invented:
Read the title, Funnyman. Inventions and discoveries. Mdw0 (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Really. the inventions which cannot be verified need to be removed. If you are trying to imply that their are no inventions that can be credited to Indians then you are the one living in fantasy world. Who the fuck cares about what a handful of European and US historians are starting to call the region ?? what counts is what > 1 billion Indians think and believe.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
and yes if Caesars mother had know sushruta she could have been saved[3]--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
@F&f -- I haven't looked at the article to check any of the claims, just opining on the name. I'm not opposed to naming to South Asian either, just that the region has historically been known as India, and if scholarly sources have changed that, that's how it should be reflected on-wiki. I haven't seen a case for that either here or at the other move discussion (History of India). —SpacemanSpiff 18:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Up until a few years ago, I too was against changing things to "South Asian," but increasingly, as newer and newer readers come of age, readers who are unaware of pre-1947 history and read about Pakistan and India as separate countries in the news, it makes more sense to use South Asian (at least in my view.) The Britannica article on Indian mathematics, by Kim Plofker, is called "South Asian mathematics." However, her book, published by Princeton (2009) is called Mathematics of India. So, this is not cut and dried, even for the experts. In my view, in addition, "Indian" especially introduces other uncertainties, since it is used for native Americans as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Spaceman you are right that The subcontinent has been historically referred to India and its resident Indian. even if some of the newer sources call this area "South asian" that does not mean we should ignore the fact that That it has been traditionally referred to India by the vast majority of sources. WP:DUE demands all viewpoints be given due weight not equal weight. what are we gonna do next , rename Indian ocean to South Asia ocean and Indian Plate to south asia plate ??? even if going forward it is called south asia that doesnt alter the fact that for a long time it was called Indian subcontinent and its residents Indian--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
It is true that most history books on the subcontinent still use "India," but an increasing number of the new ones are using "South Asia." (See the evidence here; some are even using "Ancient South Asia," for example here. What is true is that most well known departments at American and British universities (such as Berkely, Chicago, Columbia, Penn, Cambridge, Oxford) are now calling themselves, "South Asian studies" departments. The term "South Asianist" instead of "Indologist," is also seeing increasing use. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is a mess, Someone is clearly trying to pass of the history of Pakistan, Bangladesh and other nations as being "Indian" since India did not exist as a nation state until 1947 how can the inventions of Pakistan and Bangladesh be regarded as "Indian"? THis article should be renamed South Asian S Seagal (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

condom not mentioned

It's known to be an Indian discovery. Sushrutha prescribed squirrel skin to be worn on the penis as protection against unwanted pregnancy. This fact is strangely missing from the list. --117.204.94.115 (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That would have made it the first green condom. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Addition of tags

User:Fowler&fowler has added multiple tags to the article. Some or even all of the tags might be warranted but in order to be constructive, the editor is requested to provide a list of problems (simply listing the invention and the type of problem - POV, citation needed, fiction, etc., will do). This will allow interested editors to fix the problem and improve the article. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with the tag placement. I have been observing this article for a while now, and I think it was about time someone pointed out the obvious. Many of the claims are ludicrous. The case of the dental drill, discovered in Baluchistan, i.e. the Iranian Plateau is the perfect example. The Universe? Are we for real here? The swimming pool? The source used claims it was a water tank, not a swimming pool. While the article claims to list inventions invented in South, why are then things invented outside south asia, such as the Universal Serial Bus included? Because the inventor has Indian "blood"? Another absurd claim is that of molecular biophysics, a field without a single "inventor" (and listed under inventions). In the mathematics section, it is well known that the Indians received knowledge of Pythagorean theorem from the Babylonians, who were aware of it thousands of years earlier. I could go on and on. And on. In fact, I will. Over the next few days I'm going to go over the article more carefully and list here all the entries I find dubious, with an explanation. Athenean (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
the dental drills were found in modern day Pakistan. Every single history of India ( and Indians) includes [[ Indus valley civilization which included Balochistan. [4] why anyone would call these people anything else but Indians is unfathomable. I agree that problems exist in the article but the tags are inappropriate. the following RS written by Prof. Stanley Wolpert gives a succinct account of contributions of ancient "Indians" many of whom lived in present day Pakistan[5]--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
These lists are always delicate. Definitely wrong is the attribution of the decimal system. Ancient Egypt had such a system since the 3rd millennium BC, so had later Greeks, Romans and Chinese. Generally, the problem with India is that it became literate only in the late 4th century BC (the Indus province occupied by the Persians who used Aramaic aside), so any dating of oral traditions later written down is intrinsically problematic. I'd support the use of tags. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
@Wikireader: Not all of Pakistan lies within the Indian subcontinent. The western parts lie in the Iranian plateau and the peoples that inhabit them, the Baloch and Pashtuns, are Iranian peoples. To call these people "Indians" is ludicrous. As for the Indus Valley Civilization, what is unfathomable is to refer to these people as "Indians". We have no idea what they looked like or what language they spoke. Perhaps this is why our own article on the Indus Valley Civilization (and the sources used therein) doesn't refer to them as "Indians"? But the debate over the IVC is only the tip of the iceberg. And if you agree that the article has issues, why do you oppose the tags? Anyway, for a look at what this article should look like, let's all have a look at the excellent List of Chinese inventions (an FA, no less). Fewer entries, more on each entry, better sources, and less puffery and peacockery. That is what should be done here. Athenean (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The appropiation of the Indus Valley Civilization as an Indian culture is certainly a major issue here (comparable to the appropiation of certain neolithic cultures in the Chinese list). Strictly speaking such an inclusion would warrant the consistent use of a more neutral term like "South Asian", instead of Indian. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Gun Powder Ma that it would be more appropriate to call this page, "List of South Asian inventions and discoveries." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Ditto, if the IVC is kept, the page should be renamed. Otherwise the IVC inventions should be split off into their own page. Athenean (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
That would be fine, once you fnd a source that says the IVC is NOT Indian. The country in this sense relates not just to to an ethnicity, but also a geographical area, and you'd have a hard time making a case that the Indus is outside the land known historically as India. By the way, the Chinese list held up as an example has major flaws. In ths first place its lazily alphabetical, which denies the usefulness of a chronological list which shows developments in technology. This list has a similar drawback, but at least it is split into readable categories. The Chinese one has a major split at the Shang period, as though that was the most important historical division in Chinese technological history. Mdw0 (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) The IVC is typically treated under Ancient India in history books; the Mehrgarh neolithic culture though is more problematical. It is not a part of the Indian subcontinent (geographically); as Athenean noted above, it is a part of the Iranian plateau. It was politically a part of the Indian empire only from 1870 to 1947. If that make it Indian, should Aden (also a part of the Indian empire) be included as well? Baluchistan, especially its western half, was never a part of ancient Indian empires (such as those of the Mauryas). The other problem with this page is that it is never mentioned anywhere that the famous IVC sites are in Pakistan. Read the "Bow-drill," or "dental-drill." Both articles mention Mehrgarh, but Pakistan is never mentioned. Contrast this with Britannica's article on the Origins of Agriculture, where in the Indian subcontinent subsection they say,

