Talk:History of India

"Daily life in ancient india" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Daily life in ancient india and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 12 § Daily life in ancient india until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Second urbanization

What was the speed of population growth during the second urbanization? --95.24.60.6 (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Mauryan Empire map

Recently the Mauryan Empire map included in this article was changed from to . Both maps are labelled as the "Maurya Empire c. 250 BCE" but show significantly different extents; and both have gone numerous revisions over the years so that they are unlikely to bear much relation with the cited sources on their description page. Anyone know offhand which map (if either) is accurate? Pinging @RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler: for sanity check. Abecedare (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The one on the left is the one with support in the modern sources and therefore the correct one; the one on the right is the traditional one. We mention what the map on the left shows in words in the India page, "Politically, by the 3rd century BCE, the kingdom of Magadha had annexed or reduced other states to emerge as the Mauryan Empire. The empire was once thought to have controlled most of the subcontinent except the far south, but its core regions are now thought to have been separated by large autonomous areas," cited to the books of Burton Stein and Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund. The map on the left is also the main map in the Maurya Empire page and was the result of a consensus; someone changed it, probably very recently, and I had to revert it. That map has quite a few sources, including Monica Smith of UCLA whose work addresses this very issue. Also, historian David Ludden, now of NYU, but then of Penn, (and perennially the stepson of Betty White, who said in an interview, "Our son is a historian at Penn, who works on the agricultural history of South India. Go figure. :)) in India and South Asia has addressed this. We have cited Ludden in the sentence, "Early political consolidations gave rise to the loose-knit Maurya and Gupta Empires based in the Ganges Basin." in the lead of India. I have italicized the reference to the map on the left. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to ping @Abecedare: in my reply. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I've copied the maps and aligned them; "left" and "right" were, on my screen, due to length of the lines, different from what I understand F&f to mean. The 'map with the holes' is the modern understanding, right? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks F&F! Based on your input, I have undone the recent edit (pinging @Gauhar2806: in case they wish to argue for the change they made).

Interestingly, Avantiputra7 had added a note to "Version 2" of the map in 2017, saying This is the standard "textbook" map of the Maurya Empire. Historians are now arguing that the Maurya Empire did not include large parts of India, which were controlled by autonomous tribes. For such a map, see File:Maurya Empire, c.250 BCE.png. But the "outdated" map is nevertheless used on several articles on wikipedia, which may need a clean-up. Abecedare (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

A lot of?

The south Indian mathematician Madhava of Sangamagrama founded the famous Kerala School of Astronomy and Mathematics in the 14th century which produced a lot of great south Indian mathematicians like Parameshvara, Nilakantha Somayaji and Jyeṣṭhadeva.

Why does "a lot of" in this sentence sound so cluncky and redneck to me? 2600:6C44:74F0:80F0:B7F0:A9B2:C1EA:BD65 (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The entire article needs grammatical improvement. How can I propose changes? Ashok (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This would be how I'd rewrite it:

The mathematician Madhava of Sangamagrama founded the famous Kerala School of Astronomy and Mathematics in the 14th century, which produced several great mathematicians such as Parameshvara, Nilakantha Somayaji and Jyeṣṭhadeva. Ashok (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Misleading History of Jainism

This page in its current state claims that Jainism "originated" in 600 BCE. This is an incorrect information as there is no documented date for beginning of Jain religion. It is obscure. The 23rd Jain Tirthankar, Parshvanath is a historical figure who lived in 900 BCE. Apart from this, many notable researchers from the archaeological survey of India had opinion about the existence of Jainism in Indus valley era which I can add with proper citations. I would encourage input from other members of Wikipedia community for their suggestions and wait for a couple of weeks to make a consensus based update. Livingstonshr (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Content

I’m willing to work with you, but have I not already given a pretty detailed explanation for why this shouldn’t be here on my talk page? Obviously I can’t form all my points in one edit summary(which is supposed to be summary). There was more detail written there.

