Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries/Archive 3

List of inventions of the Indus Valley Civilization
Why don't we create an article of its own for the IVC inventions? As one of the major early civilizations, it clearly 'has a right' to a List of inventions and discoveries of the Indus Valley Civilization. This is certainly a better idea than to attribute its achievements more (Pakistani) or less (Indian) anachronistically to (much) later cultures and political entities. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The longer I think about it, the more evident it is to me that a separate list is the most objective solution. We don't group Roman inventions under "Italian", do we, and for different parts of Greek history we have of course different lists (Ancient Greek, Byzantine). So why not the same for the Indian subcontinent:

Nice and neat solution which gives justice to the complex history of the subcontinent. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) List of inventions and discoveries of the Indus Valley Civilization (ca. 2500-1500 BC)
 * 2) List of South Asian inventions and discoveries (1500 BC-1947 AD)
 * 3) List of Indian inventions and discoveries (post-1947)
 * 4) List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries (post-1947)
 * Too complicated. Besides, pushing this will hurt any page name change.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no point in a page change which does not address the whole issue. And a separate List of inventions and discoveries of the Indus Valley Civilization is now in the mainspace. This leaves the question what to do with the duplicated material at List of Indian inventions and discoveries and List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Being too complicated is not the reason to not do it! This feels like the right direction to go. Historically accurate! -- ashwinikalantri talk 13:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully support this move and applaud Gun Powder for the holistic approach that he has suggested that is acceptable to all parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S Seagal (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Gunpowder Ma, I wasn't paying attention to your proposal. I didn't realize you had "List of South Asian ...," albeit with some time limits, in there.  Yours is different from mine only in the pre-1500 BC and the post-1947 AD period.  Well, I'm not entirely against yours.  If mine doesn't fly (and with four opposes, half of them by drive-bys who don't like me, it looks that it mightn't), I'd be happy to support yours.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Duplication tag
The entries on the lost Bronze Age Indus Valley Civilization duplicate the material from the List of inventions and discoveries of the Indus Valley Civilization. This issue, along with the wider question of how to define the scope of this article, needs to be addressed here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gun Powder Ma, your creating a new page, can be seen as disruption. Please delete the page; at the very least, it is a significant content fork and does not meet Wikipedia guidelines.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment To Fowler&fowler: If the name of this list is changed, will it stop at 1947 (as you previously discussed) with both South Asian countries having their own post-1947 lists or has there been a change of plan? Mar4d (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the least complicated option would be to continue the list to the present. It would then be the one central repository for all South Asia related inventions and discoveries, past and present.  No worries about content forks either, since the pages "List of Indian ...," "List of Pakistani ..." and "List of Indus Valley ..." would all be redirected to that page.  The redirect could be locked down if there is disruption.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is really no reason why Pakistan and the Republic of India should not have their own lists. And the same is also true for the Indus Valley Civilization. Just compare: Nobody ever thought of subsuming the List of Byzantine inventions under List of Turkish inventions and nobody ever proposed to include List of Roman inventions in a List of Italian inventions, despite the superficial territorial congruencies. Such moves would be anachronistic, bordering the absurd. Your proposal above, Fowler&Fowler, is well-intentioned, but the trend in Wikipedia has been for some time now to much more clearly defined areas and periods, to move away from the insoluble WP:POV problems which come with such a mammoth of a term like "South Asia". Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say whether sub-lists are created should depend on the amount of stuff. If it's enough to form a significant list of its own, we can export it and just link to it in the main (South Asian) list. If it's just a few entries (Kingdom of Mysore?), it can remain part of the large list. The Indus Valley stuff seems to me sufficient to form a stand-alone list. Huon (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kind of agree. Let me make it clear that I am not advocating that we should break the inventions down to individual kingdoms or dynasties. Such fragmented lists would be neither possible nor desirable. But there is enough stuff to go with the broadest outlines of South Asian history as delineated above. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I urge you, Gunpowder Ma, to reconsider your decision to not support the South Asian list.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The IVC would do just fine in this list once it is renamed to 'South Asia.' Mar4d (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesnt make sense - if this list as it stands is only of Indian inventions plus IVC, then all you are doing is renaming India to South Asia. Why? The case has been made that India is a descendant culture of the IVC, and that parts of that civilisation were in an area that is now India - therefore an Indian list can rightfully include in its list the IVC items as being part of its technological history. Rather than trying to rename this list, go make your own South Asian list and see if its any different. Mdw0 (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The IVC should not be equated with India neither in the narrow nor even in the broad sense of the term. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Using that logic it shouldnt be equated with any modern culture at all. India has as much claim to that technological history as any. Your statement contains no logic and smacks of politics. Mdw0 (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right. It should not be equated with any modern culture. Subsuming the IVC under India is POV. Therefore, either a separate article for the IVC inventions or inclusion of the material in an umbrella article neutrally called "South Asian". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

India vs. South Asia
Here is a quote from Burt Stein's History of India, perhaps the most widely used Indian history text around the world, that I wish I had come across earlier, and that puts in a nutshell my feelings about the two names. "'The India of the early twenty-first century is, therefore, a substantially different entity from that described and discussed in the first eight chapters of this book. Although the term 'the Indian subcontinent' retains a vestigial usage, particularly in Britain, it is more common these days to speak, more neutrally, of 'South Asia' and of the 'South Asians' for whom it is, or ancestrally was, home. In the popular imagination at least, India has come less to define a civilization than to demarcate a state.  ... with the ever-growing distance from the colonial past and with the creation of an independent Bangladesh in 1971 (the two successor states transmuted into three), it has become increasingly difficult to maintain the idea of an India that still residually occupies the same geographical arena and socio-cultural space as once occupied by the India of the Buddha and Ashoka, the Guptas, the Cholas, the Mughals, and the British, or even so ardently aspired to by the Indian nationalist movement. We now live with another India. ...'" I think Stein's felicitous, "In the popular imagination at least, India has come less to define a civilization than to demarcate a state ..." is the nub of it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Spot on. Article title should be changed to South Asia as soon as possible, and if need arises, the Republic of India can have its own post-1947 list. Mar4d (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * so we just ignore the fact that the book itself is titled History of India NOT "History of South Asia"  more cherry picking from Fowler&fowler--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have written the lead, the geography section, the biodiversity section, and parts of the culture section of the FA India. I have written the Company rule in India and British India pages.  I myself use "Indian history," in the post above.   Now, why would I be asking for "South Asia," dear Wikireader41? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  Best not to inflict it on us.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are liberal with the use of word "Knowledge" F&f. do not consider your biased collection of historical gibberish "Knowledge".  people who seek knowledge usually end up studying something useful.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And you might want to pay attention to Chapter 2 of Duikers classic world history textbook--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fortunately Wikipedia isnt based on someone's opinion of the popular imagination. Its based on referencing. If a reference says something was invented or discovered in India, then its in the list. If you want to make another list of South Asian inventions, be my guest. Before renaming this one you will need to delete out the IVC items from the Pakistani list. Good luck with that. Besides, the whole point of this list is that it follows a cultural/technological history from ancient times through to the present day. Whats the point of using South Asian if you then have to split up the list after 1947? Find a term thats applicable to this whole time period and maybe we could try that, but South Asian is just a weak Western term that has no link whatsoever to the civilization we're dealing with and that is inapplicable after 1947. Mdw0 (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is ever more applicable after 1947. In any case, I don't see that I'm getting your support.  I'll look for it elsewhere.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Most neutral sources use South Asia sometimes rather than India. Also see the Indian subcontinent page, where it says itself that South Asia is becoming a more accepted term in place of the Indian subcontinent. This 'list' unfortunately confuses two different kinds of India's and puts them in the same page; thats just plain wrong. Mar4d (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Duplication
Ok, fine. So we keep this article for all material related to the Republic of India (but under the current name List of Indian inventions and discoveries). Now we only need to move all double contents from this list and the List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries to the newly created List of South Asian inventions and discoveries, remove the duplicated entries (mainly IVC) from the Indian and Pakistani lists and that's it then, I guess. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rmv double entries on IVC, see now List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved pre-1947 material to List of South Asian inventions and discoveries per talk. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan list
I've moved all stuff from "..India.." to "..South Asia.." now. We now need to address the duplication of IVC material in the locked Pakistani article. We need to communicate the admin that we have a consensus, so that he unblocks the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop
Gun Powder Ma - Please stop all of these edits and address the ANI first. I see no consensus for the use of the relatively new term "South Asia". We will go to ARBCOM if this continues. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Re-addition of certain items
These items were created and found in both India and Pakistan, so I am putting them back in the Indian article.