Research indicates two early stages of agricultural development in South Asia. In the earlier stage, dating roughly from 9500 to 7500 bp, agriculture was being established in parts of Pakistan, in the northwesternmost part of the subcontinent. At the ancient site of Mehrgarh, where the earliest evidence has been found, barley was the dominant crop and was apparently supplemented with some wheat. ... All had diffused from Southwest Asia, so it is thought that barley probably did so as well. ... Other important crops with histories in the Indian subcontinent are mung beans (Vigna radiata), black gram (Vigna mungo), ... Agriculture was well established throughout most of the subcontinent by 6000–5000 bp. During the 5th millennium bp, in the alluvial plains of the Indus River in Pakistan, the cities of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa experienced an apparent explosion of an organized, sophisticated urban culture. This society, known as the Harappan or Indus civilization, flourished until shortly after 4000 bp; it was much more extensive than those of Egypt or Babylonia and appeared earlier than analogous societies in northern China. Harappan society was remarkably homogeneous, thoroughly individual and independent, and a technological peer of the early civilizations of China and Egypt.

Notice that it is made clear that these sites are in present-day Pakistan; most articles on Indian history in Wikipedia never get around to mentioning the P-word. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

PS I've noticed Sri Lanka being included as well for some inventions; it has never been considered a part of India, even in old history books. In British times, it became a separate crown colony pretty early on (1805 or thereabouts). The Sri Lankan inventions will need to be removed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
PPS. I've now inserted "Pakistan" or often the more clunky, "what today is Pakistan," in the IVC and Mehrgarh claims. We'll see how long my edits survive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Removals

  • The decimal number system was known by the ancient Egyptians since 2nd millennium BC at the latest, see here. The Chinese, Greeks and Romans also had one from early on (only in Mesoptamia, a sexagesimal system was used). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I know that Joseph Needham had suggested the first decimals appeared in China and they have been attributed to other cultures, but these various theories are not widely accepted; the evidence is overwhelming that the complete system of decimal numbers including the representation and the arithmetic first appeared in India. Not only are the modern-day sources in broad consensus over this, but the historical record of Arab and European books calling them Indian numbers, attests to this. See for example, Kim Plofker's article "South Asian mathematics" in Encyclopedia Britannica, which begins with, "The mathematics of classical Indian civilization is an intriguing blend of the familiar and the strange. For the modern individual, Indian decimal place-value numerals may seem familiar—and, in fact, they are the ancestors of the modern decimal number system." Similarly, the Britannica article on "Numeral Systems" says, "The most commonly used numeral system is the decimal-positional numeral system, the decimal referring to the use of 10 symbols—0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9—to construct all numbers. This was an invention of the Indians, perfected by medieval Islam." The Indian Mathematics page, which I rewrote some years ago, has an accurate description of the Indian contribution in its Decimal numbers section. The problem in this page (i.e. List of Indian inventions ...) is not necessarily that everything is false, but that it is not stated accurately. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not talking about Needham's theory. A decimal number system is a number system which operates with the base ten: 10, 100, 1000, 10000 etc. This system was already used in ancient Egypt as can be ascertained from the link above. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
PS: What you mean is a place value system. Indian mathematicians were the first to use a place value system with base 10 and zero, as it is used today. Earlier place value systems were devised by Archimedes (base 100.000) and Chinese merchants (rodstick system with base 10). The Indians 'only' added the zero to the system (which was not unknown in Greek astronomy though). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, whatever it was, the Indians were the first to put the package together, which included the rules for multiplication and long division in the decimal place value system. The other systems didn't take off. The arithmetic children learn all over the world is based on the Indian system. It is sort of like the domestication of the chicken. The chicken was domesticated in Southern China or northern Southeast Asia first; it was domesticated independently later in the Indus Valley, but the chickens all over the world today have descended from the Indus chicken. That much the DNA analysis tells us. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
PS That reminds me that there is some exaggerated claims about chicken as well in this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, they were the first to put the package together, so why don't we put it that way? Indian invention: place value system with base 10 and zero, whereby both decimal number system and place value system were already known elsewhere earlier. That should be the gist of the entry. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
That is fine. But adding that some of these concepts were formulated earlier elsewhere shouldn't imply that the Indian borrowed the concepts, as there is no real evidence that the work is anything but their own (but only formulated later). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Pythagorean theorem: Known to the Babylonians a thousand years earlier, and likely the Indians obtained it from them. See C. Boyer and U. Merzbach, A History of Mathematics, Wiley 1991, p. 206. Athenean (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this too is true. Pythagorean triples (some pretty complex ones) appear in Babylonian stone tablets from 1600 BC, however, there is no statement of Pythagoras theorem there. I believe it is also true that the first statement of the theorem is recorded in the Indian sulbasutras dated to around 7th century BC. It is quite likely that the Indians got the result from the Babylonians through dispersal, but there is no hard evidence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
PS Here's the link for the sulbasutras. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I will re-instate it properly hedged (something like "statement of the Pythagorean theorem"). I think the medical examples you mentioned though are fair game for removal. Dwivedi & Dwivedi does not appear like a reliable source anyway. There is also a question of what to do about Madhava, who appears three times in there, including the false claim about Taylor series. Athenean (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I believe, properly hedged, it should read: the earliest extant oral statement of Pythagoras theorem, although it was known to the Babylonians some 900 years earlier. It is true that most Indian literature was oral, and dating it is fraught with some uncertainty, but apparently the oral methods, which involves memorization by different groups of people (and involving different memorization methods, such as forwards, backwards, leaving every other word, and so forth) were together quite accurate. Yes, the medical claims are quite over the top. The Madhava stuff is more complicated. It is true that the Kerala school, did first formulate certain special instances of Taylor series (for trigonometric functions) a couple of centuries before Taylor and Maclaurin, such as the expansion for pi/4 (also called Gregory's series) and so forth. But their methods were geometric. In particular, they didn't have the remainder formulated in the way that European mathematicians did. They certainly didn't have a theory of functions, derivatives or integrals, and their work was not applied to mechanics etc. I believe the section Kerala mathematics in the Indian mathematics page, which I rewrote up until footnotes 83 and 84, contains a reasonably accurate summary of their contributions. Claims about first calculus textbook etc in this page are bogus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
PS. As for the Indian mathematics page, I rewrote sections 3 through 8 and half of section 10. The statements in those sections should be pretty accurate. I didn't write the others, especially section 9, classical period, which has all kinds of tall claims. Come to think of it, I also rewrote the charges of eurocentrism (section 11), which earlier had all kinds of outlandish theories. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good, I will re-instate it tomorrow, too tired right now. Athenean (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • In vitro fertilization: Flatly contradicts the literature on the subject, and entirely unsourced. Athenean (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Universal Serial Bus: Remove this one. The claim that this is an Indian invention is dubious in the extreme. It cannot be ignored that Bhatt worked with a team of Americans working for an American company in America. Bhatt himself hasnt lived in India since he graduated in 1990, 20 years ago! Bhatt is an emigre, so his inventions needs to be attrribued to the correct nation - America, not India. Mdw0 (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • While we are bogged down in the Indian vs. South Asian debate, I removed a number of tall, dubiously sourced or entirely unsourced claims from the Medicine section, as pointed out by Fowler and Fowler. I do think we are all in agreement as far as those are concerned. Athenean (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 :) Good job Athenean. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed:
  • Carrom: (no citations; too much like billiards or pool)
  • Interferometer, lateral shear: Invented by M.V.R.K. Murty, who had trained in the US and is now a US citizen; the paper was however published soon after he moved back to India for a dozen or so years. Besides, it is not clear how important this invention is; it is cited widely to be sure, but so are thousands of patents received by Indian citizens or by Indians in the US. The blurb seemed to have been written by an admirer.
  • Optical fibre: Narinder Singh Kapany ... (Indian scientist in the US; now an American citizen)
  • Universal Serial Bus: Computer architect Ajay Bhatt was the co-inventor of the Universal Serial Bus (USB). (Invention by Indian in US, now a US citizen)
  • Oil spill, micro organisms as treatment of: Indian (Bengali) inventor and microbiologist Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty created a species of man made micro organism to break down crude oil. In a highly controversial decision taken by the United States Supreme Court, Chakrabarty's discovery was granted a patent ... (same: Indian in US; now US citizen)
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Also removed:

