Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries/Archive 5

"Indian"/Hindu Intransigence Leading To ANOTHER Partition
I hate to say it but the intransigence displayed by some "Indian" and Hindu editors is leading to a demand for separate articles, I dare say it seems that these Indian editors have learnt nothing from the mistakes of their ancestors by refusing agreeing to a moderate and acceptable position to all parties, It led to the partition of the sub continent, and it is leading to a partition of this article.

The only solution is see is that this article is partitioned along the current internationally accepted and globally recognised frontiers, boundaries and borders. Therefore if an invention took place in what is within the territorial limits of what is state of Pakistan then it should be listed in the Pakistani list, If the invention or discovery took place within what is now the republic of India it can remain under the heading indian, If it took place in what is Sri Lanka or Bangladesh they will be split accordingly.

The problem for Indians is that the majority of the list of inventions took place in Pakistan, Pakistan is not claiming any invention that took place in what is now modern India because no important inventions of any magnitude whatsoever took place in India, It is Indians wish to lay claim and to lay siege to Pakistani inventions not vice versa. I so no alternative but for a partition of this article. S Seagal (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems the most absurd proposal yet. We certainly shouldn't sort Mughal inventors' works by the country where their home town would be situated hundreds of years after their deaths. Huon (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Huon I see no other alternative, The Indian and Hindu editors are dragging thier feet and deliberately slowing any solution to the naming dispute, I have said before the Indians are trying to hijack inventions which took place in Pakistan not vice-versa, Perhaps these Indian editors would prefer it if Pakistan did not exist? If not by modern borders how else would we possibly attribute the inventions made in the pre-1947 era to todays world? Instead of adopting terms like "India", "south asia" or "subcontinent" its easier to just divide the list according to current borders and its more geographically and historically accurate.S Seagal (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's "more historically accurate" to divide the Indus Valley Civilization or the Mughal Empire along to modern borders? Could you please elaborate? Why would we even want to attribute inventions made before 1947 to today's world? And while I could agree that some editors like to subsume inventions under the label "Indian" that were made in what is today Pakistan, the pre-1947 inventions technically didn't "take place in Pakistan" because Pakistan didn't yet exist. Neither did the Republic of India, of course, and since "India" without qualifier commonly means the Republic of India, we shouldn't name the list "Indian inventions" either to avoid confusion. Huon (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this whole debate is pointless as Pakistan is likely to soon breakup into many smaller nations ( just like they did once before in 1971 - with a gentle nudge from Indian army). If no country called Pakistan - no articles with that name.  the easiest and the simplest solution in my mind.--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think its pointless my wasting any more time on a hate filled Hinduvatas who hate Pakistan more than they love India, Everyone and his kid brother has ruled and conquered India, I have said before because of Hindu intransigence it led to the collapse and partition of British India in 1947 and lost an area the size of Austria in Kashmir to the young nation of Pakistan which was barely a few months in the first war and lost to china in 1962 and again to Pakistan in 1965 and then in 1971 they caused the death of millions of east Pakistani Hindus. India since independence has been riven with insurgencies, Kashmir, Nagaland, Punjab et al, Like you say you would prefer it if Pakistan just didnt exist so you could claim Pakistani history as being India, Unfortunately for you a nuclear armed Muslim dominated state called Pakistan sits and occupies the seat of ancient Hinduism, My only fear for the future is that Indians are unable learn from the past and they may just commit national sati (self immolation) by attacking Pakistan and Pakistan destroying not just India but the entire sub-continent Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, I daresay If Pakistan goes it will take the entire sub-continent with it :) S Seagal (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * well the honor of being one of the top Failed states belongs to Pakistan and not a week goes by before a bunch of Pakistanis are blown to smithreens by fellow muslims. The nuclear armed Muslim country unfortunately has no missile defence system and it is about 10 minutes flying time from Minot Air Force Base for the LGM-30 Minuteman missiles.  there comes a time in world history when nuking a country of 180 million is the ethical and right thing to do.  I am afraid that time is approaching soon from what I hear and see in the USA.  Hindus are the last thing Pakistanis need to worry about;)--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are we bothering?
I'm a little confused. There is already a List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. Unless, people here are requesting that that page be deleted (and they don't seem to be), why is everyone worked up about the Indian page. There was a handful of people (Athenean, Mar4d, Mdw0, Gun Powder Ma, S. Seagal, Huon, and I) who took part in the original discussion and who are knowledgeable and rigorous about the list. Why are we wasting our time on the Indian list page? Why not work on improving the South Asian list? This discussion will go on ad nauseum, as newer and newer editors arrive on the talk page, as JSR/IP just has, and repeat all the old arguments, believing all the while that what they are offering is new and unconsidered. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't make sense to have two lists that are substantially identical and because that list has undoubtedly been created out of process. A bit like Spiff, I'm not going to be upset if this list is at South Asia rather than at India though I believe that the current title is more in line with WP:AT and WP:COMMONNAME. However, the fact remains that the continued existence of the South Asia list is divisive and disruptive and that attempting to build that list rather than this one can easily be construed as attempting to game the system. (Just saying what I think fowler, I continue to respect your opinions, the seriousness you bring to your research and to your work on the encyclopedia.) --rgpk (comment) 17:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * exactly. just make sure South Asia is defined properly. right now, the article lists only three countries and as it is, it is a WP:POV fork of this article. South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation has Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan as members. This 2004-2005 UN report on South Asia includes India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Iran, Sri Lanka. CIA world fact book defines Afghanistan Nepal, Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives as South Asian countries. --CarTick (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you repeating all the definitions again? They've only been mentioned half a dozen times before!  The Britannica South Asian arts page (longer than any Wikipedia page) defines South Asia to be Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka.  That is good enough for us.  We don't have to conform to every definition of South Asia, just as the Indian page doesn't conform to every definition of India.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PS This is my last communication on this page.  I am now taking it off my watchlist.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no reason that the land-locked countries of Nepal and Bhutan, part of the Indian Sub-continent and on the Indian side of the Himalayas should not be considered as"South Asia". This hankers back to the old British view that the kingdoms of Nepl and Bhutan, who accepted suzerainty of the Empire but were never formal possessions of the British were not part of the generic term "India". AshLin (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Proper processes were not followed in creating the South Asian page (consensus was ignored). Since there is a pending ANI case for this and I've already requested the closing admin to delete the page in the ANI, it does not make sense to nominate it for deletion now. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * fowler, by being inflexible to properly define South Asia (despite numerous evidences presented to you)and duplicate contents exactly from India to South Asia, your goal apparenly is to equate Indian to South Asia in the hope that some day someone will delete this article as a duplication. i am leaving this note here as a reference. --CarTick (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel that we should view this issue of how to name the article title through detached, academic, almost machine-like thought. My personal sentiment is that some of us got emotionally involved. Not a good idea to do so in an academic debate but only points to our being human.