 * Ruler: Rulers made from Ivory were in use by the Indus Valley Civilization in what today is Pakistan and some parts of Western India prior to 1500 BCE. Excavations at Lothal (2400 BCE) have yielded one such ruler calibrated to about 1/16 of an inch—less than 2 millimeters. Ian Whitelaw (2007) holds that 'The Mohenjo-Daro ruler is divided into units corresponding to 1.32 inches (33.5 mm) and these are marked out in decimal subdivisions with amazing accuracy—to within 0.005 of an inch. Ancient bricks found throughout the region have dimensions that correspond to these units.' Shigeo Iwata (2008) further writes 'The minimum division of graduation found in the segment of an ivory-made linear measure excavated in Lothal was 1.79 mm (that corresponds to 1/940 of a fathom), while that of the fragment of a shell-made one from Mohenjo-daro was 6.72 mm (1/250 of a fathom), and that of bronze-made one from Harapa was 9.33 mm (1/180 of a fathom).' The weights and measures of the Indus civilization also reached Persia and Central Asia, where they were further modified.


 * Urban planning: Remains of major Indus cities (mature period c. 2600–1900 BCE) in what today is Pakistan and Western India, display distinct characteristics of urban planning such as streets crossing each other at right angles, well arranged rows of structures as well as neatly built, covered drainage and sewage lines, complete with maintenance sumps, running along backlanes. Drains in the ancient maritime city of Lothal for example, designed to be able to take out the city’s entire domestic sewage and storm-water were mostly underground, and built to high levels of uniformity, whereby the slopes never exceed 1 in 10,000. In terms of segregation, Lothal was divided into three districts: the citadel, the lower town and the dockyard, which were further divided into smaller administration centres, all having well planned infrastructure such as wide, straight roads along neatly arranged buildings to suit their purpose. Such planning is also evident from remains of Mohenjo-Daro, a city to the north-west of Lothal, which appears to have been built adhering to a complex level of city grid planning. This leads archaeologists to the conclusion that these cities were conceived entirely if not to a large extent before they were built—the earliest known manifestation of urban planning.

--92.12.147.15 (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We're currently in the middle of a re-write. There is a separate article at List of South Asian inventions and discoveries destined to hold all pre-1947 stuff, while this one is supposed to hold only post-1947 Republic of India inventions and discoveries. Huon (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. --92.12.147.15 (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Indian inventions and discoveries → List of South Asian inventions and discoveries — Increasingly, tertiary sources, universities, and museums are discontinuing the practice of using the name "India" to denote the historical region comprising what today is India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and sometimes in addition Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, and Burma (Myanmar).
 * 1) The main traditional tertiary source in the English language, Encyclopaedia Britannica, now has page names that reflect this change. Some of these are:
 * 2) South Asian arts, a history of arts in the region, which begins with: "Literary, performing, and visual arts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka." (The name of this page in older editions of the Britannica was "Arts of India.")
 * 3) South Asian mathematics, which begins with, "the discipline of mathematics as it developed in the Indian subcontinent."  (This page was called "Mathematics of India" in older editions.)
 * 4) In addition, many Britannica articles have sections that reflect this change.  Thus the Britannica article on "Dress" has subsection South Asia, which begins with, "The Hindu population of South Asia comprises about 2,000 castes, each of whose members wear distinct clothes and ornaments. Thus, the subject of dress cannot be dealt with satisfactorily in a few paragraphs. Some of the principal features of upper-class Hindu and Muslim dress and the history of their development can, however, be sketched briefly."
 * 5) Academic departments at major universities have also changed their names in keeping with this trend:
 * 6) Oxford has the Early Modern South Asia Project that focuses on the period 1500–1800; students in its Faculty of Oriental Studies, study South and Inner Asia.
 * 7) the University of Chicago has the Department of South Asian Languages and Civilizations, whose introduction begins with, "The geographical region South Asia, which includes the Indian subcontinent and surrounding areas, may be studied as an academic area of focus from within a number of departments at the University of Chicago, which is one of the foremost centers of South Asian Studies in the world. Each Department has its own disciplinary focus: Anthropology, History, Political Science, Divinity, English, and so on.",
 * 8) Harvard University offers undergraduate and graduate degrees in its Committee on South Asian Studies; its introduction begins with, "The Committee on South Asian Studies is a multidisciplinary group of scholars appointed to coordinate teaching and research on South Asia (Bhutan, Bangla Desh, India, Maldives, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the neighboring areas) among Harvard's departments and schools and is concerned with the planned development of South Asian Studies in the University as a whole."  In the old days, this department was simply, "Department of Sanskrit."
 * 9) Berkeley has the Department of South and Southeast Asian Studies which offers, "undergraduate and graduate degree programs in the histories, religions, cultures and textual traditions of a third of the world’s population. "
 * 10) Columbia University has its South Asia Institute, which "coordinates activities at Columbia University that relate to study of the countries of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, as well as related areas such as Afghanistan, Burma, and Tibet."
 * 11) Museums have also increasingly begun to use, "South Asia:"
 * 12) The Metropolitan Museum of Art's publication on South and Southeast Asian Art, begins with, "A great and early civilization arose on the subcontinent of South Asia that in time spread northward to the Himalayan region and eastward to Southeast Asia, a vast area including Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Myanmar."
 * 13) The British Museum's gallery (Palaeolithic to present) is: China, South Asia and Southeast Asia (Room 33)

Note that:
 * 1) There are enough cultural, socio-political, and historical similarities and connections within this region to constitute a topic of study.
 * 2) the lack of a precise definition of South Asia doesn't stop these tertiary sources, universities, or museums from using the term "South Asia."  They clarify in their introduction what is meant.
 * 3) Regardless of whether "India" has been used to denote the historical South Asia region, that usage today is often a source of confusion, especially for Wikipedians who are unfamiliar with the region's history.
 * 4) Since "India" is also used for the modern Republic of India, its concurrent use to denote a larger historical region that includes Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, ... is often a source of irritation to citizens of Pakistan, Bangladesh, ..., and has shown up here in edit-wars and disputes, which fritter away energies that could otherwise be used to improve the list.
 * 5) The beauty about the name "List of South Asian inventions and discoveries" is that one doesn't have to stop the list at the year 1947. It could continue to the present, or, like the British Museum gallery, cover the period, "Palaeolithic to present."  On the other hand, if people would like the list to stop at 1947, then the post-1947 content can be move to: List of inventions and discoveries in Pakistan and List of inventions and discoveries in the Republic of India pages.