  • Hookah, which, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica (2011), was adapted by Arabs. Says Britannica ("Smoking: Tobacco in Old World Culture"), "When pipes were introduced into Asia, they were quickly adapted and made from materials as diverse as wood, bamboo, jade, ivory, metal, and porcelain. Arab communities took up the hookah, or water pipe, and smoking became a shared activity typically enjoyed with conversation and coffee. The hookah spread throughout Persia (present-day Iran) and into India, eventually reaching China, Southeast Asia, and many parts of Africa by the end of the 17th century." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Wind-powered device: not claimed by Jullef as a South Asian invention and, in any case, a kind of nonsensical entry since any smelting furnace needs a draught of air to function, not only those back then on Ceylon. Not to mention that sailing boats, true wind-powered devices, were known since the 4th-3rd millenium BC in Egypt and other places. Also bellows, devices which wind-power other devices, are much older than 300 BC. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I merged the entry on iron (which I renamed to iron-working), the iron pillar and corrosion resistant iron, as they are very closely related. Anyways, iron working is attested in many cultures, and for example in Egypt earlier than in India but I left it in there. Athenean (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Another big problem with this article is that a lot entries are in the wrong category. For example, urban planning is listed in the inventions section when it should ideally be listed as an innovation, while the simputer is listed under innovations when it should be listed as an invention (no comment on the validity of the entry itself). There are many other examples. Athenean (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Also removed entries for which Indians were co-discoverers, such as Bhatnagar-Gross-Krook, BCH code, and [[Wilson-Bappu effect], and which were discovered outside of India anyway. Athenean (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Backus-Naur form. This one is an all-time classic. Likely due to User:Jagged 85 who simply renamed it Panini-Naur form just like that, using the unreliable Subhash Kak as a source. Athenean (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

More problems

I just realized that "India" means the Indian subcontinent (i.e. Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan) for the pre-1947 history, but only the Republic of India for the post 1947 history. That doesn't make sense to me. If the histories of what today are Pakistan and Bangladesh are being included in "India," then either that history should stop in 1947, or the post-1947 histories of all three nations should be included as well. That is why "List of South Asian inventions and discoveries" would be better: it would allow both pre- and post-1947 histories without any issues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense if you can understand that what constitutes 'India' changes over time. South Asia as a term is equally confusing - do you want to try to define it here? See if you can define it without reference to India and keep Baluchistan out. Mdw0 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The point is that with "South Asia," Baluchistan would not need to be kept out. It is a part of South Asia. If you want to create a list of Indian inventions, and by India you mean undivided India, then stop the history at 1947. It doesn't make sense for List to hog the entire history of the subcontinent up to 1947 and then only have the Republic of India thereafter. Obviously other tertiary sources are being very careful now about using India to mean undivided India unless the context is completely clear; the lengthy quote from Britannica in the section above demonstrates that. Britannica uses "Indian subcontinent" and often mentions Pakistan when describing IVC. The India pages on Wikipedia, as I have often mentioned before, rarely mention Pakistan. Obviously, it not just other tertiary sources (or me), as I've indicated above most India studies departments have changed their names to South Asian studies. The historians are the only ones who are dragging their feet, but that too is changing. For uninitiated readers, who don't know the history of the subcontinent, saying, "Chickens were first domesticated in India in Mohenjo-daro" is very confusing. Most entries in the inventions list don't mention Pakistan; so the reader goes away thinking Mohenjodaro is in present-day India or if they click on the link, they get confused by discovering that it is in Pakistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
But subsuming the Indus Valley Civilization flat out under "Indian"...? That's stretching history a bit too far. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
F&f, that's not unique to this article, see History of India where this particular issue was discussed (in different context), part of it was addressed by keeping out Republic of India out of it and moving to a separate article and therefore have three core follow-on articles -- History of Pakistan, History of Bangladesh and History of Republic of India. The same thing might (or not) work here, but perhaps a broader (in terms of scope) discussion might be needed to address all these overlap articles in one go than do it at different spots as we notice the inconsistencies. We'll need to use a term that addresses both the historical and geographical context, not just one; at present I think "Indian" addresses the historical context but not the geographical context. —SpacemanSpiff 03:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of those other pages, and was a part of the debate then (if you read the archives of the Talk:History of India page). The discussion I'm talking about took place some four years ago. In the end, it was decided to keep "India," but have the history stop at 1947, as you mention above. Also, (this was Nichalp's formulation), the History of India page was not to spend too much space on IVC, Sassanids, Archemenids, ... ie. empires or civilizations that covered small parts of present-day India, but big parts of present-day Pakistan or Bangladesh. Over the years this resolve has probably flagged as nationalist Indian editors have stuffed their favorite family myths in the history. The problem in this page is that it doesn't stop at 1947. I agree with you that "Indian" addresses the historical context, but not the geographical. Let me mull it over. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The lead, which says,

