Talk:List of South Asian inventions and discoveries

Let us proceed with improving this list
To Athenean, Mar4d, Huon, Gun Powder Ma, S. Seagal, Shovon76, and others, Why don't we work on improving this list? Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting choice of editors to improve a "POV Fork" F&f. how about we discuss deleting this article instead.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up
A proper revision will mean that the shabby references will need to be improved. For example, the article claims the following:


 * Bangle: A bangle is a stiff bracelet. There are certainly examples of stiff bracelets in ancient Egypt.  We need to make sure that the Egyptian (or other West Asian) stiff bracelets did not predate the IVC ones.
 * I wondered about this, too, but left the entry as I thought a bangle would be specific to Indian culture (note the interwiki links are primarily to South Asian languages). Certainly, bracelets as such are far older. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what the article says, An encyclopaedia of Indian archaeology refers not to Mohenjo-daro but the Brahmagiri archaeological site, where the oldest settlements date to the 2nd millenium BC, not 2600 BC. The bangles found date to "period megalithic", that is 2nd c. BC at the earliest. Hence, there are older Egyptian bracelets, for example one from the tomb of Iput in Sakkara (24th c. BC) (Margaret Bunson: Encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, p. 182). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Bow drills: These have been found in many neolithic sites. Their appearance in Mehrgarh may not be the first.  (Do we care?)
 * Good question. I'd say as long as nobody brings older dated finds to the fore, we can leave it there. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dock (in Lothal): This interpretation, made by the Indian archeologist who excavated Lothal, is by no means accepted by all archeologists. See Britannica article on IVC by Raymond Allchin for alternative interpretations.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now this is interesting, I always wondered about that claim, too. Is this EB 2006 or 2008? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it is the 2011 on-line version. Allchin, however, died recently, so it was likely written a few years ago.  Says, Allchin: "The most unexpected discovery at Lothal, however, was a great brick basin measuring some 718 by 121 feet (219 by 37 metres) with extant brick walls of 15 feet (4.5 metres) in height. This lay east of the settlement, alongside the platform on which the granary block stood. At one end of the basin was a small sluice or spillway with a locking device. The excavator has inferred that the basin was a dock to which ships could be brought from the nearby estuary via an artificial channel that would have been kept clear of silt by controlling the flow of water from the spillway. This view has not been universally accepted; another view is that it provided a source of fresh water for drinking or agriculture. A cemetery was found outside the perimeter of the wall, west of the site."  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ivory: In the Vogelherdhöhle intricate figurines carved from mammoth ivory dating back 32,000 years were excavated. Gravettian artwork made from mammoth ivory dates from the same period. Ivory seals in many (animal) shapes were carved in early Minoan times (The Emergence of Civilization; The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C., p. 360), so earlier than in the IVC. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Diamond: double entry. Besides, its use seemed to be ornamental, diamonds as tools were apparently unknown. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dice: Preceded by Egyptians (early 3rd millenium BC) and Sumerian finds (Royal Game of Ur, ca. 2600 BC) (British Museum, ENOCHIAN CHESS Book One : Foundations, p. 55f.) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dike: Preceded by Egyptians: "In the Faiyum, where Predynastic Period inhabitants had discovered the ease with which they could turn to agricultural pursuits, efforts were made to channel the water coming through the Bahr Yusef into the region. Dikes, canals, and ditches were dug in the Old Kingdom (2575–2134 BC)" (Margaret R. Bunson - Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, p.12) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dying: Practiced much longer in Asia Minor (Çatalhöyük) and Levant, since 4th millenium BC (Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze, p.223f.) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Puppets and Puppetry: Ghosh, Massey, and Banerjee, page 14, don't make any priority claim. In reality, they introduce the reader into the subject by pointing out that "according to historians, puppets are as old as civilisation". Puppetry also gives the impression of a very early art with multiple origins and traditions. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Cotton: Really only mentioned in passing, but since cotton does seem to be first cultivated in South Asia, ok. But Stein refers to cotton textiles in Mehrgarh, a settlement which he clearly treats as an neolithic agricultural settlement which does not belong to the IVC but predates it (A history of India, p.45-48). Located in modern-day Balochistan, it was not even part of Ancient India and, as I understand, not even lying on the Indian subcontinent. the entry may need to be removed, depending on the final article name and scope. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Stepwell: Good reference (and interesting subject), d'accord. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Afghanistan and Iran?