It for these reasons that I feel that "List of South Asian inventions and discoveries" is a better page name than the current one. -- Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  23:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Updated  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC) -

Support

 * Support Fowler&fowler has done an excellent job explaining the issues at hand, and I agree with his proposal 100%. Athenean (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - "South Asia" is, with a proper introduction to the list, a good name for the region. That it allows us to add modern Pakistan and Bangladesh is a nice bonus. Huon (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Having the inventions made in the territory of other nation states under the title "India" is inaccruate and confusing not to mention offensive, South Asia is a neutral term that everyone can accept.S Seagal (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support (Adding my own, in case I'm forgotten in the mêlée.) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support If this list is to include the Indus Valley Civilisation, South Asia is a much more neutral title. If (and when) the name is changed to South Asia, I will also support merging the List of inventions and discoveries of the Indus Valley Civilization to this list, because South Asian history itself starts from the IVC. If users want a seperate Republic of India and Pakistan page, that is fine too - then this list can only continue until 1947 and the India and Pakistan pages can be treated as subpages, just like the UK has two lists (English and Scottish inventions). So in effect, I see three possible articles: 1) List of South Asian inventions and discoveries (includes IVC, Sri Lanka could also be mentioned) which stops at 1947 2) List of inventions and discoveries in the Republic of India (discussing the modern country) and 3) List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries. Mar4d (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support on condition that separate articles for the state of Pakistan and the Republic of India are created for the post-1947 period. Each modern country should have its own list of inventions. Also, there should exist no overlaps between these lists, that is each invention and discovery should be attributed to only one entity. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I am not entirely sure why these lists exist in the first place, but it doesn't really matter. Given the fact that we're stuck with them, we might as well do the best job we can: "South Asia" avoids ambiguity far better and in the long run is likely to lead to more stable content. Moreschi (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose Fowler is simplifying a complex problem that needs a non-trivial solution. I have proposed a project to address such problems at the project proposals page for exactly these kinds of situations. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * :) Simplifying I'm not. Any more "non-trivial," like Gun Powder Ma's, and it would be double Dutch, to use an old fashioned expression.  Your proposal, which seemed to involve divining&mdash;with smoke and mirrors&mdash;who is a "Western" editor and who "Indian," presumably to play "gotcha" with systemic bias, is, sadly, dead in the water, having garnered no support in the roughly three weeks of its existence.  Could it be that my opposition to that proposal has brought you here to oppose mine, even though you have taken no part in the page name discussions of the last few weeks?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with your opposition to the project proposal and more to do with your patronizing and arrogant attitude which you have repeatedly displayed on Talk:India. In addition, I will scrutinize each and every proposal coming from you on my watchlist for your strong and demonstrated anti-India, pro-British bias. Your edits throughout Wikipedia demonstrate this bias and have included separating out Indians and British by ethnicity when the situation is ugly so you can put the blame on those of Indian ethnicity (such as blaming Indians for the Bengal famine of 1943) and glorifying the British rule in India, the East India Company, etc. Focusing on this proposal - the situation is complex and we should seek to look at other task forces/projects like the WP:BISE and customize solutions used there to our situation, which itself is unique and requires a better thought out solution. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "It has nothing to do with your opposition to the project proposal and more to do with your patronizing and arrogant attitude which you have repeatedly displayed on Talk:India." Are you suggesting that your personal dislike for my supposed arrogant and patronizing behavior, leads you to oppose me in content disputes?  In which case, how reliable is your vote an indicator the content dispute here?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Very reliable because I am referring to your anti-India bias which propagates a very dangerous POV. Your edits and discussions reflect that. In this move proposition, you have over-simplified the situation to suit your bias. As I've said before, we need to look at academic and reliable sources, compare those with consensus from task-forces like WP:BISE, use those as guidelines and follow a similar approach. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zuggernaut. User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler is biased about his view. And now, he is trying to be plain clever to get his view across. He calls himself a professor. Is this how you deal with your class? Rule out anyone who opposes you? ashwinikalantri  talk 07:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more.  Sometimes being a professor also means you are an Ideologue.  that seems to be the case here.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose The term Indian to describe the residents of The subcontinent is much more commonly used and the boundaries of what is considered south asia itself are nebulous.  Multiple RS discussing history of India use the word Indian and India India By Stanley A. Wolpert.India: a history By John Keay and countless others.  I find it very curious that Fowler&fowler has not provided a single source from India.  Does he believe Indians don't have Historians or their are No RS to be found in India??  In The Story of India by Michael Wood (historian) the terms India and Indians is used extensively going back all the way to Indus Valley Civilization.  as such changing the title to South Asia would be  a gross violation of WP:NPOV and give WP:UNDUE weight to the term "South Asia".  Wikipedia is not about being politically correct but more about presenting what is said by the WP:RS in a neutral fashion.  From what is available the term "Indian" is still much more widely used as of this date to describe residents of the subcontinent than "South asian".  This may or may not change in the future but WP is not a crystallball.  at this time the the multivolume tome on Indian history is called "The New Cambridge History of India"..  There is some reason why they have not changed the name to "The New Cambridge History of South Asia".  If/when that happens I might change my mind--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence indicates that you haven't read my statement, especially the notes at the end.
 * As for your conspiracy theoretic, "I find it very curious that Fowler&fowler has not provided a single source from India. Does he believe Indians don't have Historians or their are No RS to be found in India??," one of the most widely used academic history text books in the world: Modern South Asia: History, Culture, and Political Economy is authored by two famous historians Sugata Bose (Indian) and Ayesha Jalal (Pakistani).  On the other hand, neither John Keay's popular trade paperback, nor Michael Wood's, are academic textbooks, and neither author is an academic historian.  Wikipedia content guidelines clearly state, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." (More coming)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are now plenty books that use "South Asia" for even the history of ancient civilizations of the subcontinent:
 * The evolution and history of human populations in South Asia (Springer, 2007), co-authored by one of the great archeologists of the Indus Valley, Bridget Allchin.
 * The Ancient South Asian World (Oxford, 2005), co-authored by one of the world's leading experts on the Indus Valley, Mark Kenoyer. (More coming) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Another widely used academic text-book is: India and South Asia: A Short History, by David Ludden, a well-known historian of agrarian India, especially, South India. The need for "South Asia" in the title, obviously, makes a point.
 * For every volume of the Cambridge History Department's not so new, "New History of India Series," its more up-to-date University Press, has a tit-for-tat, in its "South Asian History Series". (All for now.)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well AFAIK there is no rule on WP that we use only "recent" RS and not all reliable sources. could you tell me how you got this strange idea. In the US their are any number of "India studies" departments which teach history of India all the way back to IVC.Indiana University: India studies, American Institute of India Studies, Center of India Studies,India Studies Program: Univ of Connecticut to give a few examples.  Glad you think that at least Stanley Wolpert is an academic though like I pointed out Michael Wood (historian) is a fellow of Royal Historical Society and his authoritative documentary / book on the The Story of India has a global audience being broadcast by likes of BBC and PBS.   Like I said NPOV requires that we fairly present all that the RS say not cherry picking the ones that you/I like. The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period is still in print and covers Islamic period of History of "India".  BBC generally includes Afghanistan in its section on South Asia.  World Health Organization includes India in Southeast Asia  alongwith Timor & Korea. I never said the term "South Asia" is not used to describe that part of the world.  However it is still a minority view.   When it comes to South Asia Departments at Universities they generally include Pakistan also whose history ( post 1947) and culture, languages, music are quite similar to India to anybody looking with a neutral eye.  The vast majority of books which discuss history of the subcontinent are titled "History of India".--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * and Fowler&fowler if you had cared to read the description of the scope of Bose and Jalal book on South Asia it clearly includes Post 1947 history of Pakistan and hence the name. On this wikipedia article there is no controversy that post 1947 Pakistani contributions are not included.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bose and Jalal's book, says in its introduction, "What then is the Indian subcontinent or South Asia, as it has come to be known in more recent and neutral parlance – whose history will be interpreted in the book?" It says later in the introduction, "Over the millennia South Asia developed rich and complex layers of culture which, during recent centuries, had a dramatic historical encounter with the West.  This is a book on modern history, concentrating on the problem of change in society, economy and politics from c. 1700 to the present in subcontinental South Asia – mainly India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh."
 * Michael Wood is not an academic historian. As far as I am aware, he has not published any paper on India in a peer-reviewed academic journal, for example, Modern Asian Studies.  Many popular historians, who write bestsellers are elected to various societies, for political and social reasons.  It doesn't make them academic historians.
 * even being a fellow Of Royal Historical Society doesn't make him an academic ??? could it be you are jealous that he is much more successful than almost any contemporary british historian and probably made a pile from the documentary writing about things that you think are your personal domain.  can I ask a personal question ( you dont have to answer it).  Are you a Fellow ???  How does being a professor at corner "dime a dozen" university make anyone else more academic.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As for "India Studies," I was talking about the major departments. In the US, they are: Chicago, Berkeley, Penn, Columbia, Texas at Austin, and Wisconsin.  They have all changed to "South Asian Studies."  The American Institute of India Studies, is specifically about India.  There is also an American Institute of Pakistan Studies, which sponsors research into IVC sites in Pakistan.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * again you are showing your biases. What constitutes a "major" department.  the way WP works you cant give more weight to what Harvard does than lowly Princeton.  Now are we to believe that what both of them do does not matter since you dont think either one has a "major" history dept where you could learn Indian history.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * on this series what is your point.  most of them talk about India not south asia.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as the List of South Asian inventions ... will have more inventions made in the region of what today is India. The region is bigger.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK then why dont we just have one large list of List of South Asian inventions and Discoveries starting from IVC to present day India and Pakistan. List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries is awfully short anyway. somehow I dont believe people will agree to that either.  The seeds of mistrust and animosity sown by a small megalomaniacal island carrying the The White Man's Burden and trying to dominate half the world are very much blossoming much to the peril of entire world.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. What do you think I've been saying upstairs this entire time!! :) Please change your vote to support.  That's exactly what I'm proposing.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont think that proposal will fly and so dont construe my statement as support. Most Pakistanis would not want any Pakistani invention ( post 1947) clubbed together with Indian inventions and many Indians will similarly be opposed.  If Pakistan and India merge ( to pre 1947) I am 100% sure the name of the new country will not be India like before or Republic of South Asia. So the best option in my mind is still to leave this list as it is ( Indian inventions ,properly sourced, from IVC till today) and keep post 1947 Pakistan stuff separately.  The default stays unless we have clear consensus for a move right !--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, why pre-judge the outcome? Why not give one large List of South Asian inventions and discoveries (from neolithic times to the present) a try and see how it fares?  We might be pleasantly surprised.    If it doesn't work out, then we'll try another option.  The consensus, you speak of, after all, can be built one step at a time.  Your support will be one such step.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose: Equating India with South Asia is pure wrong. India is a country. There is no reason to share the list with other countries. You dont see Including Canada or Mexico in Timeline of United States inventions? Do you? ashwinikalantri  talk 07:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Republic of India is a country, but this list covers much more than that, from the Indus Valley civilization to the Kingdom of Mysore and the Mughal Empire. As others pointed out above, there is no continuity from the Indus Valley to the modern Republic of India; thus a more general name seems appropriate. Huon (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How about creating separate lists for these territories and modifying this list to be accurate? Simply renaming is not the solution. Its just the easier option. -- ashwinikalantri talk 13:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You might have what you term a "Strong Oppose," but yours is a different kind of oppose. You don't seem to be happy with the current page name, "List of Indian inventions and discoveries," either.  You are really asking for more localized lists (in space and time).  By casting your vote in Oppose; rather than in Comment as Gunpowder Ma has done, you are in fact voting for the status quo, which you seem to be against.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I still strongly oppose the move. The page stays. We need to remove info that is wrong for the title. And add it to separate pages for the other territories. ashwinikalantri  talk 16:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * AshwiniKalantri, does "strong oppose," count for two votes? If not, why add this meaningless distinction?  No one closing the discussion is going to pay it any attention, especially coming from someone who had taken no part in the page name discussions here of the last few weeks.  Or could it be that, as a drive-by, you felt the need to exaggerate your opposition in order to gain more "legitimacy" in the discussion.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What is it that you what to do Fowler? Talk about the article or create nuisance here? Why are most of your comments directed against users that oppose you and not the idea? Clear your head and talk about how we can make this article more acceptable. If you cant do that, quit. Stop commenting on completely irrelevant things like difference between Oppose and Strong Oppose. I hope to see more cordial discussions from you in the future. -- ashwinikalantri talk 05:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: There is no need to remove the name India from this article because there are no items in the list post-IVC that aren't 100% Indian. Therefore the motivation of those wishing to change the name of the article is not for a more accurate list, but instead is to remove any reference to the use of the name India for the subcontinent in that middle period between IVC and 1947, as thought the place wasnt called India. The place WAS called India and renaming the article now doesnt change that fact, and I cant imagine it will do anything to soothe the childish 'offense' that some people have when faced with the historical fact that certain areas that are no longer called India were once referred to as India, inclusing Pakistan and Bangladesh. Demands to acquiesce in the face of historical revisionism causes offence as well. Mdw0 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not entirely correct. For example, the Indians are currently credited with the invention of the "hospital", even though the earliest instances of these occurred on Sri Lanka. But Sri Lanka was never regarded as part of India, not even in the old times. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. That item is now deleted from the list. Mdw0 (talk)
