Talk:Sanskrit/Archive 9

Large block of scholarly referenced text deleted from Sanskrit page
, You have engaged in deletion of large block of text on the Sanskrit page without engaging in any discussion on the talk page. This sort of deletion builds hatred in Wikipedia community and should be refrained. You are welcome to contribute constructively to this page by engaging your concerns in talk page but it should be done before you choose to delete scholarly referenced content [diff]. If you have NPOV concerns you are welcome to raise NPOV dispute and raise templates. But deletion of text is vandalism. Jaykul72 (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hatred? And malicious removal? That's no way to speak to fellow editors unless they are in fact vandals (which is a ridiculous accusation in this case). I have warned Jaykul72 on their page. Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC).
 * Is this "ridiculous accusation" as you state? How do you consider deletion of this amount of text on any other wikipedia page [diff]?  Talk pages are a way to engage with other editors in Wikipedia so that we can improve and constructively contribute to Wikipedia. This does not help improve Wikipedia.  More discussion on my talk page about the editor's actions.
 * Here is a partial list of author's who were referenced by the text that was deleted:
 * Woodard, Roger D. (2008). The Ancient Languages of Asia and the Americas. SUNY Buffalo. p. 1. ISBN 9780521684941.
 * Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (1974). Study of Sanskrit in South-East Asia. Sanskrit College.
 * George Cardona (2012). Sanskrit Language. Encyclopaedia Britannica
 * Tim Murray (2007). Milestones in Archaeology: A Chronological Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-57607-186-1.
 * Harold G. Coward (1990). The Philosophy of the Grammarians, in Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies Volume 5 (Editor: Karl Potter). Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-81-208-0426-5.
 * Michael C. Howard (2012). Transnationalism in Ancient and Medieval Societies: The Role of Cross-Border Trade and Travel. McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-9033-2.
 * Sheldon Pollock (2009). The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-26003-0.
 * Witzel, Michael (2006). "Early Loanwords in Western Central Asia: Indicators of Substrate Populations, Migrations, and Trade Relations". In Victor H. Mair (ed.). Contact And Exchange in the Ancient World. University of Hawaii Press. p. 160. ISBN 978-0-8248-2884-4.
 * MacDonell, A. A. (2020). A History of Sanskrit Literature. (n.p.): Outlook Verlag. pg.16-18
 * Bhadriraju, Krishnamurthi (2003). The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge University Press. pp. 39–40
 * Reich, D (2018). Who We are and how We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. p. 127.
 * William Bright (2014). American Indian Linguistics and Literature. Walter De Gruyter. pp. 16–17. ISBN 978-3-11-086311-6.
 * Cynthia Groff (2017). The Ecology of Language in Multilingual India: Voices of Women and Educators in the Himalayan Foothills. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 183–185. ISBN 978-1-137-51961-0.
 * Iswari P. Pandey (2015). South Asian in the Mid-South: Migrations of Literacies. University of Pittsburgh Press. pp. 85–86. ISBN 978-0-8229-8102-2.
 * Dalby, A (2004). Dictionary of languages : the definitive reference to more than 400 languages. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 155.
 * Strazny, Philipp (2005). Encyclopedia of linguistics. New York: Fitzroy Dearborn. pp. 501–502.
 * Dalby, A (2004). Dictionary of languages : the definitive reference to more than 400 languages. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 155.
 * K.M, George (1992). Modern Indian literature / 1, Surveys and poems. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi. pp. Pg 8.
 * Jaykul72 (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Most are irrelevant to an NPOV, Reliable, and DUE description of Sanskrit. A lead is not a place for stuffing everyone and their brother's pet POVs about Sanskrit with selective use of scholarly sources, worse yet with synthesis on a grand scale by misuse of these sources. Let us start with the lead sentence. What exactly is "Sanskrit is an Indo-Aryan or Indic language?" Allow me to count the issues:

(a) Many more scholarly books use "Indo-Aryan" than do "Indic" to describe a group of languages (the ratio seems to be 9,470 to 2,040 (Click on "Tools" to see number), i.e, more than 4 to 1) so "Indic" is useful at best in the Indo-Aryan languages page as an alternative characterization—which it already is. India, for example, has an official name "Republic of India," which is as infrequently used in comparison to "India," as Indic is to Indo-Aryan. But we don't go around saying: The Himalayas is a mountain chain that flanks India or the Republic of India in the north.