“Pretty sure I did provide an edit summary. Nonetheless I’ll explain my edits. Two sources are problematic. One(bowman) doesn’t actually refer to the empire as indianized. The other source is raj. All of these sources were used by another user in the past(mydust) whom added it the khalji dynasty and Delhi sultanate pages. (Although a different user added it to the history of India page). But this was undue because there were more authoritative sources that contradicted the claim that the sultanate became “indo-muslim”. Including Satish Chandra. “ Thus, in a highly fragmented society it is hardly possible to speak of an "integrated" Indo-Muslim state. The position of converted India Muslims from the lower classes hardly changed.” pg 268. Here’s the source. [2] Worst of all, the two sources used aren’t even referring to the dynasty that founded the sultanate(Mamluks). Those two sources were talking about the khalji dynasty(which btw, was not indianized at all, per Chandra). So why is it being used for this particular sentence? “ The Delhi Sultanate was founded in 1206 by Central Asian Turks who were Indianized”, the sources aren’t even referring to that dynasty. Based on that alone, this section should be removed because the sources don’t actually back up what’s written in the article. But even if it did, it would be undue. “also the RfC was only for Mughal Empire” Thats not what I meant. If you looked at the RFC, you would see that the issue is that it’s a short synthetic title. Let me show comments made by a couple of administrators and content experts in that page. Scroll down to RegentsPark and Abecedares vote. [3] “short synthetic labels are always fraught and "Indo-Muslim" is especially so. What is the "Indo" part supposed to denote: the geographic location of the empire (for which, as RegentParks indicates, South Asian is preferable) or the "character" or non-colonial nature of the empires as in the Richards quote (in which case, one needs to spell it out as Richards does)? And does "Muslim" refer to the religion of the Mughal emperors, subject or the state? Both the article lede and body can discuss the geography and character of the empire without trying to label it as something that has little to no currency in the relevant literature and is more likely to to mislead than edify the reader.” By abecadare “No reason for inclusion has been given and the references above (I am definitely not impressed by the WP:REFBOMB) are dubious. Take the first two, for example. All they are saying is that the Mughal Empire was in "India". Since that India doesn't exist anymore, our formulation ("in South Asia") captures this perfectly. Indo, or Indian, in the context of the Mughal empire which also spanned modern Pakistan and Bangladesh, just doesn't fit.”(RegentsPark) The Delhi sultanate much like the Mughals, also encompassed India and Pakistan. Which means that the same exact issue also applies to the sultanate. So like RegentsPark mentioned, a term like “indo-muslim” doesn’t fit, especially sense our modern day conception of India didn’t exist back then. It’s a synthetic label and shouldn’t really be used to describe any of these kingdoms.

Thats what I wrote. What exactly was your issue with the removal? As I’ve already mentioned, the two non raj era sources aren’t even referring to the mamluks. They are referring to another dynasty entirely, and that’s just one of the bigger issues. There’s a lot of problems I’ve already been over(it’s undue, one source is raj, one source by bowman doesn’t even use the term indianized, and as a label, indo-muslim shouldn’t be used here).

@Garudam Someguywhosbored (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

On a final note, my intention was never to edit war. I only made the second revert because I thought it was a open and shut case because it’s pretty clear the text doesn’t follow the source. But evidently, you still disagreed and I welcomed you reverting me if you had another dispute as I mentioned on the talk page. I didn’t expect you to just simply not respond to any of the points made, claim I was disrupting the page, and than requesting page protection out of nowhere, even though I welcomed a revert and further discussion. I already was discussing about it with you on my talk page.