"This list of Indian inventions and discoveries details the inventions, scientific discoveries and contributions made in India[fn 1] throughout its cultural and technological history, during which architecture, astronomy, cartography, metallurgy, logic, mathematics, metrology and mineralogy were among the branches of study pursued by its scholars. During recent times science and technology in the Republic of India has also focused on automobile engineering, information technology, communications as well as space, polar, and nuclear sciences."

is problematical. The footnote in the first sentence says, "The term "India" in this article refers to the Indian sub-continent." Nowhere is it said that it refers to the subcontinent only up to 1947 and Republic of India thereafter. I personally don't see a problem with naming this page, "List of inventions and discoveries made in South Asia." That way Sri Lanka and the Maldives could be included as well. The lead would say, South Asia covers the present-day region of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
PS That way discoveries made by India born American citizens would automatically be excluded, since they were not made in South Asia. One would need to add Ronald Ross and malaria, and other instances of discoveries that were made by Britons in undivided India that used local cases and data, etc. etc. It would be more equitable. As it is, this list seems to be using some vague notion of Indian ethnicity as its criterion for inclusion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
There needs to be a balance struck between the strictly accurate and the ultimately useful. The idea of the article is a list that goes back through India's cultural and technological history. This is necessarily quite broad, and the further back into the past you go, the broader it should get. Changing the title to remove any mention of India just because some inclusions in the ancient past arent part of today's republic is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. All thats required is a notation that the concept of India has changed over time and the article attempts to reconcile the changes. The point of the lists of inventions by country is to show development of technology and how that relates to culture. Of course there's bound to be patriotic/nationalst tendencies in some of it, but thats where enforcement of NPOV comes in. You'd be better off removing items from the list that arent strictly Indian rather than changing the title to a more politically neutral term.
Another solution might be to change the list into a chronological one, and then you could define what is meant by India according to the appropriate time period. Mdw0 (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
One thing: The further back you get in time, the more careful one has to select the data. Otherwise we'd end up with Stonehenge being a "British invention"...Just as we now end up with the achievements of Mohenjo Daro being an "Indian invention"... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Precisely the whole reason for this argument and why the issue was raised in the first place; the article's name does not contain clarity whether it's about the Republic of India, and if it is, then why does it also contain extracts on IVC digs in Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Clarity is good, usefulness is better. Stonehenge IS British - built in Britain by people from that island. Mohenjo Daro counts here because the area is part of the Indian subcontinent. It could also go into any article concerning Pakistan's technological history, because the history is shared, not exclusive. The effort for clarity is commendable, but renaming the article to South Asia creates obscurity, not clarity. Clarity here cant go into the title because the concept of India is reasonably fluid over time, so a sentence in the lead paragraph acknowledging this would be appropriate to satisfy pedants. Mdw0 (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Stonehenge cannot be called in any way British. The people who built Stonehenge would not have had even the faintest idea what British means. If we don't want to expand such lists back until the day the first humans set their foot on South Asian soil, we need some time frame. "Indian" has a cultural connotation, "South Asian" not. If you solely want to go by geography, the whole article needs to be renamed "South Asian". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes geography seems to be important to you, and then other times we've got statements like Stonehenge isnt British! Any concept of geography will tell you that Stonehenge is situated on the island of Britain, so its British. Second guessing the knowledge of people who lived there thousands of years ago is also a mistake - what makes you think those people didnt know their homeland was on a large island? For some reason you're prepared to declare that ancient peoples were too dumb to know where they lived or that other places existed, yet they were still able to engage in the engineering works of Stonehenge using stones imported from hundreds of miles away. Your statements lack logic. Mdw0 (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Anachronistic argumentation. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is nowadays on Israeli soil, yet it wasn't constructed by Jews. The Hagia Sophia is on Turkish territory, but it was built by Byzantines, not Turks. The Colosseum was constructed by the Romans, even though it is today on Italian territory. We don't credit the invention of the newspaper to France, because at the time it was invented by Johann Carolus Strassburg was still German. You wanna use "Indian" only in the pure geographical sense? Then you have to use "South Asian" instead, because "Indian" is inseparably associated with Indian culture, language and history. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Israel is a terrible example to prove this sort of argument - Jews are a adherants to a religion, not an ethnicity. But you could certainly use The Holy Sepulchre in an article on Architecture in Israel. Just because India has a cultural connection - myriad, undefined and vague though that is, that doesnt mean it doesnt have a geographical definition too - possibly just as vague over time, admittedly. I dont want to use Indian in only its strictest current geographical sense, I want to use broader strokes. However, there are people who object to those broader strokes, people who get the hump when certain areas are included in a broader definiton of India through history because they dont like those areas being referred to as India in its current sense. Its 100% poltiics and 0% geography. There's no comparable effort to change the Chinese article to East Asian, even though China too has had different definitions over time. So rather than editing the list into something that IS Indian, we have people who want to change the title. I cant fight complacency, laziness AND nationalism by myself, so I doubt I'd reverse the title of the article once its done - but I wouldnt like it. Mdw0 (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't agree with Mdw0 that using "South Asia" creates obscurity. A little obscurity, yes; but not one that is crippling. "South Asia" is used frequently now in newspapers and the electronic media. Britannica's page on the mathematics of the subcontinent is called "South Asian mathematics;" its page on the arts of the subcontinent is called "South Asian arts." Just a few decades ago, these pages were called "Indian mathematics" and "Indian art." The Met in New York recently had an exhibition of South Asian art. Here for example is a book published by them: Art of South and Southeast Asia; its chapters on South Asia (here and here) should serve as a model for this page. It uses "India," but it also uses "Indian subcontinent" or just "subcontinent," and of course, "South Asia." In just a few sentences, the reader gets the right orientation. The good thing about "South Asia" is that it is a political union, not a geographical description (as the subcontinent). I think Mdw0's point about clarity in the lead is key. Having "India" in the title might be less obscure, but it could be confusing, and could ruffle some feathers. Given a choice between obscurity and confusion, I'd err on the side of obscurity, but clarify in the lead. The other point Mdw0 makes (somewhere upstairs) that I believe is even more important is the one about the rationale for such a list: to show the development of technology and its relation to culture. As it stands, the list doesn't do that. I believe the list should be make chronological. It doesn't have to be strict timeline, but it should be a part of a progression of historical epochs: such as a) Mehrgarh culture, b) IVC, c) Vedic age d) Archemenids and Alexander's invasion, ... Mughal age, British era. In each epoch there should be a short backgrounder about the culture that gave rise to the innovations. With "South Asia" in the title, the list would not need to end in 1947, since South Asian culture still thrives with links of languages, educational systems, religions, between the four or five successor states. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Isnt it more the case that the current states are separated by religion, language and government systems? I'd say that if someone wants to put together a list of Pakistani or Bangladeshi inventions they should go for it, and the fluid concept of India allows for these items listed here to remain here in a list of Indian inventions. After you renamed this one South Asian, whats to stop someone then creating a new list of Indian inventions? I too would like to see a reordering into a chronological list with backgrounders of what is defined as India, but its quite a big job.Mdw0 (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Not really. Both Pakistan and much of North India share a language (Hindustani language); both Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal share a language as well (Bengali language). The educational systems are more or less the same in all three countries, all ultimately the result of Woods education dispatch of 1854. It is true that Pakistan and Bangladesh are majority Muslim countries, whereas India is a majority Hindu one, but India has a large Muslim minority (larger than the entire population of Bangladesh). The pre-British culture of India for some five hundred years was Muslim. It is also true that democracy has thrived in India, but not really in Pakistan and Bangladesh, but all three countries are democracies now. There is obviously a culture in South Asia that transcends national boundaries. Why else would Britannica be changing the name of its pages to "South Asian mathematics" and "South Asian arts?" The fluid concept of India you are talking about unfortunately violates neutrality. The History of India page, where editors have long mulled this over, stops at 1947. The modern histories of the three successor states can be found at History of the Republic of India, History of Pakistan, and History of Bangladesh. If we agree to including "South Asia" in the title and someone then starts a page called, "List of Indian inventions ...," that page would be deleted in a hurry, as it would be a content fork. I believe even if we agree to keeping India in the name, the list should stop at 1947. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Very fluently put; South Asia would make a much better title neutrally, and imply much more sense (in the case of this specific page). I don't think there should be a need for a new page for 'Indian inventions,' this page is the place to list them. However, when you want to mention history, such as the IVC, it becomes a subcontinental thing and is not entirely 'Indian' anymore. I fully agree with the viewpoints expressed by F&F throughout this discussion. 121.222.230.133 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Let me make my stance clear. If the name "Indian inventions" is kept, I am opposing the inclusion of the Indus Valley Civilization for the reasons I gave above. I am open for "South Asian", but it also needs to be stressed in the lead then that the article is about the entire subcontinent to avoid confusion with India. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The Indus Valley Civilisation is very significant in South Asia's history - in fact, it defines the origins and roots of how this part of the world began; much of the inventions by the Harappans and Mohenjo-daro shape the scientific history of the whole region. For that reason, I support the idea of having India and South Asia in this article, and the title should be changed to "South Asian" to match accordingly. 121.222.230.133 (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