Should we add Afghanistan and Iran to the list as well, especially Iran, since it was a great conduit for transfer of technology to and from India? I think it would make the list much more interesting. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess the complete list would be: Afghanistan | Bangladesh | Bhutan | India | (Iran) | Maldives | Nepal | Pakistan | Sri Lanka   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm far from an expert on either South Asian history or the history of science in general, but what about Burma/Myanmar? Too Southeast-Asian? Regarding Iran, while interesting, I believe that's a little outside the intended scope, isn't it? (I'm aware that the UN geoscheme places Iran in South Asia, but I believe it's mostly alone in doing so.) Anyway, there's List of Iranian scientists and scholars, which probably lists many of those who would be responsible for Iranian inventions and discoveries of the pre-modern era. Huon (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, if there is already an Iranian list, then no point duplicating it. Burma/Myanmar is a great idea, especially since Burma was a part of the British Indian empire from the 1830 (lower Burma) and the 1870s (upper Burma) to 1937; in other words, its modern history is much more South Asian than Southeast Asian.  So, the list would read: Afghanistan | Bangladesh | Bhutan | Burma/Myanmar| India | Maldives | Nepal | Pakistan | Sri Lanka.  It would be much broader than a mere Indian list, and consequently less vulnerable to mischief by Wiki India-nationalists.  Don't worry about not being an expert.  Very few people are, especially in this kind of a project.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did read the Iranian list. Unfortunately, it is somewhat anonymous and its descriptions skimpy.  There are advantages to including Iran; the main being that Iran was a conduit for technology transfers to and from India.  For example, there was a neolithic culture in Iranian Baluchistan around the same time as Mehrgarh.  For example, Indian (decimal) arithmetic was first written up for the West Asian (and later European) world by Iranian scholars.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * they would still remain vulnerable to pro colonial POV pushers though. Or does F&f think they dont exist ? I would suggest including all countries in South Asian union--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think Myanmar should be included, as it is generally considered more part of southeast Asia rather than south Asia. True, it was part of British India for a period (a short period, compared to the region's long history), but culturally it is quite distinct, ans has been so for most of its history. As for Afghanistan, culturally it is closer to Iran (Persian is the lingua franca) and was never part of British India. So I would just include the countries of the SAARC minus Afghanistan. Athenean (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As I understand and use the term, South Asia is British India minus Burma or Bangladesh + Bhutan + India + Maldives (if you like) + Nepal + Pakistan + Sri Lanka. I wouldn't object to any broader definition, but I wouldn't work on improving such a list, either. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Please see my reply to S Seagal in the section below. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  04:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PS Part of the problem right now is that the list is a copy of the ugly and puffed-up Indian list. We will have to create this list from first principles; otherwise, we leave ourselves vulnerable to accusations of creating content forks.  That's also why the enlarged scope (with Iran and Afghanistan) is essential.  I'm happy to do some of the leg work for the Iran and Afghanistan lists.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets Keep It SImple
First of all I wish to thank the few editors who were bold enough and have the vision and courage to start this article. For reasons of complexity which may arise I suggest the following:

1) For the time being we should restrict the list of inventions to pre-1947 2) Restrict the list of inventions to just what is today modern states of Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Maldives and Nepal (adding others like Burma or Afghanistan would complicate matters at this stage given that some may argue Afghanistan is actually central asia and that burma is south east asia. We should pick a definition that we can all agree on for south asia and as fowler suggested that one should be the encloypedia Britannica version unless there is another defintion more fitting.