And I don’t mean to make this seem like I’m attacking you or throwing shade, I was just genuinely a little perplexed. I would love to end this discussion on a good note rather than a negative one. Still, I do believe we need to find a solution to this discussion. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I see, however if you are referring to this falling into Raj then you might me wrong, as the author is an expert and the paper is also sourced from IHC and JSTOR. You should also look at the degree of sources that is Oxford and California which contradicts your undue part. The more reliable the source, the more weight we should give its opinion, on the other hand you were straight away removing those sources as if the weigh to nothing. Please go through WP:RSUW. Garuda ^Talk! 13:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

“ I see, however if you are referring to thisfalling into Raj then you might me wrong, as the author is an expert and the paper is also sourced from IHC and JSTOR”.

This is a common misconception. A lot of people seem to think that WP:RAJ doesn’t apply to certain sources from the era for a variety of reasons including supposed reliability, but this is not the case. We’ve had many discussions about this on Wikipedia, I will show you.

[1]

“I would suggest discounting most Raj era texts regardless of who wrote them and be careful about using obscure or popular texts post-Raj. Sticking to modern academic writers is probably the safest. Context, to quote TB below, matters”.

Per RegentsPark, he also went into detail about it here

Talk:Third Battle of Panipat

Even sources like jadunath sarkar are disregarded. There’s been many more discussions about this in the past so if you still don’t believe me, I can send more discussions about this after. But essentially, Raj era sources should never be used. Instead one should rely on more modern sources which is always preferable. Regardless, the issue of raj isn’t even my biggest issue here, that just shows a problem with one source. Bow for example didn’t say anything about the dynasty being indianized.

My issues with the other sources should also be quite clear. For one, they are contradicted by a source which is more authoritative(Chandra) thus it’s undue. But even worse, it isn’t even referring to the mamluk dynasty. The author was writing about another dynasty entirely, so why does this sentence(“ The Delhi Sultanatewas founded in 1206 by Central Asian Turks who were Indianized”) remain? The source doesn’t even say that the khaljis were indianized! It just says Indian Muslims gained more power than they had previously(more authoritative sources like chandra would completely disagree with this point regardless). The dynasty was still turco Afghan, and there’s no mention of any supposed “indianization” within those sources. Again, the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. So why is it still there?

“ You should also look at the degree of sources that is Oxford and California which contradicts your undue part. The more reliable the source, the more weight we should give its opinion, on the other hand you were straight away removing those sources as if the weigh to nothing. Please go through WP:RSUW.”

The sources your referring to have nothing to do with the sentence I was talking about. Your referring to another sentence I removed, which was undue for different reasons.

For one, I think I’ve adequately proved that the title “indo-Muslim” shouldn’t be used on Wikipedia. The issues RegentPark and abecedare brought up apply to the Delhi sultanate(it expanded beyond India, and our modern day conception of “Indian” is not the same as it was in the past).

Regardless, the sources you have there wrote about the sayyid dynasty. And the problem here is that the sayyid dynasty had multiple possible different ethnic origins. With the two biggest theories being sayyid Arab (according to eraly and others), and the other being Punjabi khokhar.(see sayyid dynasty origins section Sayyid dynasty). The dynasty could have just as easily been Arab so why are we adding one viewpoint while ignoring other? Either you say that the dynasty was possibly Arab or Indian, or you simply don’t add that section at all per undue weight.

Like I said, I think this is a pretty open and shut case when half the problem is that the sources don’t even follow what was written on the article. But of course that’s not the only issue. Someguywhosbored (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Someguywhosbored. We literally had this exact discussion on the Khalji Dynasty page before. [2]

@Ymblanter I'm requesting this page be unprotected now, this is the case of a dead argument that was long removed from the page I mentioned above, from a blocked sockpuppet user. To see this user now trying to revive that shows WP:DUCK behavior. -- That aside, the sources themselves don't even call the Khaljis "Indianized", it's blatant misrepresentation of the sources.

