Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation

IVC Civilization Extends
@Fowler&fowler Afghanistan was not a part of the Indus valley Civilization yes their are some Indus sites found their but its not like a part of Afghanistan was part of the IVC Civilizations (it is totally a Civilization on the Indus river especially a Indo-Gangetic Civilization I am sick of Indians trying to look at Afghanistan with a Indosphere influence the Civilization did not extend till Afghanistan the IVC Sites are trading Colonies in Afghanistan I have argued this with @Joshua Jonathan here,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan

and he has not argue with me since then when I corrected it as,

During its height the civilisation extended from Balochistan in the west to western Uttar Pradesh in the east, from most parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in the north to Gujarat state in the south. The largest number of sites are in the Punjab region, Gujarat, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir states, Sindh, and Balochistan. Coastal settlements extended from Sutkagan Dor in Western Baluchistan to Lothal in Gujarat. An Indus Valley site has been found on the Oxus River at Shortugai in Afghanistan which is the northernmost site of the Indus Valley Civilisation, in the Gomal River valley in northwestern Pakistan, at Manda, Jammu on the Beas River near Jammu, and at Alamgirpur on the Hindon River, only 28 km (17 mi) from Delhi. The southernmost site of the Indus Valley Civilisation is Daimabad in Maharashtra. Indus Valley sites have been found most often on rivers, but also on the ancient seacoast, for example, Balakot (Kot Bala), and on islands, for example, Dholavira.

Now what is your problem mister Indian Nationalist Wiki user.

@Fowler&fowler Please do reply lets get this done. 2402:E280:3D48:133:5C5E:C4CC:5B88:20A6 (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Fowler&fowler What is the other corrections that your having a problem with. 2402:E280:3D48:133:BD34:DF63:92EA:CD01 (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I see a number of problems with your edits:
 * with this edit diff you wrote in the edit-summary
 * while with this edit you added a wiki-link to Afghanistan in the sentence
 * a clear contradiction with your statement that there were no IVC-sites in Afghanistan. To quote from Shortugai:
 * a clear contradiction with your statement that there were no IVC-sites in Afghanistan. To quote from Shortugai:
 * a clear contradiction with your statement that there were no IVC-sites in Afghanistan. To quote from Shortugai:


 * the same edit diff changed "from northeastern Afghanistan in the north" into "from most parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in the north"; you expect our readers to know what "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa" is?
 * Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  06:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Joshua Jonathan Yes I do know that their are Indus sites found in Afghanistan but its not like major cities like Mohenjo-daro or Harappa or Dholavira or Rakhigarhi etc, in Afghanistan the sites are trading colonies with other cultures its not like the Civilization was centered between parts Afghanistan and Pakistan and parts of India.
 * Shortugai is rather a Northern most IVC site of the Indus Valley Civilization built by the IVC people to trade with other cultures their on the Oxus river.
 * The sites in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are not trading colonies like other 1400 Indus Valley civilisation sites found in India and Pakistan.
 * In fact that list of IVC sites Wikipedia page it self needs to be changed the Indus Civilization didn't extend from Afghanistan to the Ganga river in India. 2402:E280:3D48:133:BD34:DF63:92EA:CD01 (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Indus Valley Civilization was only majorly centered between two country's like India and Pakistan not in Afghanistan and Pakistan and India. 2402:E280:3D48:133:BD34:DF63:92EA:CD01 (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joshua Jonathan if you dont want to include Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ,
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indus_Valley_Civilisation&diff=prev&oldid=1212578888
 * then it can rather be said as "parts of North eastern Pakistan" because the Civilization didn't extend in to Afghanistan territory. 2402:E280:3D48:133:74BC:F97:8A01:E46E (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is your only issue you having right my issue is why is Afghanistan included in the Civilization of the Indus river valley of two countries. 2402:E280:3D48:133:74BC:F97:8A01:E46E (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the issue you have with the Extend? 2402:E280:3D48:133:74BC:F97:8A01:E46E (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You didn't provide any source for your stance, while northeastern Afganistan is backed by multiple sources. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  18:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joshua Jonathan Where is the source that claims Northeastan Afghanistan was a part of the Indus valley Civilization ? Please provide me that source which author or Historian claimed that Northeastern Afghanistan was part of the Indus Valley Civilization?
 * What ever site are their in Afghanistan are trading colonies. Where is the source that claims the Indus Valley Civilization extend from Northeastern Afghanistan till West Utter Pradesh and till Gujarat India from Balochistan.
 * Who made these Geographic claims??? 2402:E280:3D48:133:6DD6:6518:9E8C:5275 (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joshua Jonathan Please do Quote the claims and the claims made by the Historian or the author and the number of sources you have which included's Northeastern Afghanistan in it? 2402:E280:3D48:133:6DD6:6518:9E8C:5275 (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joshua Jonathan Where is the source? 2402:E280:3D48:133:6DD6:6518:9E8C:5275 (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Do you actually read my responses?
 * To quote from Shortugai:
 * See also WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  04:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See also WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  04:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See also WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  04:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Rakhigarhi and Bhirrana
This section omits Rakhigarhi, the largest IVC city, dating to 6500 BCE, from the Table of sites, and only mentions Bhirrana in passing. I think these are inadvertent omissions which should be corrected.