(b) "Indic" has the primary meaning "of India, or more generally, South Asia" (OED) Its etymology in the OED is:  classical Latin Indicus of or relating to India (in a broad sense: see discussion at India n.) or its inhabitants, Indian < ancient Greek Ἰνδικός Indian < Hellenistic Greek Ἰνδία (see India n.) + -ικός -ic suffix. So, there a larger POV (even in the sources): Dravidian languages are Indian, and so "Indic" in the primary meaning of "Indic," but in the secondary meaning (applied to languages), they are not "Indic languages." It is the kind of confusion we want to avoid in an encyclopedia, especially in an article that is not about the entire family of languages.

(c) "Indic" is also used by some academics, some POV promoters, and some Hindu nationalists, to reference religions that are "native" to India in contrast to the so-called "Abrahamic religions:" Islam and Christianity, conveniently forgetting, of course, that Hinduism is not entirely "of India," just as Sanskrit is not either. So what is the point of facilely adding four or five, or 10 or 15 citations at the end? They are useless to us. That sentence is unencyclopedic. It has to go with its bathwater. Now, do you understand? I can do this for pretty much every sentence of the lead. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * PS I just realized that was only half of the lead sentence. The other half is the marvelously redundant Easter Egg: " language of the ancient Indian subcontinent with a 3,500-year history
 * (d) The "Indian-subcontinent" has a primary reference which is geophysical, not political or cultural. ( I mean if we said, "language of the ancient Indian tectonic plate" people would wonder if the dinosaurs in Gondwana were grunting in Sanskrit? ) Nonetheless, the "Indian subcontinent" became a favorite term of some in India after India ceased to be the subcontinent in 1947.  How does that work on Wikipedia? Editors stuff "Indian subcontinent" whenever the geographical extent of the British Indian Empire, or old India, is meant. If in the process they end up indirectly needling Pakistani and Bangladeshi editors, so much the better.
 * (e) South Asia is the NPOV term for the political, historical, archaeological, or cultural entity; except for a narrow meaning in geophysics, "Indian subcontinent" is mostly obsolete.
 * (e) 3,500 year history. Many people consider "Sanskrit" to mean "Sanskrit after Panini," i.e. Classical Sanskrit ca. 600 BCE onward, as distinct from Vedic Sanskrit.  We describe this in an NPOV fashion in the second paragraph.  So, why add something imprecise and controversial in the first sentence, immediately after you are telling the reader to go to the History of India page, and when you really only mean bronze-age South Asia?
 * I did remove text, but did no because I became frustrated with the amount of unencyclopedic material added after the article (accidentally) went off my watchlist a few years ago. (Note: my "you" is generic. No reference to you is implied.)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with the idea of not having to much detailed information in the lead section, which is essentially a must per MOS:LEAD. Lead- and infobox-stuffing does not enhance the quality of an article.
 * Cleaning up the lead requires some vetting whether the deleted material is actually mentioned elsewhere in the page. If not, moving it (+ sources) down to the approriate section (or to a new section, if due) is the default procedure, unless the material is undue for mention not only in the lead, but in the article as a whole (with crappy edit summaries like these,, it is not immediately clear if this was part of your considerations).
 * I haven't gone into details of your revision yet (I don't have the time to do this), but I largely agree with your above mentioned points. E.g. we need not use the less common term "Indic" to characterize Sanskrit. It's a valid alternative name to "Indo-Aryan" (preferred by a solid minority of scholars basically because "Indo-Aryan" is a misnomer: *arya was used in Old Iranian and Old-Indo-Aryan alike), but this detail belongs in the main article Indo-Aryan languages. Among your other points: "South Asia" is definitely the preferred encyclopedic term.
 * I definitely agree with the removal of the endless listing of NIA languages; this is undue here, since NIA languages are derived from OIA, but not necessarily from Sanskrit as we know it. It also invites the addition of every minor NIA variety without reasonable cut-off.
 * I disagree with this part of your revision:
 * ...a philosophical language of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism...
 * "Philosophical language" (piped to Philosophy) is a bit unfortunate, since "philosophical language" usually refers the way of writing and the jargon of philosophy (philiosophical lingo), but not to the language in toto. I prefer the current version, also because Sanskrit has a much higher prominence in texts of Hinduism, while Buddhsim and Jainism lean more on Prakrit texts. IMO, this differentiation is leadworthy.
 * –Austronesier (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The shorter lead reads better, I think; but I agree with Austronesier about Sanskrit & Buddhism; the Pali Canon, arguably the most important Indian Buddhist text, is definitely not written in Sanskrit. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Austronesier and Joshua Jonathan. Also, the lingua franca claim needs qualification, since there were restrictions on the use of Sanskrit by women, if I am not wrong.  Don't the women (and men of lower caste) in Kalidasa's Shakuntala speak in Prakrit instead of Sanskrit? Chaipau (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