I look forward to your responses. RegardsS Seagal (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * SAARC minus Afghanistan sounds good to me; I agree with S Seagal's reasoning on Burma, Afghanistan and, by extension, Iran. Pre-1947 also sounds good to me. Huon (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Guys please no WP:OR. you cant come up with your own definition of South Asia.  please stick to what is said in WP:RS about what definition of south asia is.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How about the Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of South Asia? Is that a source reliable enough? The problem is that (just as with "India" or even "Indian subcontinent") there are lots of reliable sources which differ on the definition of South Asia. I don't think one definition is overwhelmingly more common than the others; thus we will need to explicitly say in the lead what we mean by South Asia in any case. Huon (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * well that is ONE source. It is not the be all and end all of the definition of South Asia.  The definition of South Asia should take all WP:RS and give WP:DUE weight to each of them.  Wikipedia caters to many readers from many different backgrounds.  Encylopedia Brittanica used to be the premier encyclopedia in the past and has long since been replaced by wikipedia and others.  So using it to justify a wikipedia article seems to me like walking backwards.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikireader41 you have been discredit on several wikipedia pages for you relentless yet useless pov pushing, The definition of south Asian given by EB is acceptable as it fits within the framework of this article in line with wikipedia policy, The same can not be said the monstrosity that is the Indian list which fails to define what is "indian" and what is actually "pakistani" "sri lankan" or "bihari". S Seagal (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please ignore S Seagal. he will soon be blocked for incessant violation of WP:NPA. The definition BBC uses for south asia is better IMO.  It includes Maldives and Afghanistan  which syncs nicely with the concept of Greater India.  I think other sources include Burma and Iran also.  Those RS's should be respected also and not ignored because a few editors think they want to "keep it simple".  since when did keeping it simple become a WP policy ???.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition to BBC the CIA also includes Maldives and Afghanistan in South Asia in the The World Factbook.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SSeagal, the reason why it makes sense to include Afghanistan and Iran is that a great deal of technological invention in the old Indian subcontinent happened as a result of interaction with these two regions. Besides, many historical empires, such as the Archemaenids, the Kushans, the Durranis, even the Mughals, controlled parts of both regions (as well as the Indian subcontinent).  Persian was the court language in India (especially North India) from the thirteenth century to the early 19th century.  It lasted for six centuries, a lot longer than English has in its day.  Without the interaction with Iran and Afghanistan, the scientific and technological history of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka is incomplete.  Hookah, for example, wrongly claimed in the old Indian list, came to India by way of Iran.  Chess, for another example, was created in India, but the Indian chess would be unrecognizable today; the game's present-day rules were formalized in Iran.  The other reason to include Iran and Afghanistan and Burma is to enlarge the region, to look beyond current-day national borders, to look at the science (wherever it takes us) and not the nation.  The other thing is that editors from the old India page, having no interest in the science itself, will likely cluster here to make mischief.  The larger our scope, the less they can accuse us of creating a content fork.  Do not worry about the exact definition of South Asia; as long as we define what we mean by it, there won't be any issues.  Editors of Wikipedia's Iran and Afghanistan pages will if anything be pleased at scholarly attention being devoted to their regions.  It is best to leave the Indian page alone.  Its puffed up list was created by user:JSR who has lately been appearing on the Indian list talk page as an IP.  The Indian list should be left to decay as it already was before we decided to improve it.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a better Idea probably is just to create a page List of Asian inventions and discoveries. That way the WP:POVFORK issues can be avoided all together. as long as you are sticking to "South Asia"  these allegations will hang on this article especially as it was created so soon after the requested move on the List of Indian inventions and discoveries failed to reach a consensus.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

POV Fork
This article is a WP:POVFORK of List of Indian inventions and discoveries and a gross violation of WP:NPOV. There was no consensus that the above mentioned article's title be moved and yet this article was created a bunch of POV pushers. This needs to head to WP:AFD unless someone can give a clear explanation why it is not a POV fork.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * DGAF. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * you should GAF to core WP policies. if this is the best you can come up with then perhaps you should stay away from this discussion.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Try to behave yourself, wipe the foam from your mouth and I may be inclined to take you seriously. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * no doubt, the article was created as a WP:POV fork. its main aim was to discredit Indian list. thus, it is a text book case. however, its existence can be substantiated by an accurate description of South Asia. i am not surprised gun powder has an impaired understanding of wikipolicies. --CarTick (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Gun powder Ma please read WP:AGF and also WP:CIR . Do not credit yourself with the ability to take me seriously.  nothing that you have done on WP points to that ability.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're both edit-warring and being disruptive. Calm down or you'll be forcibly calmed down. Ironholds (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Do Not Feed The Trolls