Having said that, my respect for the veteran editor Fowler&fowler is well known and it is my thought that his involvement in the process was out of genuine interest. This is my last comment on the venerable academic Fowler&fowler since he has left and may feel compelled to reply.

If there is another place where a move/deletion process is ongoing can someone please drop me a link to it? I seem to have lost my Wiki-sense of following multiple discussions over the years that I have been away.

All duplicated content has to merged under a single title. The name of the title is yet to be decided since many have not contributed. I will ask the remaining to do so tomorrow.

115.240.43.154 (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 115.240.43.154 (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk:List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. Fowler invites only people whom he agrees with for discussion, Huon, S. Seagal, Athenean, Gun powder and Mar4d. --CarTick (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reading the talk page of that article, especially the discussion on inclusion and exclusion, one does wonder if the silly season has arrived at wikipedia. :) --rgpk (comment) 16:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It very definitely has RGPK ;);). Now as an admin you have to watch out not only for vandals but also idiots per WP:CIR--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All the talk on that page is rather disturbing. Especially editors juggling Iran or Afghanistan on whim.


 * This was to be expected for the "South Asia" term is unworkable and makes its proponents look silly. Especially when they struggle on which definition to keep and which to lose.


 * What bothers me further is that one of those editors is a very respectable veteran. I am not pleased to see him in this position. Perhaps he should remove that page off his watch-list as well. In my opinions that page is not worth his while.


 * I post here to notify that I will remain busy through much of today so might delay any progress by a few hours.


 * 115.240.80.76 (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there an 'India v South Asia ANI' somewhere? Could someone drop me a link to it if it exists? 115.240.80.76 (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Found it 115.240.80.76 (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Journalists like you whose primary occupation is writing and communication should consider registering and coming back to Wikipedia even if it means spending only 10-15 minutes per day on Wikipedia. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Please add playing cards to list
Playing cards are believed to have been invented in Ancient India.

--92.12.147.15 (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you sorted out the rivalling Chinese claim? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought the Arab's did that! At least, that's what it said in my history book, and the book was written by a white guy (hence, I'm assuming no bias). Ratibgreat (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hehe funny, perhaps he is married to a beauty of 1001 nights? ;-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't. :P - Ratibgreat (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ❌: if there's a contradictory claim then that needs to be addressed first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Tag
Just a reminder. As soon as the article is unlocked, it needs to be tagged again as none of the six issues has been remotely addressed here so far. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Latest update
Did some further pruning, and I think I am mostly done with it. Still to be checked are the claims on the Diophantine equations and the binomial coefficients, which I plan to check in the next few days, but other than that, any claims that were false or didn't belong didn't belong have been removed. I also added Ayurveda, which I felt was both necessary and important. I will also look for some further things to add in the near future. Athenean (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks. when you are done cleaning up, would you mind removing some or all of the tags in the article right now? --CarTick (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Certainly. Athenean (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * i am always confused by answers to this type of question. just to clarify, are you meaning you wouldnt want the tags removed? --CarTick (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would certainly remove some or all of the tags once I am done :) Athenean (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks. :) --CarTick (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Notification: Indian subcontinent or South Asia?
Since this question has also been at the core of the naming dispute at this article, I assume it is not out of place to link to this ongoing move discussion: Talk:Indian subcontinent Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources
This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at Cleanup4. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.

A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order. Johnuniq (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * List of Indian inventions and discoveries:

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) 13:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Indian inventions and discoveries → List of inventions and discoveries in the Indian subcontinent —
 * On further reflection, delaying this discussion doesn't seem to be right and things have unfortunately turned way too messy and ugly. In agreement with my new support for the title "Indian subcontinent," I am proposing the page title to be moved as also seems to be the opinion of many of the editors who previouly opposed the change to South Asia for understandable reasons. Moving the title to Indian subcontinent will provide better clarity and avoid the too much ambiguity associated with the term India. The article should preferable only discuss pre-1947 inventions; a new post-1947 list could be created (List of inventions and discoveries in the Republic of India) which is based on the modern country of India while the already existing List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries can stay. The current List of South Asian inventions and discoveries can be redirected here once the title is changed, as in my opinion, the concept has totally flopped especially after proposals for inclusion of Iran and Afghanistan. Persia has historically always been a seperate civilisation from the Indian subcontinent and adding Iran and Afghanistan defeats the original purpose of this discussion, whose focus was solely only based on scientific innovation that took place in what is considered historical India (even Afghanistan is a bit of a raw term for the scope of historical India).