The statement about weigths and measures is marked "dubious" even though the weights are pictured right there, from a New Delhi museum. The ASI's policy of independent work is mocked by putting Indianise in quotes. Either these are indications of an anti-India bias or it's my imagination. Sooku (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Is there a "Table of sites" at the page? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  09:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

To add a statement in the bottom of Introduction section.
"Its modern name derives from its location in the valley of the Indus River, but it is also commonly referred to as the Indus-Sarasvati Civilization and the Harrapan Civilization." It can also be added on the top as other names. Source :https://www.worldhistory.org/Indus_Valley_Civilization/ 2402:8100:26F7:1B43:B070:A51C:91FD:49B3 (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Joshua Jonathan and @Austreiser 2402:8100:26F7:1B43:B070:A51C:91FD:49B3 (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We cover "Harappan", now rather an old term. I'd be doubtful of "Indus-Sarasvati Civilization", which is pretty new, and Hindutva-related. You are not quoting an WP:RS (I note he mis-spells "Harappan" here, though he gets it right below). Johnbod (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/not-harappan-civilisation-but-vedic-saraswati-civilisation-13562332.html
 * https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/harappan-site-saraswati-river-indus-valley-civilisation-254124-2015-05-21
 * Read the above two article, everything is mentioned here. 2402:8100:3868:CCC0:C82F:680F:FFB5:FA5B (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Poor sources:
 * worldhistory.org is full of mistakes, and not WP:RS;
 * firstpost: pleads for "Vedic Saraswati Civilisation," and states "The term Harappa does not suggest any continuity in India’s history since the ancient period or give the Vedas any place in it." - no, of course not;
 * indiatoday: "originating as it did in the heart of the Ghaggar-Hakra basin, regarded by many as the place where the Saraswati once flowed," says Vasant Shinde" - ah yes, Vasant Shinde, the man who authored an article which says that the Indo-Aryans brought Indo-European language to India (pardon, South Asia), and then held a press-conference in which he contradicted his own research-findings.
 * Yeah, these newspaper-articles say it all indeed: mis-informed, lacking a critical attitude, and outdated (Nrasimhan et al.(2019)). And if we are to take the Gaghhar-Hakra into account, it should be Indus-Gagghar-Hakra Civilisation. Indus-Sarasvati is informed by religious fantasies. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  20:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * World history.org is full of mistakes? You don't know but Wikipedia is the most inaccurate site on internet. You're a geezer, you can't see there is also a proof of excavations by ASI. You're neither a historians nor an author. So, you're the least to say anything about this, if you have source to claim your statement then show it otherwise don't give nonsense statement. 2402:8100:2700:9D99:5A46:758D:44E2:C91E (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Sources? Here you go:. Not every term that exists has to be thrown into the faces of our readers, especially if it rests on a speculative idenfication of a river mentioned in ancient texts, and when the idenfication itself rests on a in ideological reading of those texts. "Harappan Civilization" fares much better, so we have it at least mentioned in the second paragraph. Personally, I'd prefer "Harappan Civilization" in the opening sentence, but I don't use brute force to have "my" version of the article against the general consensus among the main contributors to this page. –Austronesier (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Do I recall that F&F also personally prefers "Harappan", but accepts that "IVC" is much more usual in scholarly sources from the last few decades? If you only mean that "Harappan Civilization" should also be in the first sentence, or at least para, I agree, if we can work it in without congestion. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@IP: yes, world history.org is full of mistakes; your rant is notgoing to change that. Regarding Harappan: as far as I recall, F&f opposed the mention of Harappan in the opening sentence. But, per policies, I think it should be added there; it's not used as much as IVC, but still a fairly common name. Regarding Indus-Sarasvati civlization, it's a notable alternative name, but with a caveat: it's an ideologically loaded name, based on misinterpretations and the fringe ideas of Indigenous Aryanism. I think it could be mentioned, if the Hindutva-connections are explained in the body of the article, and mentioned in the lead. Ashish Avikunthak (2022), Bureaucratic Archaeology: State, Science, and Past in Postcolonial India, Cambridge University Press, p.51 ff, has a good overview. And maybe this too. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  11:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's correct, @Fowler&fowler opposed the addition of Harappan Civilization to the opening sentence, observing that this term is mostly linked to publications from India. But unlike the "Indus-Sarasvati" label, it is not ideology-laden and pretty common; even Western scholars (including Witzel) flip between IVC and Harappan Civilization in their publications to some degree. "Indus-Saras[v/w]ati Civilization" can be added further down in the lead if we also mention its Hindutva-connections, as suggested by @Joshua Jonathan. –Austronesier (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I wasn't sure (about F&F). I think "or Harappan Civilization" should be added to the opening sentence, but "Indus-Sarasvati" somewhere lower down, with health warning. It certainly hasn't caught on in international scholarship. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Can't you see the Buddist stupa behind
You are only talking about the. Excavated ruins of Mohenjo-daro, Sindh province, Pakistan, showing the Great Bath in the foreground. But are you blind cant you see the Buddhists stupa in behind Mohit atulkar (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism warning.
You cannot remove content regarding genetic research which was conducted and results are published in hard medical school papers and nature as well. It is a peer reviewed paper. You cannot remove it without proper talk. There was research conducted in 2019 by david reich from Harvard medical school along with others form CCMB,Hyderabad. Check the citation and examine it carefully. Don't remove it without any discussion. Let the people know what are the genetic contribution of Harappans in modern populations. DivineWave (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "Vandalism" is a big word... This info is WP:UNDUE for the WP:LEAD. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  12:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You cannot remove the gentic data which is official and being taught in universities. David reich is a well know geneticist who co tributed in this research. Without proper discussion you cannot remove the content. If you have any issue regarding the citation, we can discuss and sort it out. But without it removing the reliable data from a peer published papers loke nature ,you cannot justify this. Definitely vandalism. Please discuss further and we can sort it out sir. Thanks. DivineWave (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Present us a secondary academic source that passes WP:SCHOLARSHIP and we can talk about it. –Austronesier (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Already sited additional sources as well.you cannot revert without giving proper explanation. How did you conclude what I said is wrong without giving your reasons or arguments regarding present genetic data of india. Do you have genetic data of south Asians? If yes then post it here on talk page.no vandalism. Kindly read this source too amd it clearly mentions. DivineWave (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User:DivineWave, its not vandalism if it gets removed as the WP:ONUS is on you to bring forth arguements for its inclusion, not the other way around. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Already sited additional sources as well. Now its on you to bring forth arguments and not the other way around.you cannot revert without giving proper explanation. How did you conclude that it is wrong without giving your reasons or arguments regarding present genetic data of india. Do you have genetic data of south Asians? If yes then post it here on talk page.no vandalism. Kindly read these sources too amd it clearly mentions. Don't create toxic environment here. Thanks. DivineWave (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)