, Here are three points of dispute that you mention: Having three points of dispute is hardly a reason for large deletion of the text. These can be discussed in the talk page and arrive at WP:CONSENSUS as against deletion of the almost entire lead section. You mention the reason for deletion to be frustrated with the amount of unencyclopedic material added in the article, frustration can be rightfully vented out in talk pages by providing scholarly citations. If its alright we can take each point and discuss in a separate section. Does that work for you? Jaykul72 (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Jaykul72 (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Use of the phrase "Indo-Aryan" as against "Indo-Aryan or Indic"
 * Age of Classical Sanskrit as against 3500 years of Vedic Sanskrit
 * Indian Subcontinent vs South Asia
 * There isn't only three points of dispute. You missed the elephant in the room—MOS:LEAD. Chaipau (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion above, I have replaced more than a dozen improper instances of "Indian subcontinent" in the article with "South Asia."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry there is no consensus yet on the point about replacing "Indian subcontinent" with "South Asia" Jaykul72 (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted to a version from a few years ago not because I thought it was the be-all and end-all, but because it had less POV (e.g. it didn't say Sanskrit is a living language), less clutter, and in general read better.
 * Like you all, I did wonder about "philosophical language" and "lingua franca." And I've heard it said, of course, that there are etymological connections between "Aryan," "Arya vrata" (Sanskrit: Land of the Arya(ns)),  "Ariana" (the Afghanistan airline), and indeed "Iran" itself.  So, if "Indic" is being used in a clearly understood context, e.g. in a journal, conference, book on linguistics, or, say, in a phylogenetic language tree as one of two branches of Indo-Iranian (Indic and Iranian), that is fine, but out of context it is confusing and POV (for as I say above, Tamil is true "Indic" in the primary meaning of Indic, and Sanskrit, initially a language of migrants, is not).
 * Yes, Sanskrit was very likely not spoken by women (just as Urdu, another language of migrants, was typically not spoken by the women of the Hindu scribal castes (such as Kayasthas). As for lower-castes, of course it was not.  ( What would be the point of the world's oldest system of apartheid, the Hindu caste system, if the lower castes were encouraged to speak Sanskrit.  Lord knows they might want to become priests. )  Summing up: I do not have the time to check all instances of violations of MOS:LEAD, but I had a general sense that there are many and that a clean restart from a previous version would be better than an endless discussion about the present version. Witness, Jaykul72's revert of my edit changing IS to SA.  He seems more interested in edit warring.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverting your edits due to lack of consensus isn't edit warring. Let us WP:FOC. Use the below sub-section to discuss the Indian subcontinent vs South Asia Jaykul72 (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Indian Subcontinent vs South Asia
The phrase used in the lead sentence is "Ancient Indian Subcontinent", I don't see any problem with that as "Indian Subcontinent" is the term used by WP:RS. Your views on the topic The "Indian-subcontinent" has a primary reference which is geophysical, not political or cultural. is WP:OR. Jaykul72 (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * What is this: chopped liver? Oxford English Dictionary (3rd edition 2009, online requires a subscription): Indian subcontinent n. the part of Asia south of the Himalayas which forms a peninsula extending into the Indian Ocean between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal, now divided between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Also used with wider application to include Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. The term is roughly equivalent to South Asia, esp. in the wider use, although Indian subcontinent is sometimes considered to be more of a geophysical description, and South Asia more geopolitical.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:FOC again. We are looking for what WP:RS use to describe the home and origin of Sanskrit language. I am not sure if it helps to use the definitions of "Indian Subcontinent" or "South Asia" and use that as a reference to associate the home of Sanskrit language. I have provided a reference Sharma, A. (2000) says when the tribes moved into "Indian Subcontinent" they started to maintain a record of religious experiences known as Vedas. Sanskrit is the language of Vedas.