 * Mdw0: First, removing the post-IVC items that are not 100% Indian, changes the current state of the page, but not the potential for nationalistic editors to wreak mischief once the spotlight has gone. The page would remain vulnerable and would require constant monitoring.  Second, it is not a good idea to reason that the place was always called India (in contrast to reasoning that current-day sources call this historical region "India").  It wasn't.  The earliest use of "India" (in Classical Latin) is circa 100BC–200 AD.  "India" occurs in Old English once or twice as a borrowing from Classical Latin, but it doesn't really appear in English again until in Middle English (1500 or thereabouts).   As "Indos" it appeared in Greek much earlier (after Alexanders invasion), but that "Indos" was vaguely defined (as was the "India" of Classical Latin), and always stood for some region east of the Indus.  (The Old Persian "Hindu" for a similar region and the Sanskrit "Sindhu" for the Indus river itself are older.)  All these names never stood for anything remotely as big as "India" in the title of this page.  Under Islamic rule, the region (the upper half that the Muslim rulers had dominion over) was called "Hindustan."  So, unless you are proposing divvying up the page into subpages (and I know you're not), it is better to go with the sources.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Responding to the two Fowlers - First point, Constant monitoring to defend against vandalism is a given on all controversial pages. Thats what the watchlist is for. Changing the title will do ZERO to prevent it. Vigilance is necessary whether you change the title or not. Second point, I never meant to infer that every bit of the entire area was ALWAYS called India by everyone all the time, just that the term India describing the whole region has been used both by outsiders and by the people who lived there and ruled there at various times throughout history, and its those descriptions that this list relies on. Of course it gets foggier the further back you go - everything does. My point is that this is a list of Indian items, not South Asian items - and everything not attributable to an Indian culture or geographical region should be excluded. By Indian I mean its use as a descriptive adjective, not as in the exact name of the place at the time. By changing the name to South Asia you instantly make the list much more inclusive, and changing it much more dramatically than a simple enforcement of what the overview says the list contains. If you want to create a new South Asian list thats more inclusive, with everywhere south of the Himalayas to Sri Lanka, be my guest, but dont pretend that a change to the name here makes no difference. Use of the term India may have its complications and subtleties, but so does India. Mdw0 (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Mdw0, Please reconsider your oppose. As you will read in the quote from Burt Stein below, there is good reason to use "South Asia."  Your support will help stop the persistent fighting on this page and will free embattled editors to create content.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Stein quote below is not a reason for renaming, its a lament that some people consider renaming to be necessary. It is saying that even though India has a long and rich history, we cant call it an Indian history because some people who are anti-Indian dont like it. Well I think they should get over it. Use of India as the name of the place for those periods is not the same as saying Pakistan or Bangladesh is still Indian territory. The geographical area called India shrunk in 1947, but the culture and history is continuous, including the technological history listed here. Saying it is South Asian rather than Indian is flat out wrong because the term South Asian is a politically correct Western invention and was never used in those periods. As for helping stop the argument, no one is forcing people to make these arguments. Those who want to work on the list will do so anyway. Those who are interested only in the removal of the word India from a history of the area because of today's politics dont care at all about the list and will move on to other things once they're successful. This list is of Indian discoveries and inventions. If you see something on the list that is not Indian then it shouldnt be there. If you want to create an alternate South Asian list be my guest. If you want to remove all reference to India being used as a name for the country prior to 1947 then you are a historical revisionist and I've got no time for you. In any case, if you did rename this one you'd have to remove the new Pakistani inventions list at the same time, and if you think the renaming task is difficult, the removal of that article would be well nigh impossible. I've come to the conclusion that the best way around this impasse is to create a separate IVC list and put a link to it at the top of this one. That is not to say that those IVC items dont belong in this list - I believe they do, but such a split is preferable to renaming to the evasive and meaningless 'South Asian.' Mdw0 (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "... South Asian is a ... Western invention and was never used in those periods." But so, dear Mdw0, is the word "India."   Coming down to us via the "India" of Classical Latin and appearing nowhere is readable English until the 1500s, it was noticeably absent in the various classical languages and vernaculars of the subcontinent.  You seem to be making the same error again.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose The general audience, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be written for, will not recognize the distinction between "Indian" and "South Asian" that is being proposed here. Even looking at just page view statistics supports the stance that the common name is the current page title: vs. . More damning to this proposal though is the fact that the sources seem to prefer "Indian" (or a variant) over "South Asian" (or any sort of variant). I also find the tone of the supporters here troubling, and the fact that someone has already forked the article to List of South Asian inventions and discoveries, possibly attempting to present a Fait acompli. — V = IR  (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 14:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you really compare page views of an existing article to one which was created seven hours ago? "More people look at existing articles than at articles that don't exist, so we shouldn't create them?" Regarding the sources, Fowler&amp;fowler has produced quite a nice list supporting South Asia, including some explicitly addressing the shift in naming the region towards South Asia. Huon (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The terms South Asia and India both have similar problems at present. However the article lead makes the scope of this article clear, that it covers the Indian Subcontinent. The lead of Indian Subcontinent states that South Asia is another name for this, and the South Asia article lead in turn says something similar but makes the point that some authorities define South Asia more broadly. I see no need to rename to List of Indian Subcontinent inventions and discoveries, but I guess that would be more accurate than either the current or proposed titles. The article title is fine as is, with the lead removing any ambiguity. I guess if someone wanted a separate list pertaining to just one of the other meanings of India, then there might be a case to move this one, but I'd also guess that these two lists would quickly be merged and we'd be right back here again. Andrewa (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article used to change its scope in 1947. Before, it covered the entire subcontinent. Afterwards, it only covered the Republic of India, but not Pakistan or Bangladesh. The solution proposed below was to break it apart in 1947, with the stuff before that date under "South Asia", and the Republic of India stuff under this name. A separate list for Pakistan exists already. Huon (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are still some issues to address there. But the logic of using the more recent name South Asia to distinguish the earlier material escapes me completely. Isn't that the wrong way around? It seems to fail the very most basic principle of WP:AT, that of being easily recognised by, and unconfusing to, the reader. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the Indian subcontinent is a geographical description, South Asia is a political one. "Indian subcontinent" is more or less identical to the "Indian tectonic plate," although, as the quote from Burt Stein in the "India vs. South Asia" section below makes clear, the "subcontinent" has some residual use in the UK, but in the US and elsewhere, except India of course, "South Asia," is now the predominant (non-geographical) term for the region.  Both "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are not exact terms, but then neither is the historical "India;" It is stood variously for the land between the Indus and the Ganges, the land stretching west of the Indus (in the way that the Greeks and Romans could imagine it), Northern India (Megesthenes), Peninsular India (Marco Polo), Northern and Peninsular India, ....  No matter what term one uses, one has to clarify what it means in the lead sentence.  As I've already indicated, other tertiary sources have made the change to South Asia.  Thus Britannica's "Indian mathematics" page is now called, "South Asian mathematics."  The page, by the way, is not about current-day mathematics in the region, but about the history of mathematics in the region (up to the early 19th century).  The first sentence explains that it is about the history of mathematics in the Indian subcontinent.  Typically, the South Asia pages in Britannica, use terms "South Asia," "Indian subcontinent," "India," "India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh," to make the new reader quickly acclimatized.  The long "Arts of India" page in the Britannica is now called "South Asian Arts".  It discusses, painting, music, literature, architecture, dance, theater, ....  As such its scope is much broader than a "List of inventions and discoveries on the Indian subcontinent."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS Please also read my reply to RegentsPark below.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose While Fowler makes a strong case for renaming, I agree with andrewa that this rename is unnecessary. South Asia is a term of recent invention and most authoritative histories are about the history of India (our History of India article, for example, contains only one reference that uses South Asia rather than India in its title). Additionally, this will unnecessarily complicate the subject - would we, for example, include Afghani and Burmese inventions in the article? The scope of 'Indian' in the current title is clearer than the scope of 'South Asia' and I suggest we just stick with it for the time being. --rgpk (comment) 20:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For naming purposes tertiary sources are more important than secondary ones and Wikipedia guidelines say so. The Naming_conventions_(use_English) says, "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works) ...."  Earlier versions of the guideline were even more explicit, they simply said "other encyclopedias and reference works," and not in parentheses.  The more general WP:Article titles page says, "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals, ..."  The major tertiary sources are now using "South Asia" for descriptions involving history of arts and sciences, as I've indicated above.  One may look at sources referred to in the article itself.  But most references used in this article use neither "India" nor "South Asia."  Besides, I can easily replace the references that use "India" with equally reliable references that use "South Asia."  For example, for IVC, I can use Jonathan Mark Kenoyer's Ancient South Asian World and so forth.  As for Wikpedia's History of India page, it stops at 1947.  Unfortunately, that was the first option that was discussed in two discussions in early March: Discussion 1 and Discussion 2.  The regular discussants (viz. Mdw0 and Wikireader41) who have opposed this move, also opposed stopping the Indian list at 1947.  The problem of South Asia being more broadly defined is a minor one; had it been a major problem, not only Britannica, but also the major departments in the US and UK (Berkeley, Chicago, Columbia, Harvard, Penn, Texas (Austin), Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick) would not be changing their names, nor would the Met in New York or the British Museum changing the names of their exhibits.  Regardless of what South Asia may mean, one simply clarifies in the lead what we mean by it.  That's what the Britannica page does; its "South Asian mathematics" page does not include Sri Lanka, but its "South Asian Arts" page does.  Both clarify in the lead.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you that the term 'South Asia' is gaining currency over the term 'India', or even 'the Indian subcontinent'. However, when discussing history, India is the term that has more currency (it is instructive, for example, to sit in on a class and see which term is actually in use). Ccurrent trajectories certainly seem to support that this will change, but this move proposal is anticipating that change rather than following it. --rgpk (comment) 13:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a standard history page. It is more akin to a History of mathematics or History of Arts page, rather than a History of India page.  Britannica opts for "South Asian" for the first two and "India" for the last.  Wikipedia Article Title page also suggests looking at journals and media outlets (ie in addition to encyclopedias).  Journals are now preferring "South Asia" in their name to "India" or "Indian", even the history ones, as you will see in this NYU list.  The media outlets, too, prefer "South Asia" for the region, at least BBC, CNN, and the Guardian do.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose reading the rationale for the page move over and over, i cant help but wonder that this is a text book case of rewriting history or at least an attempt to expediting its natural course. Of the many things that are wrong with this, reference to tertiary as opposed to secondary sources, setting out to satisfy the Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Nepali wikipedians stick out as astounding. whether we like it or not, there are myriad of reliable secondary sources that call the geographic region in which these discoveries seem to have happened India. any confusion to the readers could be clarified in the lead. --CarTick (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wiki banalities about AGF aside, it is hard to assume AGF with you. You have not taken any part in this discussion (ongoing since late February).  As for the weight given to tertiary sources that has so astounded you, please read my reply above to RegentsPark.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * like i said, you are ignoring abundance of secondary sources. there may be an effort to clarify the distinction between Indian subcontinent and south asia in academic circles. but it is too early for wikipedia to follow the lead. wikipedia will not be a part of history revisionism. may be come back after a few decades and propose this. --CarTick (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per arguments by andrewa and others.Shyamsunder (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am late to the party. (Didn't see this till i saw zuggernaut's complaint at ANI). Any confusion regarding Indian subcontinent vs south asia can be clarified in the lead or with a hashnote as it is currently done in the History of India article. The trend of using "south asia" is only beginning and we can always revisit this if the usage of "south asia" becomes overwhelming. We shouldn't be setting the trend here. And the logic about provoking edit wars from editors from pakistan/bangladesh/nepal who don't like the name "India" is bizarre at best. Are we here to cater to the whims of every nationalist editor?. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure I understand your last remarks regarding editors from pakistan/bangladesh/nepal. Do you believe this list should include post-1947 Pakistani inventions? Or are you just saying that for the pre-1947 inventions we shouldn't care about nationalistic opposition to inclusion? Huon (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to one of the points raised by Fowler in his nomination - its concurrent use to denote a larger historical region that includes Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, ... is often a source of irritation to citizens of Pakistan, Bangladesh, ..., and has shown up here in edit-wars and disputes, which fritter away energies that could otherwise be used to improve the list.. I am saying this shouldn't be a factor at all. Some people will get irritated and edit war no matter what we do and that shouldnt have any impact on how we name wikipedia pages.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Leaning Oppose. As I mentioned earlier during the discussion stage, I believe that "Indian" provides a clearer historical context at this point. While "South Asian" as a moniker is slowly replacing it, it has still not become the majority usage term in either secondary or tertiary sources. Until such time I believe we ought to stick with "Indian". That said, I don't think it's the end of the world if the change happens, it's a change that's likely to happen in the future, I don't think it should happen at this time. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  07:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment

 * I feel we need a comprehensive solution which covers the entire history of the subcontinent. See above for my solution. Neat and easy and, unlike previous proposals, not at all in danger of acquiring an undue air of anachronism or nationalism. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Gun Powder Ma, your solution is too complicated. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * it may be complicated but is vastly superior to what Fowler&fowlers proposal is.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be List of inventions and discoveries by Indian Subcontinental cultures and civilizations ? 184.144.166.85 (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All your contributions to Wikipedia, dear IP, have been made in the last one hour.  If I agree to your list, how do I know that you'll be around to back me up, say, for the next one hour.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me as if you can't think of a reason to not support my position, and therefore are trying to wave your hands about concerning IP users. If you have a proper objection to my suggestion, you should post it. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not some kind of election, where you try to hog votes, and defame anyone who opposes you. Its a discussion. How does it matter if this guy uses a IP and not a username. Comment on his proposal. Stay focused. Pls go through WP:DEMOCRACYWP:VOTE -- ashwinikalantri talk 06:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The idea of using South Asia is nationalism is by deletion. By using South Asia in that middle period, during which time the term 'South Asia' was never used, its use is an attempt to removal all reference of use of the term 'India' being used for areas that are now not part of India. If South Asia is so great, why not use it for the current period? Answer - because non-Indians want to use the name of their own countries. Suddenly nationalism is OK. You cant selectively use South Asia to remove references of the term India as a name for those same places in the past when India WAS used. This is historical revisionism. Mdw0 (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mdw0, Does this mean you are warming up to my equal-opportunity, cradle-to-grave, South Asian list? :)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That might have worked a week ago, but now that we've got a separate list for Pakistani inventions, the creation of a 'South Asian' list would need to be separate from this one. Mdw0 (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS This is as good a place as any, Mdw0, to comment on your addition of the "fan site" tag, which, I approve. I've observed edits on India-related pages for almost five years on Wikipedia.  These edits tend to exaggerate the antiquity of things Indian.  That is funny in the context of a culture that&mdash;until the British linguists (such as William Jones and James Prinsep) discovered its true antiquity in the late 18th century&mdash;was happy to go on living a largely ahistorical, and somewhat solipsist, life.  Most historical accounts of India are by foreigners: Megasthenes, Fa Hsien, Huen Tsang, Marco Polo, Abul Fazal, and of course, the endless stream of British civil servants.  So, I'm not surprised that many editors of India-related pages continue to prefer the fantastical to the historical.  The Indian mathematics page was a fan site as well, until I cleaned it up, partially that is, a few years ago.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Fowler&amp;fowler sees India and South Asia from a western point of view. This view is conveniently simplified for the west to avoid any confusion. The reality lies in the fact that, what the west calls South Asia, is really a collection of very unique and different countries. India - has a unique distinction of being multicultural. The country in itself is so diverse that is would be a better idea to discuss the different regions separately rather than combining it with other countries. Pakistan on the other hand is a completely different state. Politically and socially. Same goes with Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The cant be combined just so that the west doesnt get confused.  ashwinikalantri  talk 07:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Best not to analyze my motives, because you would be taking your flights of fancy into a fog on a dark night. But if India is indeed so different from the rest of South Asia, then why should Mehrgarh on the Iranian Plateau of Baluchistan be considered a part of India, in this list of inventions?  Baluchistan was a part of no previous Indian empire before it became a part of the British Indian empire in 1871.  Besides the Mehrgarh neolithic culture was excavated by French and Pakistani archeologists in the 1970s.  Why should the neolithic dental drill of these Iranian borderlands, be claimed for their own by proponents of the Republic of India?  Please demystify.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There! Now you have made a good point. Regarding that, the list needs to be modified. Maybe divided in to smaller lists for various regions. On the other hand, it was a part of the "Indian Empire" at the time of discovery. That needs to be discussed.