The sock puppet's edits on the Khalji Dynasty page long ago for this exact same thing: [3] [4] [5] [6]

This is the blocked sockpuppet user: [7] User talk:Mydust Noorullah (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

That discussion is completely opposite of this case in which you were not present, also Someguywhosbored was getting warned here by Drmies and Abecedare had proposed a better way to resolve the issue. How the argument is dead? The page should not be unprotected unless the issue is resolved. The blocked sock may have been added those sources two years ago but that does not mean it should be removed. You do realise accusing me as their WP:DUCK could be considered as WP:PA? Garuda ^Talk! 11:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Did you read through the entire conversation?

Drmies only warned me because he didn’t see that I had already brought up my points in the talk page and that I didn’t have an edit summary(fun fact, while I never brought this up, I did write an edit summary but for some reason it showed up as “no edit summary”). By the end of the conversation, Drmies thanked me for clarifying why I deleted it. The entire thing was started by a simple communication error that your making out to be like I was intentionally trying to disrupt the page when that was far from the case. That was like at the start of when I started editing too.

Talk:Khalji dynasty

“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary, I likely wouldn't have reverted. I don't mind assessing Bowman vs. Chandra, but really this is a matter (also) for those with experience in this topic area.” Per Drmies.

Also your not even responding to any of the points I made.

“ The page should not be unprotected unless the issue is resolved. The blocked sock may have been added those sources two years ago but that does not mean it should be removed”

Okay so than can you please explain why you have a problem with the contents removal? You haven’t given me an adequate response. There’s a lot of problems but let’s start the obvious which is this sentence, “The Delhi Sultanate was founded in 1206 by Central Asian Turks who were Indianized”.

literally ALL 4 sources including the raj source, was referring to a different dynasty. And non of them state that the other dynasty was indianized, just that Indian Muslims gained more power and positions than before(the dynasty was still ruled by foreigners and Chandra disputes this anyway). But regardless, if the source doesn’t even say what’s written on the article, than why does that content still remain? You haven’t responded to this point. I can’t even find where Eaton says the Tughlaqs were indianized although that’s a separate problem altogether.

You requested protection despite the fact that I not only responded and explained in detail why this content shouldn’t be in the article, but I welcomed a revert especially if you had any points or concerns with its removal. Instead you requested page protection despite the fact that there was no sign that I was gonna revert again, and you didn’t even respond to a single point made on the talk page! It took me bringing this here to get any response and I haven’t been given any reason as to why content that doesn’t follow the sourcing should remain in the article. Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Eh, I can't follow you this way, please make your replies more reader friendly. At least don't quote my words, instead reply chronologically. Coming to the topic, the removal of authoritative sources by you has been previously pointed out by Drmies, and yet you're doing the exact same here. I will be analyzing the sources and then would make a reply, untill then pinging Malik-Al-Hind & Flemmish Nietzsche, have seen them on Talk:Mughal Empire/Archive 5, they have a lot of know-how when it comes to discussing around the same Indo-muslim topic. Garuda ^Talk! 14:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay…but the issue is you didn’t respond and instead are now pinging others to get involved in your conversation for you. The sources aren’t even lining up with what the text wrote. It literally says that the first mamluk dynasty was “indianized” even though the sources are talking about an entirely different dynasty(the khaljis). And those sources don’t even say that the khaljis were “indianized”. So it’s not even about the sources reliability at this point. The problem is that the sources don’t even follow what’s written in the article.

And did I not already explain to you the situation with drmies? We came out of that situation with an agreement in the end. The entire thing was started simply because I didn’t have an edit summary. That’s it. Read the quote, I’ll shorten it for you.

“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary, I likely wouldn't have reverted.”

And again this was around when I first started editing. The entire issue was for some reason my edit showed up without an edit summary and he didn’t see the talk page because of that fact. That’s it. Your making this out to be a bigger deal than it was. He didn’t even care about the content removal in the end. He accepted my response. So why are you acting like he didn’t eventually agree with me in the end?