So here's the summary: Rename to List of inventions and discoveries in the Indian subcontinent; keep seperate lists for the modern republics, titled: List of inventions and discoveries in the Republic of India and List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries. The latter two articles should contain no pre-1947 material (and that includes the removal of IVC from the Pakistani list subsequently) as the Indian sub. article focuses on that. Seperating Indian subcontinent and Republic of India in my opinion is the best solution and also follows what we have done for History of India and History of the Republic of India. Mar4d (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment We have many articles already on Wikipedia which are named as 'Indian subcontinent; they include: Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent, Islamic rulers in the Indian subcontinent, History of metallurgy in the Indian subcontinent, Silk in the Indian subcontinent, Monsoon of Indian subcontinent, Culture of the Indian subcontinent etc. The use of the term to refer to the peoples in this region is therefore not alien here on Wikipedia and something similiar should be done for this article. Mar4d (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: Move, Merge and Unify. I was always all right with a single article beginning with either "India" or the "Indian subcontinent". If this is a time to conclusively choose and end this then "Indian subcontinent" it is. You have my support. Get rid of the shoddy List of South Asian inventions and discoveries article for even the custodians of that article realize that it was made out of emotion and not reason, and frankly it has become an embarrassment for them. Also request all others to please vote here for one final time. We need to reach consensuses. 115.242.40.134 (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Same. Mdw0 (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment not that i am going to support this move. as your proposal includes redirecting South Asia list to here, few issues need to be worked out before. a lot of debate going on about improving the South Asian WP:Fork. we can not have this discussion unless something is done about the article that was created from this article outside the consensus. i would recommend deleting that article or wait a couple of months and see how that article develops into. until everything is sorted out about that article, i consider this request unnecessary. --CarTick (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear, CarTick. I have already asked for such an advice here. Let us worry about this article first and take a side. If this article is free of 'title debates' then things become less complicated. That article is a copy/paste and will be removed in whatever time or exertion it takes. Even if material outside of the subcontinent is added to it that will just move into another list but the "South Asian" article will have to go. But let us follow due process. 115.242.40.134 (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * i understand IP. doesnt sound like a fair deal to me. first suggest A to B and create B anyway even without consensus and then propose A to C and B to be deleted in the process. --CarTick (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Extremely well put. It is nevertheless the best way we have at the moment. Trust me :) 115.242.40.134 (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose: People of Indian subcontinent were called Indians for a long time by English speakers around the world and are described as such by majority of WP:RS. We clearly should keep post 1947 Pakistani/ Bangladeshi inventions out of the list.  I think we have had enough WP:DRAMA here.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - as I said above, I don't care that much whether we name the article "Indian subcontinent" or "South Asian" as long as we don't have it bizarrely shift meaning in 1947. "India" may be taken to commonly mean the Republic, or it may be taken to commonly denote the entire subcontinent, but it should not be taken to mean one and the other in the same article. Besides, natives of America were called Indians for a long time by English speakers around the world too, so I fail to see how that's a valid argument. Huon (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK then why are you not asking for a move to List of discoveries and inventions by Asian Indians? Even though Indigenous peoples of the Americas were called Red Indians in a classic case of mistaken Identity by Columbus most people and RS talk about "Asian Indians" when they use the word "Indians".--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Merge and Unify under Indian-subcontinent. - I think this is a settled issue in diplomacy now. What next? rename the Indian Ocean to Indo-Pak Ocean or South Asian Ocean or even Indonesian Ocean (incidentally these attempts have been made in the real world and they failed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiragPatnaik (talk • contribs)  01:14, 10 April 2011


 * Oppose "Indian subcontinent" is mostly a geographical term, not a political one; besides, there is five time more use of the term "South Asia" in the secondary sources, regardless of its alleged unsettled state in never never land of diplomatic cocktail parties. The main problem with this page in any case is not nomenclature.  This is a shabby list, full of grandiose claims (and predictably Indian vanities), in support of which the authors have gone scurrying every which way in a bibliographic jungle, using every tool except rigor.  The authors are flattering themselves, if they think it was the intention of the creators of the List of South Asian inventions and discoveries to copy the list.  The intention was merely to have the list as a place holder to be discarded as soon as the more rigorous list began to take shape.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I have said all along. The grandiose poorly sourced claims need to be deleted.  Title of the article needs to stay.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  you are making some pretty serious allegations ( of violating WP policies) against Mar4d who started List of South Asian inventions and discoveries and has also requested this move.  We do not want people creating articles in the mainspace for use as a "place holder" so that it can be later deleted.  You can always do that sort of thing in your userspace.  I would suggest some WP:AGF here--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No I am not, Wikilawyer. People copy and paste material from other Wikipedia articles all the time.  Mar4d and I are on the same side of this argument.  In fact I told him to go ahead and create the article, when he asked who should do it.  Please take me to the Supreme Court of Wikipedia if you'd like.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PS The reason why I want the article to carry the same name is that this way it will remain identified with poor quality control. This is because all the people (except Mdw0) who want to keep "India" have shown little interest in improving the article.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not expecting any improvement at all in the alternate list created, let alone a more rigorous one. Tell you what - give it a month and then get back to me regarding the improvements in the alternate list compared to this one, and we'll see how many of those motivated by politics are capable of channelling some of their political energies into doing a bit of work on the list. Mdw0 (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is now working on the List of South Asian inventions and discoveries (if that's the alternate you have in mind. They can't because it has been locked down until April 19.  This way it will remain a copy of the Indian list and it will give the powers-that-be an excuse for deleting it.  As for editors such as Athenean, Gunpowder Ma, and a few others, they (as you well know) were improving (or at least pruning) the Indian list long before they got into the naming dispute.  I am working on the three timelines (see my contribs) a little bit each day.  You are welcome to check on those in a month.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT --CarTick (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(unident) WP:DONT WRITE HAIKUS unless you have rice paper, soy ink and a calligraphic pen. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  03:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment there is an active discussion in Archive 3 -- see Talk:List_of_Indian_inventions_and_discoveries/Archive_3. Shouldn't that be disinterred? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mild Support By all rights, the list should be at its current title ("the zero was first used by Indian mathematicians" sounds more appropriate than "the zero was first used in the Indian subcontinent" or, heaven forbid, "the zero was first used by South Asian mathematicians"!). But, this seems like a reasonable alternative to use a geographical definition since the term 'Indian' is a problem for some editors. As a term, South Asia is too recent to be used for this, mostly historical article. --rgpk (comment) 16:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * well rgpk I am not sure that "Indian subcontinent" is less POV and will be less of a problem for a few editors. It seems to give the impression that Indians own everything in the subcontinent which clearly is not true.  We are here on WP to reflect what is said in WP:RS giving everything WP:DUE weight and not to please each and every editor ( which is impossible IMO especially in this case).  --Wikireader41 (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Wikireader41 . Shyamsunder (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose i have explained this several times in previous sections. for the record, the scope of the topic includes areas which have been historically called India by preponderance of reliable sources. the change to "subcontinent" is merely an effort to satisfy a group of editors who are not happy to have some of their present geographical region fall within the scope of what has been India. --CarTick (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - The historical use of the word "India" is irrelevant. What's relevant is the modern usage. Either the title should remain the same and only inventions that came from the region currently known as India be listed (i.e. remove everything that came from what is now Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc). Or rename it. 71.237.233.41 (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a historical article for most part. Inventions by Bangladeshis and Pakistanis are not included.  they were all "Indians" before 1947.  people will just have to warm up to that idea in spite of what utter and complete nonsense that is taught in Pakistan Studies curriculum--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:48, 28 April 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.