Some editors from the India page have come here for the sole purpose of stalling, reversing, discrediting and ultimately undoing this article and at the same time wish to hog the entire history of south asia pre-1947 and then add only one or two inventions made by the 1 billion plus population of the indian republic. I urge you not to waste any time on them, There motives are clear and feeding the trolls would be counter productive to the goals of academic neutrality. S Seagal (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Academic neutrality is a complete unknown to you - as is obvious by this silly entry. You are a political animal who wants to use the inaccurate and meaningless 'South Asia' to remove any link between the history of India and the current republic because you dont like the current republic. Of course the use of the term 'India' isnt perfect either but its better than the current Pakistan India Bangladesh Sri Lanka Iran Burma mess that 'South Asia' implies. Dont call people trolls just because they disagree with you - its childish. Mdw0 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * S Seagal, please refer to no personal attack policy. This is NOT the first instance of you using abusive language against other editors who disagree with you, especially those who are known to be of Indian origin. Please comment on the content and not on the contributor. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A new subpage for your attention
Since the page List of South Asian inventions and discoveries has been locked down, I've created a new subpage (of this talk page): Talk:List of South Asian inventions and discoveries/Draft list for interested editors for your editing needs. I have left in the list items, but have removed all the text accompanying it. I'm afraid, if we want to claim new ground for this page, we cannot copy something from another page. I have also added some items: eg. "Chicken, domestication of," "Cotton, cultivation of ,"  "Orange, cultivation of," as well as Algebra, which can be rightly claimed, as Iran is now also a region covered. I believe, it is best to include Iran and Afghanistan (in keeping with the UN Geoscheme); otherwise, the Wiki India nationalists will be champing at the bit to delete this page (as a content fork of the India list). Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  05:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Small addition required
There needs to be a line in the lead paragraph as to why this list ends in 1947 when 'South Asia' obviously continues into the present. Something like; 'After 1947 the individual nations of Pakistan India etc inherited this technological history.' with hyperlinks to the newer lists. Mdw0 (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * it should not stop at 1947. may be, none of these matters. According to User:RegentsPark, the article may be deleted. may be. who knows. See his comment here. --CarTick (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You cant not edit something on the off chance it may be deleted one day or Wikipedia would contain nothing. And yes, I'm fully aware of the objections to the nature of the article - I'm one who holds many of those objections. HOWEVER, all other things being equal, if the internal logic of this article is to go up to 1947 there logically should be links to the other post-1947 national lists, so that if someone stumbles onto this site they have proper links to more modern inventions and technology. Mdw0 (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What I propose to do
I feel there is a basic contradiction involved in these "national" lists, especially for a region like South Asia. Unlike, China, South Asia was not isolated for much of its history. Many innovations in South Asia either had precursors elsewhere or were soon improved elsewhere. Chess is a good example, Its primitive form came from India, but its modern rules were formalized in Iran. Algebra is another, many of the concepts of Algebra were known to the Indians (including the discriminant formula for the quadratic equation), but it was systematized by the Persians. National lists (even without nationalist list makers) are inaccurate because they usually tell half the story. Think how much better it would be if the geographical scope were enlarged, but the content scope narrowed. If the geographical scope, especially, were chosen with history in mind, one could tell a much more satisfactory story. For South Asia, the major interaction of ideas took place with West Asia, not with Central Asia (even though many invaders did come from Central Asia) or East Asia (even though Indian religious ideas did travel to East Asia). Although there was very little technological innovation in South Asia (outside of the Neolithic and Indus Valley periods), there were two or three other kinds of innovation: (i) Mathematical innovation, (ii) Cultivation and domestication, and (iii) "Everyday innovation." The last category would include Chess, Parcheesi, ... Also, I'm now firmly in the camp of timelines (as opposed to lists). So, I'm proposing creating three timelines:
 * Timeline of mathematical innovation in South and West Asia (Pythagorean triples, arithmetic, algebra, ...)