 * Demystify? Is that your idea of India? A land of mystic people? In that case, you need demystify yourself! -- ashwinikalantri talk 13:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, if I understand you correctly, AshwiniKalantri, you seem to be (sort of) agreeing with Gun Powder Ma above. In other words, you are saying: break the list up into non-controversial time periods and non-overlapping regions: 1) Lists of inventions and discoveries in Mehrgarh culture, 2) List of inventions and discoveries in the Indus Valley Civilization, ... (n-1) Lists of inventions and discoveries in the Mughal Empire, (n) Lists of inventions and discoveries in the British Indian Empire.  Well, there is something to be said about that point of view, but I see endless fights ahead, as nationalistic editors will still be making the more general List of Indian inventions and discoveries" and claiming everything in the lists 1) 2) ... n) as their own.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. You, I think I can do business with. Very different, I believe, from user:Zuggernaut who is here for all the wrong reasons.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV should take care of that. I know its a long discussion, but it needs to start.
 * No one is here for the wrong reasons. user:Zuggernaut may have his point of view. And has a right to say so. It upto the WP community to agree or disagree. -- ashwinikalantri talk 13:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * user:Zuggernaut please read the rules on personal attacks against fellow editors No_personal_attacks S Seagal (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * S Seagal you are the one who does not have the faintest clue what WP:NPA is.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikireader you have purposely been stalling the name change of this article and been vandalising the List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries for nationalistic reason in flagrant violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism I ask you to work and help arrive at a concensus thats acceptable to all. S Seagal (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * the consensus is that Pakistan did not exist prior to 1947. clearly you are not going to agree to it.  that does not mean no consensus exists.  You need to read about the Indian empire call Mughal Empire and spectacular Indian achievement called Taj Mahal.  may I suggest this source.The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have said that whilst Pakistan is a young nation state since 1947 the land and history which it now occupies is ancient ie IVC, Gandhara, similarly I have said this concept of "India" pre 1947 was part of "British India" and before that the Moghul empire and before that a number of different dynasties. The discoveries made within the territory of what is now Pakistan are part of the history of Pakistan, Like it or not 99% of the IVC is located within Pakistan. S Seagal (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For that exact same reason, any historical achievements dated before 1947 cant be attributed to Pakistan. They are attributed to British India or The Mughal Empire etc. ashwinikalantri  talk 17:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Using that logic historical achivements made in Moghul empire or IVC can not be attributed to India either since there was no India back in the IVC days or even in the Moghul days, only solution being to change the name to South Asian inventions and discoveries like i suggested and agreed with other editors. S Seagal (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment If this article retains 'India' in this title, then I suggest that the list should stop at 1947. All post 1947 discoveries should be moved to a new article, possibly titled List of inventions and discoveries in the Republic of India. You cannot synonymously use the Republic of India with the Indian subcontinent, a region much wider by definition. When the British and Mughals came to India, they didn't think they were going to the Republic of India; they were just ruling 'India' and it included Pakistan. So, just to summarise, if the name of this article remains India and the South Asian thing doesn't happen, the List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries should be seperate and a seperate list needs to be created for the Republic of India too. Mar4d (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is really the absolute minimum requirement to get the list ever untagged, if the proposal to rename it to "South Asian inventions" does not fly. I'd also argue that the Indus Valley Civilization deserves a list of its own. That leaves the period between ca. 1500 BC and 1947 open to debate. If we go with the more narrow List of inventions and discoveries in India, we might need to curtail the list further. If we adopt the more comprehensive List of inventions and discoveries in South Asia, we could simply take over the material of the rump list minus everything before 1500 BC and after 1947 AD. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid, upon further reflection about the goals of such a page, the "List of inventions and discoveries in the Indus Valley Civilization" simply doesn't make sense. The culture of the Indus Valley was indubitably South Asian, as many authors, both generalists and specialists, have observed, beginning with John Marshall, continuing with Gordon Childe, and not ending with Raymond Allchin, who says in his Britannica article on the Indus Valley: "'The force of Childe’s words can be appreciated even without an examination of the Indus valley script found on seals; the attention paid to domestic bathrooms, the drains, and the Great Bath at Mohenjo-daro can all be compared to elements in the later Indian civilization. The bullock carts with a framed canopy, called ikkas, and boats are little changed to this day. The absence of pins and the love of bangles and of elaborate nose ornaments are all peculiarly South Asian. The religion of the Indus also is replete with suggestions of traits known from later India. The significance of the bull, the tiger, and the elephant; the composite animals; the seated yogi god of the seals; the tree spirits and the objects resembling the Shiva linga (a phallus symbolic of the god Shiva) of later times—all these are suggestive of enduring forms in later Indian civilization." To pretend that Indus existed in isolation is ahistorical.  The point, I thought, of this page was to show the parallels, continuities, and links between stages of South Asian history and its technology and science.  By breaking it into indissoluble bits we are defeating the purpose.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Vote count
i just counted what is explicitly stated. others who have expressed their support or opposition or change of mind in the course of the conversation, please say so explicitly and change this tally. --CarTick (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: 6
 * Oppose: 9
 * First, the page has not been moved. My proposal was not implemented. What has been implemented is Gunpowder Ma's proposal. That proposal had 8 support votes&mdash;not just the six who supported my proposal, but also Shovon76 (who merely commented on my proposal) and AshwiniKalantri (who opposed my proposal). We reasoned that there are 8 supports for Gunpowder Ma's proposal and only two opposes (among the regular discussants). The vote count one week later for Gunpowder Ma's proposal, which did not involve any explicit page move, was 8 to 2 not including Zuggernaut's drive-by vote.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the purpose of counting votes on a proposal which has by now been significantly modified anyway, so much so that, as Fowler&fowler notes, one user changed his opinion from strong opposition to the original proposal to support of the new one? Besides, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and a pure head count is meaningless anyway, isn't it? Huon (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * well, why dont you make a head count of altered proposal and let us see where we stand. you do seem unfamiliar with how wikipedia works per your own admission at ANI. yes, people do count votes to get an idea where things stand. --CarTick (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While proposed moves are not my specialty, WP:NOT seems to contradict your stance regarding the importance of head counts. Huon (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that policy. it is interesting how head counts suddenly dont matter anymore. if you havent noticed before, there is a lot of conflicting wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays. to think that they are mutually exclusive smacks of ignorance and poor understanding. bottom line is, everything counts and matters. besides, this is not just a regular poll. people have mostly explained their position. --CarTick (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