 * Jaykul72 (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * One source, two or three is not the way to do it. Obviously, it is not just the OED, it is the scholarly sources, statistically. I have a simple way of figuring this out.  I stick to scholarly books, i.e. those published by academic publishers.  Nothing else is needed.  And among these books, I stick to those with some form of page view on Google as such a search leans towards the more recent usage (which is what we are interested in).  "Indian subcontinent" is being used less and less over the years regardless of how you define it.  How does one do this search?  Here are some statistics:
 * A The total number of scholarly books that reference only India, Pakistan, Bangladesh (i.e. not the other countries such as Sri Lanka or the Maldives) is 174,000. Click on "Tools" to see the number.
 * B The total number that are in A and also reference "South Asia" is 37,700 Click on Tools to see the number
 * C The total number that are in A and also reference "Indian subcontinent" are: 3,290
 * Analysis:
 * The ratio B : A is 1 to 4.6. This means less than one in four books that reference only "India," "Pakistan," and "Bangladesh," call is "South Asia."
 * The ratio C : A is 1 to 52.89. This means less than one in 52 books that reference only "India," "Pakistan," and "Bangladesh," call it "Indian subcontinent."
 * Implication:
 * More than 11 times as many scholarly books which reference only "India," "Pakistan," and "Bangladesh" prefer "South Asia" as a descriptor to "Indian subcontinent"
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if your queries on google books for A: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh or B: South Asia could help here as these terms could be appear in the Copyright page. The count is resulting in the number of books which have any term in A or B but how does that associate with Sanskrit? We are looking for a term or phrase to describe the origin of Sanskrit and home of Sanskrit. The Sharma, A (2000) is a Oxford University Press publication. Jaykul72 (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * We don't know where the "origin" or "home" of Sanskrit is with any geographical precision. It is all based in interpreting the hymns of the Rg Veda and conjecturing what modern geographical features fit the description.  Obviously there is no more a Saraswati river.  The "Indian subcontinent" is mostly obsolete usage.  One scholar's using it does not make the usage contemporary.  Besides not all instances of "Indian subcontinent" have to do with the origin of Sanskrit.  And, what is more, there are not one or two, there are 19 instances of use of "Indian subcontinent!"  Here they are:

1 .

 2. language of the ancient Indian subcontinent with a 3,500-year history.

 3. footer = Left: The Kurgan hypothesis on Indo-European migrations between 4000 and 1000 BCE; right: The geographical spread of the Indo-European languages, with Sanskrit in the Indian subcontinent

 4. In order to explain the common features shared by Sanskrit and other Indo-European languages, the Indo-Aryan migration theory states that the original speakers of what became Sanskrit arrived in the Indian subcontinent from the north-west sometime during the early second millennium BCE.

 5. It is the Indo-Aryan branch that moved into eastern Iran and then south into the Indian subcontinent in the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE. Once in ancient India, the Indo-Aryan language underwent rapid linguistic change and morphed into the Vedic Sanskrit language.

 6. These Vedic documents reflect the dialects of Sanskrit found in the various parts of the northwestern, northern and eastern Indian subcontinent.

7 . Scharfe adds that the best evidence, at the time of his review, is that no script was used in India, aside from the Northwest Indian subcontinent, before around 300 BCE

8 . It connected scholars from distant parts of the Indian subcontinent such as Tamil Nadu and Kashmir, states Deshpande, as well as those from different fields of studies, though there must have been differences in its pronunciation given the first language of the respective speakers.