But anyway it doesn’t seem like your going to be responding to those points so I guess your just gonna bring others to help you out. @Flemmish Nietzsche given that he’s pinged you, if your interested in this discussion, I don’t know what to say other than the content he’s protecting are a bunch of sources that aren’t even talking about the dynasty in the page. It says that the mamluk dynasty was founded by indanized Turks, but the sources aren’t even talking about the mamluk dynasty. This is a fact that he’s been ignoring since the beginning of this conversation when I brought it up.

And non of those sources use the term “indianized” to describe that dynasty either. All they say is that Indian Muslims gained more power than before, replacing Turks(as the khaljis were seen as Afghan usurpers) but even k s lal and the other sources mentioned that the dynasty was turco Afghan. Non of them use the term “indianized”. Also the more authoritative and modern source Satish Chandra disagreed with that position regardless(see WP:AGEMATTERS), the sources used are quite old except bowman who btw doesn’t actually say anything about Indian Muslims like the other 3, so it doesn’t matter, and he’s not a historian for that matter. You can check the sources yourself. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, Radhey Shyam Chaurasia seems recent, but again, completely different dynasty he’s talking about, and he doesn’t say that the dynasty was indianized. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Someguy is clearly in the right here; all of his arguments have been sound, as has the content of his removals; the only thing I would suggest is to change "from native Indian elites to Turkic and Pashtun [M]uslim elites" to "from native Indian elites to Turkic Muslim elites" to better align with what Asher&Talbot says (the term "Turkic Muslim" is actually used there, while "Pashtun" is nowhere to be seen).

@Garudam, please read Someguy's replies instead of dismissing them; it will help this "discussion" conclude much faster. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Someguywhosbored I have not been "ignoring" you, I have already said that I would be analyzing the sources before replying to you and only asked for the views of Flemmish and Malik not "for my help". Flemmish Nietzsche upon thoroughly going through the sources, it does not seems like someguy is entirely correct.

• Bowman p. 267:

The Mamluk (former slaves) dynasty is overthrown in a coup by the Khaljis, a tribe of Turks settled in northern India in wake of Turkish conquest. Khalji sultans create an Indo-Islamic state and broaden their power base by including non-Turks and Indian Muslims among government officials.

While it can be seen that he does not refer directly it as "Indianized" but "Khalji sultans creates and indo-islamic state" could be moulded in the article as "Inclusion of the Indian Muslims in administration of an Indo-Islamic state."

• Ahmad p. 841 follows the same tone as that of Bowman's:

The government had passed from the foreign Turks to the Indian Mussalmāns and their Hindu allies. India was henceforth to be governed by administrators sprung from the soil.

However this may fall under RAJ but I would rather seek to RSN, so the benifit of doubt should be given.

• Exact same in Chaurasia p. 30:

In spite of all this, capturing the throne for Khilji was a revolution, as instead of Turks, Indian Muslims gained power.

• Similarly Lal p. 14 follows the other sources:

The khalji revolt is essentially a revolt of the Indian Muslims against the Turkish hegemony, of those who looked to Delhi, against those who sought inspiration from Ghaur and Ghazna.

So I don't get what is the issue in the inclusion of these sources here. Also the removal of Indo-Turkic was unnecessary (please see this). The only good removals I found in someguy's diff are the removals of the Sayyid Dynasty as Indianized and "turkic Monopoly to an Indianized Indo-Muslim polity." as it does not reflect the sources which only spun around a specific dynasty which is Khalji not the Delhi Sultanate as a whole. But down again in the subsection of Delhi Sultanate it was unnecessary and disruptive to remove sources from the subsection. Lastly, I support your suggestion. Garuda ^Talk! 22:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

After I made my points on my talk page, you requested page protection and didn't reply until I brought up the issue here. Even after, I mentioned that I welcomed a revert. If you weren’t even sure about what you were arguing at this point, than why did you reach to a conclusion before you analyzed the sources? Why did you claim I was disrupting the page?