POV tag
One thing which is increasingly overlooked over the discussion on the Gordion ballot box method is that we still have an article whose issues are unresolved. That is, inventions of the Indus Valley Civilization (which are also claimed by the Pakistani list) are squarely claimed as "Indian". This has been one of the foremost problems and this problem is as unresolved as it was in March. IMO the only solution is to get a community decision first on the article name, and by extension, on the scope of the article. Hence the ballot box with all three choices simultaneously. Otherwise, we'll always be turning in circles. If the name "Indian" is kept, very many users have said so over the last three months, many of the entries cannot be kept. I agree with that. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gunpowder, have you read any scholarly book on Indian history? --CarTick (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Gun Powder. This culture is now known not as the "Indus Valley Civilisation" but as "Harappan culture". The reference I am giving is not a book by an Indian or by a Pakistani but an Englishman with academic repute - "A History of India" (2010) (2/e) by Burton Stein (2/e edited by David Arnold). Series - The Blackwell History of the World. Wiley-Blackwell, London, ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6.
 * The extent of Harappan culture is shown in a diagram in that book in which the area extends across the Indus river valley but also much beyond it in both flanks in Baluchistan, Sindh, Punjab (in Pakistan) and parts of Rajasthan, Haryana, UP, Maharashtra, and Gujarat (in India). Accordingly the term "Indus Valley Civilisation"is a relict and Harrappan culture is the correct terminology. Both Pakistan and India can rightfully claim this civilisation as part of our history without there needing an either-or interpretation as the one you are suggesting. It is incorrect on your part to try to apportion what is in fact a common heritage just as it is jingoistic on the part of any editors who claim it solely as Pakistani and try to abrogate it.
 * I can send you the reference if you drop me a Wikipedia email and you can verify this for yourself.AshLin (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @ CarTick. Please define "Indian" and tell us when "Indian" history began: 1.000 BC, 2.000 BC, 3.000 BC, 30.000 BC? Without a definition of "Indian", you can't obviously write on Indian inventions.


 * @ AshLin. You can verify the amount of opposition plus loads of references to the equation IVC = Indian by sifting through the archive back until March. The geographical extent is only secondary – we don't regard the Byzantine Empire as Turkish merely because of a geographical overlap and a few adopted customs, either, do we? It is the character which counts and the IVC was a civilization which disappeared a millennium before what most people are prepared to call India appeared. The IVC disappeared so utterly that it took another 3.500 years and the work of British archaeologists to discover it again from the dust. How can one call something seriously Indian which was lost and unknown to the Indians themselves for 3.500 years (other than singing a predictable nationalistic tune)? Do the Turkish call the Hittites empire, rediscovered by modern archaeology at the same time, Turkish?


 * We also know the extent of the contemporary Bronze Age Beaker culture, but would you call it Spanish, English, German or French? The Beijing man, was he a Chinese? Was Stonehenge erected by British builders? Did the Serbians invent copper? (1) Were Egypt, Asia Minor and England Italian when under Roman rule? Did the Ottoman Turks found Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire only because they happened to occupy its territory a thousand years later?