9, 10 . Sanskrit has significantly influenced most modern languages of the Indian subcontinent, particularly the languages of the northern, western, central and eastern Indian subcontinent.

 11. This coincides with the beginning of Islamic invasions of the Indian subcontinent

 12. After Islamic rule disintegrated in the Indian subcontinent and the colonial rule era began, Sanskrit re-emerged but in the form of a "ghostly existence" in regions such as Bengal. This decline was the result of "political institutions and civic ethos" that did not support the historic Sanskrit literary culture.

13 . The Sanskrit language's historic presence is attested across a wide geography beyond the Indian subcontinent. Inscriptions and literary evidence suggests that Sanskrit language was already being adopted in Southeast Asia and Central Asia in the 1st millennium CE, through monks, religious pilgrims and merchants

 14. The Indian subcontinent has been the geographic range of the largest collection of the ancient and pre-18th-century Sanskrit manuscripts and inscriptions

 15. The earliest possible script from the Indian subcontinent is from the Indus Valley Civilization (3rd/2nd millennium BCE), but this script – if it is a script – remains undeciphered.

 16. The Kharosthi was used in the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent and it became extinct, while the Brahmi was used in all over the subcontinent along with regional scripts such as Old Tamil.

17 . Further, a closer examination reveals that they all have the similar basic graphic principles, the same varnamala (literally, "garland of letters") alphabetic ordering following the same logical phonetic order, easing the work of historic skilled scribes writing or reproducing Sanskrit works across the Indian subcontinent.

18. In the eastern regions of the Indian subcontinent, scholars report minor Sanskrit inscriptions from the 2nd century, these being fragments and scattered.

 19. By about the 14th century, with the Islamic armies conquering more of the Indian subcontinent, the use of Sanskrit language for inscriptions became rarer and it was replaced with Persian, Arabic, Dravidian and North-Indo-Aryan languages, states Salomon.