OK, I guess we are not going to get consensus for changing the name to "South Asian." I propose we keep the page name, but end the history in 1947 and clarify in the lead. The post-1947 inventions and discoveries are flaky anyway. This would be consistent with the History of India page and the History of India template. What say you all? Compromise, compromise, compromise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer the page be moved to South Asia, but if we keep "Indian", the IVC inventions should be removed rather than the post-1947 inventions (and certainly the Merhgarh inventions). Actually, I don't see why the post-1947 should be removed if we keep "Indian". It's going to cause a lot of problems with readers coming here and looking for post-1947 inventions, not finding them and getting real upset. Athenean (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Me, and many others as can be seen, support the move to South Asia. It makes much more sense. 124.187.100.94 (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Per Athenean. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it can't just be left the way it is. If a move is needed, how about List of Ancient Indian inventions and discoveries? --RaviC (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Because not all of the things listed in this list are "ancient." This list also includes discoveries in the modern-day Republic of India. Mar4d (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid, the discoveries (there are no inventions) by citizens of the Republic of India (made in India) are few and far between. The case for continuing this list beyond 1947 is very weak. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
PS The total number made after 1947 is less than six. And some of those are dubious. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I still think that the name is fine as it is. This page should include verifiable inventions and discoveries by either a)people who consider themselves of Indian heritage OR b) people who the world considers Indian. Even during british times Indians were called Indians not "British Indians" or "South Asians". the use of the word South Asian to refer to the people of the Indian subcontinent is relatively new and should not be given WP:UNDUE weight. Of course the concept of who is Indian is a fluid concept which has changed with time and could possibly change further depending on how Pakistan collapses and what happens to the successor states. An analogous situation is the definition of "American". usually that refers to people from USA even though the American continents have several other countries. Nobody would ever call a Canadian an American though Canada is clearly part of North America. People from Texas are likewise called American not mexican even though they were part of Mexico not too long ago. like I said before the inventions and discoveries which cant be sourced to WP:RS need to go.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
India did not exist pre 1947 it was British India and before that the Moghul empire, "Indian" is a nationality for the nationals of the republic of India, A Pakistani is a national of Pakistan a country which was created by Partitioning British
British India. Your concept that Pakistanis are Indians is offensive and just an attempt to steal the history of Pakistan. There are Indian inventions out there, but Pakistani inventions belong to Pakistan. That being said I can understand the
confusion in the hearts and minds of Indians given that India country never existed until 1947 and then they had a new country Pakistan that occupies all the historical sites.S Seagal (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If anyone is uncomfortable with any particular invention not being Indian, they should mention it here. So far as the Indus valley culture goes, it is so far back in history that its impossible to say what the average IVC person considered as their nationality, so because the IVC is an obvious ancestor-culture of India, then those inventions should be included, just as any list of Pakistani inventions would also include IVC inventions as Pakistan is also a succesor culture of the IVC. Mdw0 (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Sinhalese people don't consider themself a) of "Indian heritage" or b) people who the world considers "Indian." Ceylon wasn't part of India, yet there's mention here about Brahmanic hospitals and a wind-powered device from Sri Lanka. Also, I don't get what you mean by "successor states" and neither does it seem relevant. Once again, I want to mention that this list is not entirely "Indian," and if it is this "Indian" which seems more the case as Fowler just pointed out, then the first paragraph should be modified (which currently makes a statement about science and technology in the Republic of India). Mar4d (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Anything in this list that clearly isnt Indian should be removed. Included should be inventions and discoveries invented in India, or what was known as India at the time of the invention. As for ancient inventions, where the inventors are unknown or it cant be known whether the inventors considered themselves to be Indian, then go by a rough geographical rule. Mdw0 (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry Mdw0, if "Indian" is retained in the title, I don't see how it can continue beyond 1947. As I've already indicated, there's plenty precedent for doing so. The History of India page, which includes the histories of what today are Pakistan and Bangladesh, does just that. (The history of Republic of India is in the History of Republic of India page.) Since the post-1947 discoveries in this page are just a handful, and are being pruned besides, there is good reason for this. It will also keep drive-bys from adding every two-bit invention they read about in the papers to this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
That seems totally backwards to me - post 1947 is when there is the LEAST argument over the borders of India! However, before splitting or renaming the article, why not humour me and try removing anything thats not Indian? Once they're all gone, there's no need to split it or rename it is there? Mdw0 (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
and please F & F do not keep on quoting what was done on History of India. I dont know what degree of consensus was reached on that page but what was done there is not sacred law never to be violated. even if there was some consensus there at some point in time, consensus can change per WP:CCC.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ommaya reservoir