 * The answer is a sound no in all cases. So why should we make an exception for the IVC where exist a huge gap of 1.000 years in terms of continuity and 3.500 years in terms of awareness of its existence? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In at least the case of Stonehenge it is perfectly normal to use "British" as a geographical descriptor for the builders, the sense in which the Harappans were also Indian. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That argument of yours works against the Pakistanis too. If someone calls something seriously Pakistani which was lost and unknown to the Pakistani themselves for 3,500 years before the concept of that nation came into acceptance, then yes it can be said to be true for the Indians also. The fact is there are many Indus Valley civilisation/Harappan sites in today's geographical definition of India and the IVC/Harappan culture has always been taught as part of Indian history to Indian children. Just because Pakistani editors want to corner a common piece of history for themselves and your agreeing with them neither makes it consensus - as I for one heartily disagree, nor is it a POV because the Indians claim so. If this issue is POV, then it is POV because Pakistanis seek to corner exclusive credit for it and not the Indians. The Indians do not claim exclusive possession of this common history of our two nations. If this issue has to be resolved, current accepted historical academic practices need to be taken into account. Currently historians accept that IVC/Harappan civilisation is part of Indian and Pakistani heritage. Academic histories of both the nations mention these. Your effort to try to force a single national "ownership" of a common heritage between nations is not the way to go. AshLin (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am in no way forcing such a view, but the absolute opposite, as I just made above amply clear. My view is that the IVC belongs to the IVC, and I oppose the enforcement of Indian or Pakistani ownership. But I am curious, why haven't you yet voiced your disagreement to the continued blocking at Talk:List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries which also lists IVC inventions? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * i recommend Gun Powder to write a history book making his case for why IVC belongs to IVC not to India. wikipedia is happy with the existing history books. --CarTick (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma, coming as it is when there appears to be no consensus for your proposed Gordian Knot Vote, I think your addition of the POV tag is coming across as pointy. Regardless of whether the tag is appropriate or not, I suggest this is not the time for adding it to the article. You might want to consider removing it. --rgpk (comment) 14:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * RP, I think I may have added the tags in this edit of March 1. Although the list has been pruned drastically since then to a third of its size (and kudos to Athenean, Gunpowder Ma, Huon, Mdw0 and Mar4d for that) there are still exaggerated or dubious claims remaining.  See my dubious inline tags.  The POV part of the tag can be removed but some of the others should remain.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have scratched my vote, being of the opinion that these "national" lists are pointless. Even when they are not infested by nationalistic gloating, they hardly ever show the relation between history and technology.  Timelines of inventions and discoveries, especially ones that have a concurrent timeline of history&mdash;while much harder to construct&mdash;are much more informative.  I believe that is where our effort should be directed.  Scientific inventions or discoveries are hardly ever the province of one modern-day region or polity.  I believe the unfolding of science or technology can be more accurately captured by narrowing the scientific subject and enlarging the geographical region.  With that in mind, I am working on three pages: Timeline of cultivation and domestication in South and West Asia, Timeline of everyday innovation in South and West Asia and Timeline of mathematical innovation in South and West Asia.  I would urge editors here, especially Athenean, Gunpowder Ma, Huon, Mdw0 and Mar4d, to help with those pages, rather than wasting time on this increasingly pointless debate.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the exchange between AshLin and Gunpowder Ma, yes, Gunpowder Ma has never claimed that IVC should belong to Pakistan. He is of the view that IVC should be a separate page and has consistently stated that.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PS The appellation "Indus (Valley) Civilization" is not by any means archaic. It is used by all modern experts working on the IVC (Gregory Possehl, Mark Kenoyer, Brigid Allchin, Raymond Allchin, even Indian ones such as Shireen Ratnagar)) to refer to the civilization.  Harrapan culture is also used.  It is often used to describe the individual stages (early Harrapan, mature Harrapan, etc); it is also used as a general descriptor, having origins in the tradition in archeology of naming a culture by its first discovered site.  Burt Stein (who btw is American) is also objecting to the use of "civilization" on account of the sparseness of the data (especially script, i.e. seals)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the elucidation, Fowler. I agree that it is pointless to get into these national debates. Lets get after something more useful instead. AshLin (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The reasoning behind a 'national' listing is its link to a culture, showing how technological achievement affects culture and vice-versa. This is best shown using a chronological list and I congratulate Fowler x 2 on trying for that. I notice the geographical limiter has gone back to South Asia but that's the prerogrative of the creator of the article. Mdw0 (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

To add

 * Rao–Blackwell theorem and Cramér–Rao bound: Discoveries in statistics by Calyampudi Radhakrishna Rao, an Indian national, with Harald Cramér/David Blackwell.
 * Shrikhande graph: Created by S. S. Shrikhande, Indian national, in the field of graph theory.


 * Added Shrikhande graph, but not Rao-Blackwell because Cramer and Blackwell are not Indian

To be removed

 * Same language subtitling: Same language subtitling dates back to the inception of subtitles, when subtitles were used as an aid for the hearing impaired. This practice is also widespread in East Asia, where the nature of many East Asian langauges require written language to be displayed to address the ambiguities of spoken language. Same language subtitling, as a method of increasing literacy rates, may be new, but I'm not certain if this should be considered an invention, rather than a different use for something that has already existed.
 * Agree, SLS is as old as subtitling itself. Athenean (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

To be changed
More to be added as I go through the list.--Ninthabout (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 0 > 0, as a number or Numerical zero: The concept of 0 as a positional value, or a lack of a positional value, dates back to the Babylonians. The Indian innovation was the first use of 0 as a number.
 * Negative numbers > Law of signs in multiplication: Other sources (page 257) credit the Chinese for the first concept of negative numbers and as the earliest users of notation for negative numbers, with the 2nd century BC date predating the first use of negative numbers in Indian texts by 900 years. However, the Indians are credited with being the first to establish the "law of signs" in multiplication, which was not mentioned directly in any Chinese text until the 13th century.
 * Sugar > Sugar refinement: The innovation was in the refinement of sugar, sugarcane has always existed, but the Indians were the first to develop a proccess of extracting it.
 * Stones > Lithiasis treatment: Stones is vague, and could refer to either the awareness of stones or the treatment of it. I would prefer lithiasis treatment, lithiasis being the formation of stones, which sounds better too.
 * Cotton > Cotton, cultivation of: Cotton is not an invention, but the cultivation of cotton is.
 * Jute > Jute, cultivation of: Same rationale as cotton.
 * Diamond Gemstone > Diamond, use as tool and mining of or Diamond engraving: Same ratioanle as cotton.
 * Zinc > Zinc, medicinal use and mining of: Same rationale as cotton.