 * Timeline of cultivation and domestication in South and West Asia (Wheat, mango, orange, cotton, chicken, sugar, ...)
 * Timeline of everyday innovation in South and West Asia. (Chess, pajamas, parcheesi, ...)

South and West Asia would be a broad swath from Turkey in the West to Bangladesh in the East (i.e. Turkey, Irag, Iran, (Afghanistan), Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PS Obviously, the Indian list is useless for this purpose. Largely made up by user JSR who has lately been appearing in discussions as an IP, not only is the list geographically limited, but it is also a "fan site," chock full of false claims, and woefully lacking in rigor.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PPS I have now created the stubs. I am now withdrawing from this page for the reasons I have given above.  Those of you who were here for the science and not politics, please help me with the timelines.  I will now be taking this page off my watch list as well.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The geographical scope is getting broader all the time, and thereby becomning more useless, as the link between culture, civilisation and technology is lost. BTW Fowler, the Indian list wasnt 'made up' by one person as you claim as the vast majority of the list had good referencing. It is in no way accurate to say the whole list was lacking in rigor and false claims. Numerous invitations to edit the list according to its merits were taken up and many items were deleted. This happens all the time in inventions lists as older claims are verified. If it was so poor, then the en-mass copying and pasting of items from the Indian list onto this one would mean this list is also full of false claims and lacking in rigor and would make THIS list also 'useless for this puropse.' Mdw0 (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Sorry. Forgot to sign that one.
 * I don't know who has posted this. The geographical scope is getting bigger, because the innovations were not made in isolation.  For example, the Greek full chord sines arrived in India, courtesy of the West Asian kingdoms of that time.  The Indians simplified it to half chord and gave us the modern definition of the sine.  The Indian innovation was really minor, but very helpful computationally.  But the Greek version was key conceptually.   Without it, there would have been no modern sine.  That is the only way to show the links between culture, civilization and technology. As for who made up the Indian list, yes, one user did make up most of it.  Look at the link I've provided above.  He is the same user who wrote the History of Indian technology page, also chock full of errors and grandiose claims.   As for this list, yes it is mostly useless.  Why do you think Gunpowder and other have been asking for permission to edit it.  I don't think they intended to copy the old list.  It was just a place holder to be discarded later.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fowler&fowler I like your idea of time lines. Though it is customary for countries to take "credit" for inventions and discoveries it is true these almost never happen in isolation anywhere in the world (Including Europe and USA where people are exceptionally talented in borrowing others Ideas and presenting them as their own). The Basmati and Neem immediately come to mind.  Though Americans sent the first man to moon Rockets really were invented by the Chinese and the basic principles of rocketry were established by them.  The more I think this list is pretty useless for reasons more than that it is a WP:POVFORK--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think time lines make sense. Based on my experience on some debates on the French speaking Wikipedia, I would even go one step further and avoid the word "innovation" or "discovery", as this word happens to be subject to misinterpretations and unproductive debates. What about "Timeline of mathematics in South and West Asia" and "Timeline of everyday practices in South and West Asia" ? Such titles also enable to list major influences events. --Anneyh (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions
I've just realized that there's both a South Asian and an Indian list of inventions and discoveries, but the changes I proposed in the talk page of the Indian list apply to this list too. See Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries for my suggestions.--Ninthabout (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)