Talking about Pakistani inventions, should the Ommaya reservoir be added to this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.100.94 (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Questionable as to whether this is a Pakistani invention as the inventor left Pakistan after he graduated and never lived there again. His postgraduate studies, development as a surgeon and the work required to make the reservoir a practical invention all happened in the West. Even if there was a clear reference that Ommaya had the idea for the reservoir while he was still in Pakistan decades before the invention was developed, it is still drawing a very long bow to claim this as a Pakistani invention. Mdw0 (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Some things are missing

I just realized that one problem with the article that has so far been overlooked in the haste to remove all the spurious claims, is that some things that should be listed as Indian inventions/discoveries are missing. Most obvious to me are yoga and ayurvedic medicine, which I feel deserve to be here. There is also the more tricky question of things like Buddhism, which though not strictly an "invention" or "discovery" could be mentioned in some form. Thoughts? Athenean (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The list is related to technology, so the medicinal items are fine, but not the religious. Mdw0 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please Remove All Pakistani Inventions

Hello,

Can you please remove the Pakistani inventions from the list because there is a page now for Pakistan List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries all Pakistani inventions and discoveries pre and post 1947 should go there where its clearly seperated into pre-Independence and post-Independence, India did not exist like Pakistan until 1947 therefore to claim the inventions and discoveries made in the territorial limits of Pakistan as "Indian" discoveries and inventions is historical theft. Also the naming dispute here is slowing down progress on the article, So its best that Pakistan has its own article since its a seperate nation with a completely different history from India. Regards S Seagal (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold on. I am neutral about this, but I think some people would like to discuss this first. For example, did the ancient IVC really cover entirely modern Pakistani territory? What if some of its cities lie in the modern Republic of India? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I dont see why inventions made in Pakistan should be dubbed "Indian" its best that India has its own list of inventions and page has its seperate page excluding all the IVC and other civilizations that are located in Pakistan, All inventions that took :: place within the territory of what is Pakistan is the history of Pakistan im sure the India republic does have some inventions but it should not lay claim to Pakistani inventions as its own. S Seagal (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
there was no Pakistan prior to 1947 and the residents of Lahore , Karachi etc were all called Indian. as such its ludicrous to claim that any Pakistani invented anything prior to 1947. take your POV somewhere else.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Talking of POV, Are you denying that IVC is a integral part of Pakistani history? Indus river is to Pakistan what the Nile is to Egypt, Im sure if you searched there are a few Indian inventions made post 1947, However the inventions made within the ::::territory of Pakistan belong to the history of Pakistan and thus are not "Indian", I have said before there was no India until 1947 there was "British India" and before that the Moghul Empire, Either you are naive or completely duplicitous. S Seagal (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
who says there was no India before 1947. your personal views are not welcome on WP. what was Indian National Congress which was formed in 1800s. why is this map called Map of India ??? [6] Indians were very much there prior to 1947. Pakistan was born in1947 and history of Pakistan was history of India prior to 1947. can you show me even a single map of Pakistan prior to 1947??? and if you continue to violate WP:NPA you will soon see yourself blocked--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you denying that the IVC is the history of Pakistan, And how can you prove that India was a nation state prior to 1947?S Seagal (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(Arbitrary section break) Yes S Seagal, I would like to deny that IVC is not the history of Pakistan. Even going by your logic, because many sites of IVC fall in the present day Republic of India, hence Pakistan cannot claim it in totality. Actually, India, as a political entity, has existed since ancient times and hence whatever was invented prior to 1947 in the territories which fall under the present day Pakistan, are termed as Indian. Also, S Seagal seeing your comments above, it seems that you'll keep shifting the goal post to justify your POV. Shovon (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not sensible to be trying to enforce today's political boundaries on the past. It is flat out impossible to claim the IVC is exclusively Pakistani or Indian, as both are descedant cultures of the IVC. Also, the Indus valley was referred to as India by various people in and outside of the subcontinent for a long time prior to 1947. IVC items should be in both lists. The Pakistani list has every right to claim inventions in their geographical territory before 1947, but cannot claim exclusivity because the same area was referred to as India, or various forms of the name India throughout history. If you see any other invention here you believe is not Indian, then I suggest you remove it, stating your reasoning. It is not for you to order someone else to do the work for you. By the way, congratulations for being bold and creating a Pakistani list, for doing something constructive. However, I think there will be problems claiming some of your ex-patriate inventors because some of them changed their nationality prior to their inventions being developed. You cant claim an invention as Pakistani when the inventor is a national of another country just because they were born in Pakistan. Mdw0 (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
To answer your question about the nationality of those "inventors:"
  • Abdus Salam is the only Pakistani to have recieved a nobel prize
  • Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood studied abroad, but he came back to Pakistan where he established much of his career.
  • The Farooq Alvi brothers created the virus in Lahore, and are residents of the city
  • Mahbub ul Haq was a Pakistani economist and served as the Finance Minister of Pakistan. Once again, quite relevant.
  • The mention of Ayub K. Ommaya is trivial and I will tend to partially agree with you at this point; however, he was born in Pakistan and pretty much left the country not when he was very young. He also completed his education at the King Edward Medical College in Lahore. Yes, he lived in another country though there's no evidence that he possibly had dual/foreign nationality. As a matter of fact, he also died in Pakistan.