 * Since this isnt purely an inventions list, any innovation such as same language subtitling or any technological discovery can be included. Rather than saying 'cultivation of' which is an archaic form of listing, why not just say sugar/cotton/jute cultivation? Mdw0 (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Gordian Knot ballot box

 * 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 on process or result Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello all. It is clear that we have arrived at an impasse. Everybody has to agree that the current situation is unsatisfactory: we have one article tagged (List of Indian inventions and discoveries), one duplicated (List of South Asian inventions and discoveries) and one blocked (List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries). But we can solve these problems with one bold stroke which I like to call a Gordion knot vote and which has been successfully tried in other disputes. I believe it is the fairest system possible.

Every user has one vote which is split up into three options:
 * 1st choice = 3 points
 * 2nd choice = 2 points
 * 3rd choice = 1 point

I'll only count votes where all three sub-votes have been made, I am not counting incomplete votes. I am not counting votes where a different system has been used. I won't count, for obvious reasons, votes by IPs even if they have participated in the discussion; registering takes only a few moments. The vote will be closed after exactly one week. I won't count any votes which arrive too late, not even by an hour or so, because every user who has participated in the move debate since Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries/Archive 2 (started 2 March 2011) will be WP:canvassed. I am not counting users who have been canvassed by others nor those who are canvassing. If I've overlooked some user by accident – which I'll be careful to avoid – please leave a message here first. The article name with the most votes is to be regarded as the consensus choice and implemented even if it has only received a relative majority (that is less than 50%). I am not going to discuss these terms and I am not going to discuss why I don't discuss these terms. In view of the many 'screen meters' already produced, I hope you understand. Good luck. :-)