One week later
It is now one week since the RM discussion began. For a few weeks before that, the regulars here had been discussing various page name options. They have now expressed their opinions more formally. The way I see it, there are six regulars supporting the move and only two opposing, Mdw0 and Wikireader41. User:Zuggernaut has a gripe with me (across many Wikipedia pages) and is here mainly to be disruptive. When I challenged his oppose vote above, he responded: "It has nothing to do with your opposition to the project proposal and more to do with your patronizing and arrogant attitude which you have repeatedly displayed on Talk:India." That clearly indicates that he is here for the wrong reasons. He has also been canvassing, for example, in this post on the India noticeboard in the hopes that readers of the list would be Indians and would naturally oppose the move. Notice the language of the post. That canvassing brought out user:AshwiniKalantri here the very same very day, "strongly" opposing the move. His oppose, though, is not as knee-jerk as Zuggernaut was likely hoping for. Nonetheless, since the Pakistan noticeboard was not similarly canvassed, nor the Bangladesh, I'm not sure where to place his vote. I'm suggesting that both Zuggernaut's and Kalantri's votes not be counted. In which case, the Ayes have six and the Nayes two, and the move might be considered to have passed.

However, in case, others don't warm up to this idea, I suggest that we not waste more time discussing issues with people who are dug in in their various hardboiled attitudes, but rather that we simply open the page List of South Asian inventions and discoveries and have that list stop at 1947 (for now). We should then move the Indus valley list into the South Asia list and make sure that the Indian list not longer has the Indus valley inventions. That will reduce the Indian list by 95%. We should then work on the South Asia list and make it chronological and more meaningful. The success of a page, ultimately lies in what it offers. Since there are six supporters of South Asia, who have already done quite a bit of work on improving the Indian list, I am suggesting that we transfer our future labors to the South Asian list. The Indian list, full as it is of nationalistic silt, will then wither away, much like the Karakash River does in the sands of the Taklamakan Desert north of India. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am appalled by Fowler's comments. It seems that he has no idea of what WP is and what it is not! This is to let him know, that here at WP Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Discussing is NOT a waste of time but leads to a better article. Voting is only reserved as a guide. WP is not a democracy!