I am only referring to what's mentioned in the list - there could be more people. In any case, apart from the dispute on the IVC, the List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries article is not bad overall. In fact, I think it would be better off if that article stays as mentioning those people here would be inappropriate (unless this article's name is changed to "South Asia", which seems unlikely). Something needs to be done about the IVC discoveries too; taking into account the current situation, I suggest creating a seperate article for that altogether. It is already clear that the Indus Valley encompasses the history of the whole of Indian subcontinent. Nationalistic wars are the last thing we want here, and they were definitely not the intended result of this thread. Mar4d (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Either way Pakistan deserves its own list for inventions and discoveries made within its territory, This "India" that is claiming all the inventions made in the territory of Pakistan never existed prior to 1947, As mentioned before there was "British

India" and before that the "Moghul Empire". "India" is not even a term that means anything in the local language of the republic of India, Its a political neologism to describe the artificial amalgamation of south asian people who share absolutely nothing in common to administrate them easier for the purposes of the British crown. It suits some people just fine to hog the entire history of south asia and then add just the inventions made in the republic of India excluding the other countries. Therefore there is no other solution but for Pakistan to have its seperate article. S Seagal (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Best not to talk about the history of the term "India," S. Seagal, when you don't know what it is. Pakistan can have its list, but include only inventions made after 1947 in that list. There was no Pakistan prior to 1947; there was not even any local culture remotely like that of modern-day Pakistan (i.e. the posited composite Muslim culture of the two-Nation theory) prior to 800 AD. Pakistanis themselves are not too keen to take on their pre-Islamic past, which includes Hinduism, Buddhism and the religion of the Indus Valley Civilization. How do I know? I wrote the original History of Pakistan page. The page was criticized by Indian editors, but in the end it was the Pakistani editors who drastically reduced the page's pre-Islamic history. It is ludicrous for a country whose raison d'etre is its monolithic Islamic culture, which has been in place only for the last 64 years, to claim a prehistoric culture as its own and only its own just because it happened to have thrived within its geographical boundaries. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
(Added after Wikireader41's post below. So, he's not agreeing with my PS, but rather only with the post above.) PS I'm still of the view that the best way out of this mess is to have a page List of inventions and discoveries made in South Asia for the pre-1947 ones and for each South Asian country to have its own post-1947 list. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
well said Fowler&fowler. I was beginning to get worried that Sseagal was gonna claim Hinduism & Vedas as Pakistani inventions as the region which currently is Pakistan had much to do with origin of both of these. You might find info at Indophobia#Pakistan and the work of Mubarak Ali interesting. many in Pakistan would rather believe that their was no civilization in the subcontinent till the light of Islam arrived and civilized the savages. To lesser degrees the Europeans were guilty of that too. That all changed once IVC was discovered. Michael Wood (historian) has written a really good history The Story of India which is a must watch for anybody with interest in that part of the world. Especially for those of us who find history boring.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is not true, Wikireader41, that Europeans (which I am assuming included the British) were guilty of that as well, and that very little happened until the discovery of the Indus Valley Civilization. From the early days of Company rule in India, many British administrators, such as Warren Hastings (who established the Calcutta Sanskrit College), were keenly aware of India's early history. The Archaeological Survey of India was established in the early days of Crown rule in 1861 and its excavations involved mainly Buddhist and Hindu sites. European scholars of early India included William Jones, James Prinsep, Horace Hayman Wilson, Henry Thomas Colebrooke, Colin Mackenzie, Alexander Cunningham, A.C.L. Carlleyle, Monier Monier-Williams, Rudolf Roth, Otto von Bohtlingk, Eugene Burnouf, Max Müller and Sylvain Lévi. Michael Wood, on the other hand, is not really a scholar of India, but rather a fan. As for the Indophobia page, I'm afraid, it is mainly a page about Indian—and in fact, mainly Hindu—paranoia, and speaks to the worst in Wikipedia. In my view, it should be deleted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I think Fowler&Fowler's proposal to have a List of South Asian Inventions for everything pre-1947, and lists for individual countries for post-1947 inventions is eminently sensible. Otherwise this is going to become intractable very quickly. Athenean (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I too support the proposal. Mar4d (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. This is a win-win move for all as those of us who insist on a "List of Indian Inventions", as it currently stands, as well as those who support a separate "List of Pakistani inventions" can keep their IVC entries. Otherwise, they would have to be removed, since the IVC neither can be easily related to Indian nor much less to Pakistani culture. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler please note that most of the statements in Indophobia#Pakistan are not from Indians ( or Hindus) . This is a problem recognized by many in Pakistan itself. Michael Wood is a fellow of Royal Historical Society so calling him a fan rather than a historian is not NPOV. He has written extensively about non India stuff also. The subcontinental people were referred to as Indians and not South Asians for major part of the history so I still stand by my position that the title stay as it is. That the discovery of IVC changed perception of India among its colonial masters is a belief shared by many. Part of the reason Muslims arrived in India followed later by Christian colonialists was to proselytize and convert Idol worshiping polytheists who they thought were "inferior" to their monotheistic Abrahamic religion. Catholic Church and the Age of Discovery & Christianity and colonialism goes over the attempts by Christians to help the savages find God ( while simultaneously enriching their coffers). Though it has always been a puzzle why both Muslims and Christians failed to convert majority of the natives ( in Indian subcontinent) unlike their success elsewhere in the world ( e.g South America).--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Athenean and Mar4d: Is it time to attempt a page move? If you think it is, could one of you do the formalities? Thanks. I'm a little tied up right now, but will be glad to add my bit as cogently as I can muster. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont see any consensus above for a move. so the talk is a bit premature. we dont want endless edit warring here do we. I suggest we carry on our discussion a bit further. maybe when Fowler&fowler returns and has more free time.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not up for any more discussion, Wikireader41, especially if it means responding to the facile grandiosity that is implicit in your long post above. Besides I'm not talking about moving the page, only about initiating WP:RM. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
which part of my post do you find Grandiose. Is it that I pointed out The Michael Wood is a fellow of Royal Historical Society and not just a fan as you ridiculously claim ?? he has been published by BBC and that meets WP criteria for RS and his views need to be given due weight. whether you personally think of him as a scholar /historian is of zero consequence. Or is it that you find that Colonists were egged on by the Church an inconvenient truth  ??? Perhaps Catholic Church and the Age of Discovery & Christianity and colonialism were written by paranoid Hindus and need to be deleted also. Please do take a moment to answer otherwise I will never know the WP:TRUTH--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I dont see any progress on the naming dispute of this article and to make things worse wikireader is vandalising the List of Pakistani invetions, I dont see why Pakistani invetions are being held hostage by a list of Indian inventions since