Comments
Although Indian Subcontinent is a well-established term for long - after the end of British rule in South Asia, India became the name of one particular country. So its use reduced and preference is given to South Asia. When someone tells Indian Subcontinent it sounds like something related to India (the country). -- নাফী ম. সাধ  nafSadh talk 10:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can someone tell me where in wikipedia policies it says that this procedure can be adopted ? generally title moves need clear consensus.  In this case NO consensus has been reached after several months of discussion so the original title stays.  The way I see it this is an attempt by editors who failed to establish consensus repeatedly to get the title changed trying another ploy.  Unless this kind of procedure is part of standard Wikipedia policy I am going to oppose this.  At least till someone can prove that this has been done many times before and is an accepted procedure of wikipedia community.  any efforts to invent new and innovative methods to push minority views on wikipedia which are a violation of WP:NPOV need to be strongly discouraged.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's equally no consensus to leave the content at the current title, and we can probably agree that the current situation, with three different articles partially duplicating the same content, is definitely worse than any of the proposed solutions above. Per WP:IAR ignoring established procedures is acceptable if it serves to improve the encyclopedia. I'd also say that just because the current title was here first, it should not receive more deference than other variants, and that actually a majority prefers some other title, especially a majority of those who actually engaged in the debates instead of just dropping by to !vote "per someone else". Huon (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well put. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to accept this system, but believe that the choice "List of South Asian Inventions and Discoveries" is semantically incorrect. It should be "List of Inventions and Discoveries from South Asia". --rgpk (comment) 17:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * yepp, "List of Inventions and Discoveries from South Asia" is better -- নাফী ম. সাধ  nafSadh talk 17:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. Obviously we'd use the semantically best name in English whatever the outcome. Let's not start arguing about whether it is People's Front of Judea or Judean People's Front. ;-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * i concur with Wikireader. two attempts to move this article following regular wp procedures have already failed. GunPowder and others should give up and move on to better things. --CarTick (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's my reaction too. It seems unnecessary instruction creep. Andrewa (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, the implication that the article is about India is spot on. If you have items from India or Indian history, this is where they should be. This is the Indian list. There should also be a Pakistani list and a List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. If it was me I'd remove any reference to Indian subcontinent here and just put India, then anyone who wants a Pakistani or a broader geographical aspect then they can look at the other articles, which have all been separated out. Second, when it comes to this article I'm not interested in anyone's political view of national appropriation of a given history, only their ability to contribute to the article's accuracy in term of technological history. Why satisfy someone who doesn't care at all about the list, only about some poltical crusade to remove any reference to the name India, and pretend that India was invented in 1947? Why even get involved in a discussion with someone who'll move on to their next anti-India project once they've got what they want? So therefore I reckon anyone who wants to change the name of the article has to prove they at least have some interest in the actual list by making ten (10) contributions - new items, new references, rewrites - before I'll entertain their opinion as to whether India's technological history belongs to the current republic or not. Show me you give more than two hoots about the article and then we can discuss the title.
 * Also, this voting system is problematic, as it is designed to produce a least worst result, rather than the best result. Because partial votes arent allowed, it forces a voter to allocate 3 points to a good option and 3 points to bad options. It therefore removes legitimacy from the outcome. I'd give 3 points to the current name and zero to the others. Mdw0 (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Above signature is put on by a IP user as seen in this revision. Unless Mdw0 verifies, this comment shall be seen as disruptive. -- nafSadh did say 13:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC) - Yes, this is mine - I was using someone else's machine and hadnt signed on as myself and thought this quick fix would work. But you're quite welcome to see my stuff as disruptive - thats even the aim on occasion... Mdw0 (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just conscious, if someone is misusing your name, that is all. I said this comment shall be seen as disruptive meaning, if someone else have used your name, then that is disruptive. As you verified, then it is more than constructive :) -- nafSadh did say 03:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Gordian Knot voting support
Since this is a consensus seeking mechanism, and I notice that several editors have expressed their disapproval of this approach, I figure we should also measure support for the approach espoused by gun poweder ma. Please indicate whether you support or oppose this method below. (Note: This is only about using the method to gauge consensus, not about the title of the article). --rgpk (comment) 13:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * Support Coz, Polling is also not an official process, Polling is a method editors use to reach consensus. This GKV is also a process by editors to reach consensus. -- nafSadh did say 13:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - and for the record, I also support this method of determining whether the method of determining the article's title is ok, though it seems a little superfluous to me. Huon (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 18:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, why not? Mar4d (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: there is no need to vote here. All users who have cast their vote above have agreed by implication (and explicitly by their timestamp in the right column) to the procedure. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see it that way. I note that at least one !vote in the oppose section (and these should be considered as !votes rather than votes) has also voted in the above poll. Nothing wrong with that and I suggest that editors feel free to vote/!vote in both sections). --rgpk (comment) 15:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, looking at the previous RM poll, my guess is that a straight vote of the sort you propose will probably result in the current title being selected. Though I !voted oppose there, I don't think this is the right way to read consensus on wikipedia and would much rather see a healthy discussion than see precipitate action. That 'healthy discussion' never happened because of the way that RM went (the new article was created in parallel, etc.) and this stalemate is a direct outcome of that process. --rgpk (comment) 15:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose While I intend voting above, and appreciate the spirit in which it has been proposed, consensus is traditionally not regarded as a voting process and I am concerned that this represents a shift in the way we seek it on wikipedia. --rgpk (comment) 14:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a better idea on how to move forward with this article? Or are you happy with the situation as-is? Huon (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there are several things not right with this idea. That it is a vote rather than a discussion is not the way consensus works. The idea is presented by a single user who also says I am not going to discuss these terms and I am not going to discuss why I don't discuss these terms, that is not conducive to consensus decision making. For me, for example, the sticking point is the formulation of title 3, which I believe is completely incorrect. Titles should not be chosen based on the number of bodies that feel it should be this or that. Is there a better idea, I think CarTick's suggestion below (the one in the comment section) is the better idea.--rgpk (comment) 15:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * yes. there is a better idea. that everyone not happy with the decision should suck it up and move on. may be help improve the article. --CarTick (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose due to the wording of Gun Powder Ma, where they implied it was a be all or end all. I'm quite happy to use polling as a way to assess where people stand and take a gauge of consensus, but not as an act of finality (excepting of course in Arbitration of similar situations) . Of course, no criticism of Gun Powder Ma, and complete good faith in the intentions behind it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I withdraw my vote above for the time being, till a larger consensus on this method itself is obtained. On second thoughts, although I believe that Gun Powder Ma has proposed in good faith, the way it has been done including the wordings reek of autocracy and is not at all inclusive in nature. Yes, if we cannot achieve a consensus, let's forget it for the time being and concentrate on other things. After a considerable time period, we can revisit this. Shovon (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. wikipedia consensus is not established by mere vote counting but by the strength of arguments.  default titles stay unless consensus is established to change them.  So the statement that their is no consensus for current title is bogus.  furthermore if anyone thinks that this kind of voting mechanism should be utilized on wikipedia this talk page is not the right venue for discussion which should include broader wp community.  also I would suggest to gun powder ma to read WP:LETGO.  we have all lost debates on wp at times but have moved on.  best not to get stuck like a broken Gramophone record and keep saying same thing over and over again.  it wastes community resources which can be used to improve wp elsewhere.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This vote is part of the discussion which has been going on since March this year, so not at all disconnected from the previous arguments brought forward, but merely a natural continuation of:
 * Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries/Archive 2
 * Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries/Archive 3
 * Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries/Archive 4
 * Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries/Archive 5
 * If there is any new perspective which has not been pointed at in the several hundred KBs, feel free to bring it up now for discussion. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * and how long do you think we should continue this discussion. 6 months, 1 year, 10 years or stop immediately the second you have your way and title is moved. you seriously need to drop the WP:STICK here.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose (still). Arguments above. Andrewa (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Keep the present title. If Bangladeshi and Pakistani editors wish such articles of their own, let those exist separately rather than going for the South Asia point of view. AshLin (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikireader41 has said it all. Shyamsunder (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments
we are done with this move debate. the verdict has been delivered and there is no consensus to move. of course, consensus can change. i will recommend the users take up this debate sometime in the future, hopefully with a different set of users. --CarTick (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with CarTick. lets wait say about 6 months, try to improve the article and revisit the issue at that time if necessary.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There are known problems with WP:RM, particularly the question of which way to go when there's no consensus. But we're unlikely to solve them here. Andrewa (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * i am with GunPowder and Huon and I do not like the tradition that no consensus means no change even when the status quo was not achieved by any meaningful discussion. sadly, consensus is automatically presumed for the entire article or section even when previous debates have established consensus only for one or few of the several sentences. On broader topics, we may need consensus for each and every sentence and this might not happen at one point in time as people with different expertise might be required for each sentence. the current wp tradition favors people who just happened to figure out to edit wikipedia earlier than others. however, like Andrewa points out, this is not the place for that discussion. --CarTick (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP policies are not perfect ( and never will be IMO - just like the real world) and some people are going to be unhappy no matter how we deal a particular contentious issue. But that is not a reason to break policies.  What I see here is an attempt to break with an established policy WP:DEMOCRACY because certain editors are not happy with status quo.  Like I said before none of the 3 suggested titles are likely to satisfy everyone and the other 2 titles come with their own set of issues, which though different are more serious IMO.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Result
11 users participated in the vote. The result is These 11 users also supported the procedure by way of their timestamp, while 7 users opposed it in an ensuing counter-vote. I'll communicate the result to the admin. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) List of inventions and discoveries in the Indian subcontinent: 25 points
 * 2) List of Indian inventions and discoveries: 22 points
 * 3) List of South Asian inventions and discoveries: 19 points
 * you are being disruptive. you know very well that lot of the editors including me who opposed the Gordian Knot ballot idea — after two traditional move attempts by you failed — did not even vote. --CarTick (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, my participation in the Gordian Knot Vote is to be taken as implicit support of the overall idea. I think a healthy dose of WP:IAR in this case is essential to gaining a result, and it should be noted that Gun Powder Ma's preferred name actually finished last. I don't see them getting upset over this.  N419 BH  16:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * do not even think about this. clearly no consensus on the process exists.  It is a clear violation of WP:DEMOCRACY.  no good reason for some to invoke WP:IAR while expecting other editors to follow the rules.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:43, 21 May 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.