Regardless, could you point out where I was “not entirely correct” exactly? The sources didn’t follow what was written on the article. That’s why it was removed.

secondly non of those sources say that the dynasty was indianized. Just that Indian Muslims gained more power than before. And again, they are more authoritative sources like Chandra that refute this. Even if they were right though, the problem is you can’t just keep content on the page saying that the dynasty was “indianized” if the sources don’t actually align with that.

Also I want to point out that two of sources aren’t actually reliable. I’m telling you, the source is raj and that means it’s always liable for removal. Again we’ve seen sources like jadunath sarkar who was a well regarded historian at the time with many credentials, but he’s still seen as unreliable for the most part. I’ve shown two conversations about this already per administrator RegentsPark. I can show you many more if you still aren’t convinced after this comment. You can see many more discussions about this on RSN’s archive in fact. There’s a community consensus for that at this point.

Moving onto Bowman, all he’s saying is that the state included Indian Muslims. That’s it. However, an important fact to note is that Bowman isn’t actually a historian. I mentioned that last year on the khalji dynasty talk page. While he’s written about that topic strangely, he never actually received any credentials related to history. [8]

He received a BA in English literature at Harvard. That’s about the only information I can find about his credentials. In fact he’s actually relatively unknown to the public eye, so it was difficult to find anything about him. Nonetheless, a guy without any credential related to history is not a reliable source when it comes to that topic. That leaves you with two sources, only one of which is recent. But now you are running into the same problem regarding the sayyid dynasty. Because there’s another viewpoint, spearheaded by an actual specialist within this particular period(medieval India), who disagrees with this assertion entirely. So leaving this information would be undue for the same reasons as calling the sayyid dynasty “Indian” here. Because it’s leaving out another major talking point. And btw, you agreed with removing the title “indianized” from the sayyid dynasty.

More on Satish Chandra: if you didn’t know, he’s an actual specialist on medieval Indian history. Satish Chandra (historian).

Anyway, I’d like for us to come to some sort of agreement here(at the very least you seem to have agreed with some of the changes I had made). But I do want to point out that there is a 3-1 consensus here. So I’ll probably request this page to lose its protection level through the proper channels, or ask an admin some time in the future very soon. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This is quite ridiculous Someguywhosbored, why should I reply to you at your talk page when a similar discussion thread already exists here? And did you actually review that how much disruption you did there? Any one would have raised the question by viewing it at the first sight as you were removing sources and destabilizing this article, thereafter I thoroughly looked into your revision and pointed the positive and negative changes OTOH you have completely overlooked the last paragraph of my reply, which deals with the concerns of "Indo-Turkic" and "removal of sourced from Delhi Sultanate subsection". I would suggest you to re-read that part and thoroughly review your changes.

2. Coming to Bowman's credentials, this would be useful for you to know that publisher speaks more of the degree of reliability than that of the author himself, Tony Jacques and George C. Kohn does not have any credentials related to history but their writing for publisher (that is Routledge), speaks of their degree of reliability. Similarly in this case Bowman is very much reliable because their work is published by Penguin Books, you can further discuss or ask your queries at WP:RSN. So you might have to change your notion that a guy without any credential related to history is not a reliable source.
3. Moving forward, I have already discussed about Sayyid Dynasty, which is so far a good removal from you other than "turkic Monopoly to an Indianized Indo-Muslim polity." But I'm disappointed of this:

at the very least you seem to have agreed with some of the changes I had made). But I do want to point out that there is a 3-1 consensus here. So I’ll probably request this page to lose its protection level through the proper channels, or ask an admin some time in the future very soon.

Phrases like these tend to make the discussion backforth. This was completely unnecessary as you already overlooked at your "Bad removals" and now claiming to somehow attaining consensus when only two of us have so far deeply involved in the discussion, Flemmish seems to be inactive these days, but I would like to know what are their thoughts on the last three replies of the thread. Someguywhosbored, please do not act in any haste, we are all here to build Wikipedia, do not ask for any kind of unprotection for the page unless all of the issues are resolved. Garuda ^Talk! 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)