 * Disregarding views that you dont like is simply unacceptable. You need to discuss and come to a conclusion. The guidelines from WP are there for a reason. Its here so that you dont get the idea that you own certain articles.


 * You need to learn to accept disagreements. You cant simply disregard anyone who opposes you. Read this to learn more about how to deal with differences.


 * Hope I was of help. ashwinikalantri  talk 06:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you weren't, Wikilawyer.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I had better expectations from you Fowler! But then I should have known better. You are a professor! Closed to new thoughts. Adamant and arrogant, you are the same the world over! ashwinikalantri  talk 19:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I really like Gun Powder Ma's solution. I think more energy should be spent on discussing that rather than moving this page. ashwinikalantri  talk 06:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't moving this page be a first step in the direction suggested by Gun Powder Ma? We already have a list of Pakistani inventions and discoveries and a list of inventions and discoveries of the Indus Valley Civilization;for Gun Powder Ma's solution we'd need to move this page and create a list of inventions and discoveries of the Republic of India, and then we could get rid of all the duplicate entries (mostly IVC) and have the various lists link to each other. Huon (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, if I am not mistaken us four, Fowler&amp;fowler, AshwiniKalantri, Huon and me, we are meaning actually the very same thing: rename List of Indian inventions and discoveries to "List of South Asian inventions and discoveries", redirect the List of inventions and discoveries of the Indus Valley Civilization to this list and move all post-1947 material to List of inventions and discoveries of the Republic of India and List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries respectively. So, yeah, let's begin with it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that we create a new article for List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. And perform extensive cleanup for the India article. No use renaming this one and then creating a new one.
 * Also, there is no need to use the name "Republic of India". We should use just India, the common name used for the country. ashwinikalantri  talk 19:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just using India in the title sounds alright for me, either, as long as it is clear that the Republic of India is meant and only items from after 1949 are listed. As for the techicalities, whether to rename the current List of Indian inventions and discoveries to List of South Asian inventions and discoveries or to create a new article, I am happy with either solution as long as we get things now done. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Creating a new article or moving the current one seems equally acceptable. Huon (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So, who's going to do the formalities? Mar4d (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you asked, why don't you.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I am here, just like Fowler, to find a solution to a recurring problem of terminology - when does Wikipedia use India and when should it use South Asia. I proposed a project exactly for dealing with such issues. Fowler opposes the project. Perhaps the goal of setting up a project was not well evaluated by me and instead a task force under the existing project WP:IN might have sufficed. I will withdraw the project proposal and initiate a task force proposal soon. Such a task force can use the work of previous task forces in similar areas to come up with a specific set of guidelines and rules on when and how to use the term South Asia, not just here but throughout Wikipedia. Not counting my vote or user:AshwiniKalantri's vote will be viewed as an attempt to game the system.

Creating a List of South Asian inventions and discoveries has the problem of WP:RECENTISM since the term did not exist until a few decades back. And we apply it to thousands of years of history now? Moreover what is South Asia? Some definitions include Maldives, some leave it out. Some include Burma or Myanmar, some leave it out. Some include Afghanistan. If we go by these loose definitions, what about the peripheral areas in Central Asia who've made many contributions to the IVC? And what does Maldives have to do with IVC? India is the generic term that's been accepted for hundreds of years now and we at Wikipedia should follow the trend not define trends. Let the term South Asia become more robust, let it become more precise delineating clearly where South Asia ends and where other regions begin. Then we should 'superimpose' the map of this precise South Asia over the known maps of IVC and if there is sufficient overlap, we can replace the term India with South Asia. We are not at that point yet.

I do not see a consensus for creating List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Snore. You should have been here when all these points were being discussed over and over again.  You can't turn up once, when the RM opens, register your vote and then disappear until the move is being acted upon and protest by repeating all the points that have already been made.  You are a drive-by and should be treated as such.  To the others: you can ignore Zuggernaut, he is nothing but a POV-pushing Wikilawyer who is just waiting to lay his hands on another situation which he can take to ANI or some other forum and make yet another futile attempt to create drama.  Sadly for him, sensible people have begun to ignore him.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pathetic! Fowler, before accusing others, why don't you look in to the mirror? You have been a prime example of colonial arrogance personified. You cannot dictate what other editors are supposed to do. Your comments above are enough for creating another ANI against you. And by the way, before you launch another round of diatribe, this time against me, please look in to your contributions log, received warnings and block logs and compare those with other editors. Having said so, I agree with the solutions proposed by Gun Powder Ma. Shovon (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Shoven? Look in to the mirror? Nice![]?14.139.128.14 (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is ultimately about creating the best content, not about being "civil" on talk pages and going nowhere fast. Here's what Jimmy Wales had to say in the New York Times:  Greatest misconception about Wikipedia: "We aren’t democratic. Our readers edit the entries, but we’re actually quite snobby. The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable, and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn’t be writing."  As for the India page, where you've probably got the impression of Colonial Arrogance, I've contributed more to the page than the rest of the POV pushers who wax uneloquent put together.  Not just the lead, a sentence of which every one is jumping on, but also the geography and biodiversity sections, where you'd be hard pressed to find any arrogance, colonial or postcolonial.  (Look at the very bottom of the Talk:India page.)   Another ANI?  I'm not aware that there has been one before.  But, you are welcome to start one now.  I'm sure there is a WP:Colonial Arrogance guideline that will help you get started on the right foot with the right syntax and style.  A long block log?  Please read mine carefully.  Both were a long time ago against known Hindu nationalist POV pushers, and both lasted but a few minutes.  If you are agreed with GunPowder Ma, how is that much different from mine?  Both, it seems, involve the same first steps.  Do you accept that Gunpowder Ma's solution has consensus, and if so, what then is the big deal?    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * GunPowder Ma's solution, which too involves, creating a page List of South Asian inventions and discoveries, has 8 support votes and three opposes. The supports as far as I can tell are: 1) Athenean 2)  Huon 3) S Seagal 4)  Fowler&amp;fowler, 5) Mar4d , 6) Gun Powder Ma , 7) user:AshwiniKalantri, and 8) user:Shovon76.  The opposes are: user:Zuggernaut, user:Wikireader41, and user:Mdw0.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(Arbitrary section break) Fowler, I have never doubted your knowledge and quality of your contributions clearly show that you are - a) knowledgeable & b) have got a great grasp of Mrs. Q's language. Even a few minutes ago the two changes in the India article, that you made, are top class. My only contention has been your supremacist attitude. I remember my 1st interaction with you, where as usual, you had failed to assume good faith and came out all guns blazing in the talk page of the concerned article (most prob. it was an article on the history of Kashmir or something related). I said nothing about "long block logs", only spoke about looking and comparing with other editors logs. And yes, I do agree with Gun Powder Ma's proposal, which basically is more or less the same as your proposal. I think we can start splitting the article as per the proposal.
 * Regarding the knowledgeable IP editor's (14.139.128.14 from Indian Knowledge Corporation) advise, the less said is better. He is one of those pseudo-secular intellectual apologists, the kind of which are seen regularly in the television channels like NDTV and IBN. Anyway, this is not the right forum for getting in to an argument with an IP, of all things! Shovon (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whose last refuge is Pseudo-secularism?14.139.128.14 (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * dont see the consensus yet. have redirected the article till consensus emerges. 04:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How would you know, you haven't participated in the discussion at all. Among the users who have participated in the discussion in a meaningful (i.e. non drive-by sabotage) fashion, there is a consensus. Athenean (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * by your own admission, you seem to have wrongly judged consensus despite your claim of active participation in this process. --CarTick (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I said I was "under the impression", not "under the wrong impression". Athenean (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.