Comment on Gordian Knot Vote
Just my one cent. Although 11 editors participated in the !vote, only 10 supported the process implicitly. AshLin explicitly expressed his opposition to the process. Shovon (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Additions and removals
See also here and here for the continuing cleanup effort. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Left out Inventions
Tetracycline antibiotic was invented by Yellapragada Subbarao. Water Buffaloes were first domesticated by Indus Valley Civilization. Concept of Infinity is also an Indian idea.Rajesh Kumar69 (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This section should read Inventions Without Citations, otherwise they would already be in the list, no? Mdw0 (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Quote from Albert Einstein and opening sentence
The quote I have posted is legit. I feel that the opening sentence should hold good regardless of whether it has been referenced or not. It is common sense. Can the administrator please step in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.172.215 (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin (and admins do not have greater powers in content disputes anyway), but I don't think the Einstein quote and the number system changes are an improvement. Firstly, the opening sentence should describe what this list is all about, and that is done much better by the sentence "This list of Indian inventions and discoveries details ...". Secondly, the Einstein quote would require a reference (so it is verifiable), and Einstein is not a historian of science anyway; his opinion on the relative importance of Indian vs., say, Egyptian number systems is largely irrelevant. Thirdly, while the Indian number system was an important improvement, it was not the first number system - that would probably be the Babylonian system with base 60. Therefore we should not claim that "Indians invented number systems" without qualifications. (Also, this makes Einstein's claim about Indians "showing us how to count" wrong.) Huon (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted the addition from '99.231.172.215', and agree with Huron's points. Quotes must have citations, and 'common sense' is not a justification for adding uncited material. Dialectric (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

@Huon

Please learn some history. Educate yourself. Zero and the number system originated in India. You can play with words all you want. The Babylonians did not discover the number system. Indians did. I can give you a few more quotes from eminent historical figures. here is another one. Save the BS for someone else. And btw, Einstein was a physicist, so his quote should be more than enough proof!

"It is India that gave us the ingenious method of expressing all numbers by the means of ten symbols, each symbol receiving a value of position, as well as an absolute value; a profound and important idea which appears so simple to us now that we ignore its true merit, but its very simplicity, the great ease which it has lent to all computations, puts our arithmetic in the first rank of useful inventions, and we shall appreciate the grandeur of this achievement when we remember that it escaped the genius of Archimedes and Apollonius, two of the greatest minds produced by antiquity." - Pierre-Simon Laplace

And also, my opening sentence was an excellent way of beginning the article.

99.231.172.215 (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * According to Thomas Heath's Manual of Greek Mathematics, the Babylonian positional number systems dates back to 2300 BC; I've read much earlier claims, but cannot right now find a reliable source for them. The Indian number system dates back to 2000-1500 BC according to this list, which unfortunately lacks a source. The Babylonians clearly predate the Indians.
 * Einstein was indeed a brilliant physicist. So was Laplace. How does that qualify them to speak on the history of mathematics? Not very much, and Laplace in particular is much too early to have known much about the archaeological evidence for early Indian (or Babylonian) mathematics. He didn't even know the Indus Valles Civilization existed. This list is a list of inventions, not a list of quotes by famous men about inventions.
 * I also disagree that your opening sentence was an improvement. It highlights a few specific inventions instead of summarizing the breadth of the article. According to the manual of style, it is thus a worse introduction: "The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is." I have therefore reverted it. Huon (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

According to MOST mathematicians, historians and experts, it was India that gave the world zero and the number system. Indians were the first to consolidate the whole system. If you want to be more precise, Early Man used his fingers to keep track of his inventory of sticks and stones, does that mean that we credit the "Early Man" with the number system? You are an embarrassment to Wikipedia! And if I am not mistaken, the Indian numeral system pre-dates the Babylonian one! I can show you tons of books that prove empirically that India was the source of the number system! So relax, settle down and move on! Stop vandalizing the page. 99.231.172.215 (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Read page 2 of this book. read the last paragraph: http://www.amazon.com/India-Fourth-Edition-Stanley-Wolpert/dp/0520260325/ref=sr_1_37?ie=UTF8&qid=1335560109&sr=8-37

I am reverting the edit. 99.231.172.215 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! Is it ok if I revert the edit????

99.231.172.215 (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note - IP '99.231.172.215' has been blocked for a month, so it seems that this discussion is resolved. Dialectric (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Missing
The Pythagorean theorem hasn't been added to Mathematics section of the article. Although the Babylonians and Egyptians made use of some form of the theorem or one closely related to it, it was in India that it was first used and in relation to triangles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.117.71 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you give us a reliable source for the use of the Pythagorean theorem in Indian mathematics? Huon (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)