the inventions took place in the territory of what is now Pakistan S Seagal (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


Only Solution

Best solution to the problem at hand is that all discoveries made pre-1947 are added to this article named to list of south Asian disoveries, The list ends in 1947 and the inventions made by India and Pakistan post 1947 are in seperate pages named List of Indian inventions and list of Pakistani inventions. S Seagal (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that the only solution, but it seems vastly preferable to splitting the pre-1947 inventions according to modern borders. Huon (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I would not call that a solution at all. "The problem" has been created by your perception about the history of the region. Pre-1947, there was nothing called "Pakistan", but "India", as a geographical and political entity, most definitely existed. That's why I don't see any reason why the name should be changed. Also, please note that South Asia does not only include the present day countries of India, Pakistan & Bangladesh. Indian subcontinent would have been a more appropriate term, but I guess that would not be acceptable to you. Shovon (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
stop POV pushing here S Seagal. can you provide any reference That Pakistan existed prior to 1947. The people of the subcontinent were referred to as Indians for long time prior to 1947 and this list includes inventions by those people aso. This is not a List of inventions by citizens of Republic of India--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
S Seagal, this is also the move Fowler&Fowler, Athenean, Mar4d and me are supporting above. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The reason South Asia is not a good term is because a) borders of south asia are not agreed upon and this is a relatively new way to describe this geographic area. Look at this map to see what different people mean when they say SA[[7]]. it includes areas of Iran Afghanistan etc. UN thinks significant chunk of Tibet and Mayanmar are also included along with Afghanistan.[8]. b) WP:NPOV requires that we give WP:DUE weight to all significant viewpoints as represented by WP:RS ( and not views by individual editors who happen to be interested in the article at a particular point of time) and certainly the use of term "Indians" to describe the residents of Indian Subcontinent was the most widespread. The names Indian National Congress, Indian National Army, East India Company, Indian independence movement etc all preceded Republic of India. Vasco da Gama traveled to India in 1498 not South Asia [9]. The historians have always called this part of the world India World History: Ancient and medieval times to A.D. 1500--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not claiming that "South Asian inventions" is a super-neat solution, while the others are total crap, but it is still the most preferable. We can specify the scope of South Asia immediately in the lead as complying with the general definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:South_Asia_%28ed%29update.PNG . That's what the lead is for, introducing the reader to the subject where the article title is too concise. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
glad you clarified that gun powder ma. We could instaed clarify in the lead that this list includes inventions / discoveries of all the people of Indian subcontinent and Republic of India after 1947. we could also put a link to the list of Pakistani inventions post 1947. The basic problem is that some editors do not want to accept that there was anything called India or any people called "Indians" prior to 1947. I have provided several references and countless more exist to refute that claim. The greeks visited India long time ago and you can read all about in Greek conquests in India. We are going to be opening a big can of worms and setting the wrong precedent for people to start demanding that anything with the word India be changed South Asia.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, we could do that, too, but then I'll be forced to oppose the inclusion of the IVC material, since all invention lists on Wikipedia are primarily defined in cultural, not geographical terms or have you ever seen Byzantine inventions being included in a List of Turkish inventions or Stonehenge mentioned in a List of British inventions? And do you seriously want to suggest that the tools found with him should be credited as Chinese invention? Now that would be the real can of worm and we don't want to open it by conveying the false impression that the Indus Valley Civilization was as Indian as Akbar and Gandhi. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
If the list stays under "Indian", the IVC stuff is removed, or else the lede is moved to "South Asian" and the IVC stuff stays (which most people seem to prefer). But you can't have it both ways. Can't have your cake and eat it, as they say. Athenean (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I have a complete commonality of views with Fowler&Fowler, Athenean, Mar4d, This article should be renamed "List of South Asian inventions and discoveries". The term "Indian" is confusing since the reader clicks on a site in Mojendaro in from a list of Indian inventions and finds himself looking at a site thats in Pakistan, This is confusing for the reader and is neither geographically, historically or politically correct. That aside, I support that this article is renamed "List of South Asian iventions and discoveries" and the Indian and Pakistani inventions list only post 1947 inventions after the naming dispute here has been fixed. S Seagal (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
to Athenean and Gun powder ma Was the Great Pyramid of Giza built by Egyptians or was it not ? Or were the pyramids built by North Africans. Every history book on India includes Indus Valley civilization. It is not what you and I think . It is what the RS include when they describe India and Indians.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) The cultural continuity of Egypt is, despite its modern designation as Arab Republic, unique. I've been three times to Egypt and every Egyptian on the street, be it Muslim or Christian, views the pyramids as product of their own culture with an absolute air of certainty. And they are right, the pyramids were always there to be seen, touched, looted, admired, written about, the continuity was alway given. But the IVC is a different case. Its cities were covered by 10 m thick sedimentation and any knowledge of their existence was already long lost in antiquity in India. Only in the 20th century, after 3500 years, some Western archaeologists discovered its remains, excavated them, and now the IVC is suddenly appropiated by some Indians to have been Indian all along, even though the same Indians had not before the faintest idea that such a culture even existed on the subcontinent. Give me a break, there is clearly more than a pinch of modern nationalism involved in this claim and WP does not need to follow the Indian schoolbook phraseology on this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=fn> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=fn}} template (see the help page).