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The ratio of "indian subcontinent"+"sanskrit"-"south asia" vs. "south asia"+"sanskrit"-"indian subcontinent" on Goole Scholar is 1 : 3. Not as impressive as in the general search, but the ratio clearly still leans towards "South Asia" even in the specific context of "Sanskrit". –Austronesier (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fun fact, since a OUP source is cited: if we add OUP in the search ("indian subcontinent"+"sanskrit"+"oxford university press"-"south asia" vs. "south asia"+"sanskrit"+"oxford university press"-"indian subcontinent"), the ratio in favor of "South Asia" rises to 1 : 5. –Austronesier (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Mine was actually not a general search, but a very restricted binary search in books published by: "university press" OR "MIT" OR "Academic Press" OR "Springer" OR "Routledge" OR "Macmillan" OR "Elsevier"  OR "Wiley" OR "Sage" OR "Blackwell" OR "Pergamon"  which I call scholarly publishers (who have some kind of oversight for DUE, which among other things includes OUP, CUP, Harvard, Chicago, etc) In my experience Google Scholar (especially now that you cannot restricts its search to the best-known journals) is not the best.  Authors from India are the overwhelming users of the expression "Indian subcontinent" even in geophysics, and some of the publications are dubious.  Google scholar is good for citation indexes of the publications though.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * If you want to see the search argument for your search among "scholarly" sources, type the following in Google Books (including the quotes): "Indian subcontinent" AND "Sanskrit" -"South Asia" inpublisher:"university press" | inpublisher:"MIT" | inpublisher:"Academic Press" | inpublisher:"Springer" | inpublisher:"Routledge" | inpublisher:"Macmillan" | inpublisher:"Elsevier" | inpublisher:"Wiley" | inpublisher:"Sage" | inpublisher:"Blackwell" | inpublisher:"Pergamon"  It will give you 3,130 returns (Again: click on "Tools" to see the number.).  For the other search, you will need to type (in Google Books): "Sanskrit" AND "South Asia" -"Indian subcontinent"  inpublisher:"university press" | inpublisher:"MIT" | inpublisher:"Academic Press" | inpublisher:"Springer" | inpublisher:"Routledge" | inpublisher:"Macmillan" | inpublisher:"Elsevier" | inpublisher:"Wiley" | inpublisher:"Sage" | inpublisher:"Blackwell" | inpublisher:"Pergamon" and that will give you 24,900 returns.  This is approximately 1 to 8 (IS to SA).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have mentioned this earlier, the method being employed to search on google books is not fool proof - "South Asia" phrase could be appearing on the copyright page of the book right under the publisher address. It would be a hasty conclusion in such case to associate the "South Asia" reference to Sanskrit. What do WP:RS scholarship say about the region where Sanskrit language had origins, has been practiced, is in use? I have provided one of them. Here are a few more reputable sources:
 * Besides that synthesis of a report from google search is original research? Jaykul72 (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Jaykul72 (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Besides that synthesis of a report from google search is original research? Jaykul72 (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Jaykul72 (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Besides that synthesis of a report from google search is original research? Jaykul72 (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Jaykul72 (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Besides that synthesis of a report from google search is original research? Jaykul72 (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Jaykul72 (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Besides that synthesis of a report from google search is original research? Jaykul72 (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Jaykul72 (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * If "Indian subcontinent" is significant cultural, political, historical, or referential usage, it too will appear on the copyright pages and cancel the effect of "South Asia" appearing there. 11 to one in scholarly sources (or 8 to 1 with inclusion of Sanskrit) is a good majority.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * May I remind that you have not answered my questions on WP:OR using google search results to substantiate your changes from Indian Subcontinent to South Asia is original research. There has been no reliable published sources that has been provided in these discussions which show that Sanskrit language is associated with South Asia rather than Indian Subcontinent.
 * Jaykul72 (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Jaykul72 (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I would like to raise a dispute on this unilateral change without consensus on the No original research Noticeboard Jaykul72 (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The policy WP:OR is about article content. On the take page, we can employ every method that deems apt to estimate WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE. It's part of consensus finding/building. –Austronesier (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the reliable published source behind this change? When the cited sources have mentioned "Indian Subcontinent" the phrase has been replaced with "South Asia". This is WP:SYNTH. .

I have raised a dispute [here] Jaykul72 (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Jaykul72: Are you forum shopping now? What then is the point of discussing the same in two places?    Are you aware that ABC-CLIO is not a reliable publisher?  They allowed one of their authors to plagiarize my articles on Indian famines, i.e. copy from them verbatim! See the evidence. To continue to dump sources without examining them or their publisher carefully can be a form of disruption.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not a India related article but South Asia now as you just lead edited the change. The citation is valid for South Asia. ABC-CLIO is also widely cited in several other pages. Are you going to answer my questions on WP:OR? Strongly object unilateral updates on this page without any WP:CONSENSUS. I take Wikipedia guidelines on dispute resolution seriously and not ridicule them as "forum shopping". Jaykul72 (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Jaykul72 (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a clear policy that discourages WP:forumshopping. It's even part of WP:CONSENSUS which you have cited. I already have answered about WP:OR, why should Fowler&fowler redundantly engage in repeating it? –Austronesier (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Add: you cannot out of hand "object unilateral updates on this page", this violates WP:OWN. Only admins are entitled to bar editors from doing undiscussed edits to a page e.g. by applying full page protection in edit war situations. –Austronesier (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The rationale is clear to me: "Indian subcontinent" is tied to the British Empire, while "South Asia" is a more neutral, and up-to-date, term. I therefor prefer "South Asia." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't agree that "Indian subcontinent" is tied to the British Empire; "South Asia" may be more "up-to-date", and is certainly more American, but it is not thereby more neutral.  What would be the "non-neutral" implications of "Indian subcontinent"?  Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, this is a clear statement on this: https://idsa.in/askanexpert/difference-between-south-asia-and-indian-subcontinent. Chaipau (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which says nothing at all about it being "tied to the British Empire"! Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * you possibly missed this: As a geographical expression, Indian subcontinent encompassed the British colonial administrative unit called India, which comprised of the present day states of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Chaipau (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No - I didn't - and as people are pointing out, it usually included the southern slopes of the Himalayas, including Nepal, Bhutan (especially on its older borders), and Ladakh. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The term "Indian sub-continent" is not associated with the British Empire since "Indian subcontinent" also includes Nepal which was never part of British India. 2401:4900:4BC6:A83D:D4F3:538F:4E2B:A69F (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I know. Don't tell me, tell User:Joshua Jonathan. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The term "Indian sub-continent" is not associated with the British Empire since "Indian subcontinent" also includes Nepal which was never part of British India. @ Raising objection on talk page isn't about barring anyone. Following basic dispute resolution by raising in one forum isn't WP:forumshop. @ what is your opinion on WP:OR? Jaykul72 (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with and others—we should use "South Asia" instead of "Indian subcontinent" for the reasons stated above.  Chaipau (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The term "Indian sub-continent" is not associated with the British Empire since "Indian subcontinent" also includes Nepal which was never part of British India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:4BC6:A83D:D4F3:538F:4E2B:A69F (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really in the primary meaning. See the Oxford English Dictionary above.  In the main it means the geographical extent of the British Raj, i.e. today's India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.  Period. It is not also the Indian tectonic plate, as Baluchistan is not on the Indian plate, but is in the subcontinent.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC

It is the usual problem on Wikipedia. IPs are reverting away without offering any reasons. Can they tell me when the neuter nomin version sankritam—which is being fetishized on this page to give the extinct language a sheen of currency—first appeared in Sanskrit with the meaning of the finished, polished, well-wrought language? I doubt it. If they really care, why is a bogus cite to dictionary.com masquerading as evidence for sanskritam? Can't these reverters at least cite to a classical Sanskrit English dictionary such as Apte or Monier-Williams? Go figure. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The (logged-out?) IP-hopper has already violated 3RR, so I have requested for an upgrade from PCP to semi. Whether the IP is range-blockable, I'll leave it to experts. Regarding "sankritam": we already had gone one step forward (Talk:Sanskrit/Archive_8), and then two steps back. –Austronesier (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * With semi-PP, we can proceed to make constructive edits, and discuss where necessary, without stonewalling reverts by (logged-out?) IPs that don't say anything but "I don't like it". –Austronesier (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment This is a bit longish for information that separates the subject and the main verb of the opening sentence, no?
 * (, from verb संस्कृ attributively संस्कृत, and nominalization संस्कृतं )

What about moving parts of it to "Etymology and nomenclature"? –Austronesier (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That it was. :) I've reduced it in response to your post .  Is it better now? The reason for the length is that in the broad scale of things the language (including Vedic) had a life of 2850 years (i.e. 1500 BCE to 1350 CE approx).  The nominalization -am does not seem to appear until the 8th century CE.  That means for the first 3/4 of its life it was either not called anything, or alluded to in various combinations, "polished language" "artificial language" etc. I think it is important not to reduce it to the -am version.  I am unfortunately out of time.  If you can reduce it further without introducing the -am POV, please do so.  Thanks for this helpful post.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This back and forth over a term that is similar is petty. I am fine with either. My two cents, South Asia is used mainly in America and UK, while the subcontinent is used in the region and the wider world. So, is being most neutral. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'm actually happy with either, and myself mostly use "South Asia", but I was stirred to comment by the suggestion that "subcontinent" is non-neutral & some kind of British Imperialist term, which is nonsense, and the sort of very unhelpful argument that tends to emerge in discussions of various topics in the region. Johnbod (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * برصغیر پاک و ہند is the Indo-Pak subcontinent, not the Indian. And, what wider world?  Do they even have a word for "subcontinent" in the vast majority of the world's languages, short of clapping together an artificial "sub" + "continent?" If so, what does it mean?  Please enlighten me.  It is vague enough in English, applied as it was once to North and South America, Australia, ...  And Zakaria are you forum POV promoting now?  Had you ever made any edits on this page before you made a revert a few hours ago? Asking for admin help:  how often are we going to conduct the same RfC in different places: See the clear consensus in Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilisation/Archive_5.  See the lead sentence of India ("... is a country in South Asia") not "... is a country on/in the Indian subcontinent"  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC) (Added later: this was a reply to   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC))
 * PS What do the other Wikipedia country pages say? Pakistan ("... is a country in South Asia"), Bangladesh (... is a country in South Asia), Nepal ("... is a sovereign country in South Asia"), Bhutan ("is a landlocked country in the Eastern Himalayas in South Asia"), Sri Lanka (is an island country in South Asia)  These new editors are suddenly restarting old settled disputes (see Mehrgarh, Caste.  Never made any edit before.  Awarding barnstars all-round.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * PS2 Also pinging Sorry about this but this is becoming seriously disruptive.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a platform for "dispute" as seen, may I remind you of the third pillar of Wikipedia WP:5P3 is that anyone can use, edit, and distribute. In fact WP:BOLD urges editors to "Go for it" and further says "be bold when updating the encyclopedia". So what is the nature of disruption that is being referred here? Jaykul72 (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not quite historical linguistics, but you might be interested to know that the current Hindi word for subcontinent, (उपमहाद्वीप​ (up-mahadweep), is not to be found (see here), in the world's largest monolingual Hindi dictionary, the 11-volume Dasa's Śabdasagar compiled between 1965 and 1975. It shows how modern, and in some ways how artificial, this construction is. Austronesier, you might be interested to know that the publisher of this dictionary, the Nagari Pracharini Sabha was also at the helm of the Hindi movement of the late 19th century, the one that set off the so-called Hindi-Urdu divergence. In other words, if there were half a snowball's chance in hell of the word "up (sub) mahadweep (continent)" surviving into the nearest of futures, they would have put it in. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  09:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well the "subcontinent" is certainly not a British imperialist term, but it is a term more current in British English than in other Englishes. I don't want to go dredging Google, but even in British English "the subcontinent" did gain much currency during the heyday of the Raj, i.e. the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I see it as a term of casual grandiosity for an imperial possession that would most certainly not have appeared in the language had India been a Spanish colony. That the term has been adopted in the post-colonial successor states, most prolifically and grandiosely in the one whose name (and nationality) it references ("India") is not a surprise. It is obviously fast disappearing in scholarly usage, and scholarly nomenclature, even in British English.  How many "Department(s) of Indian subcontinental studies" are there?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ... continuing my investigations ... The Urdu word for subcontinent برصغیر (barr-e-saGheer) is similarly of recent origin. بر (bar) which is an older word comes from Arabic via Persian: A بر barr, s.m. Dry land. land, desert.  Continent is: — barr-ě-aʻẕam, where A اعظم aʻz̤am is another Arabic adj. (compar. & superl. (of عظيم ʻaz̤īm)), meaning Greater; greatest; very great. Now comes the tricky part: "continent" in Urdu already has the meaning of "greater or greatest of land," so how do we "sub" it?  The word chosen for subbing is another Arabic word via Persian, A صغیر ṣag̠ẖīr, meaning Small, little, inferior, junior, minor. So properly it should be "the small/inferior of the greater land," something like: barr-ě-aʻẕam-e-ṣag̠ẖīr, but that would be a mouthful, so it was shortened to برصغیر barr-e-ṣag̠ẖīr (I've added the izafat (e) in the roman, but they are typically ignored in Urdu (for adults) unless disambiguation is essential) The Urdu word for subcontinent is not found,  in Platts. 1880s.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Finally, just as has said perceptively somewhere upstairs that he himself uses "South Asia," I'd like to say that I use "subcontinent" all the time and I don't want it banished from Wikipedia.  It is appropriate for use with South Asia, especially if we are referencing the non-island states or stylistically if we are trying to avoid repetition.  There are all sorts of other instances in which it is appropriate—I mean its use is an art of sorts, not a science.  For example, I support IS in Kashmir. but SA in Indus Valley Civilisation.  But when POV promoters employ it, there is tell-tale incongruousness in their edits.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I just realized I turned 14 on WP earlier this week. As this is being in the 80s in human years, allow me to hook my thumbs in my suspenders, braces, or galluses and recount what I have observed of the blatant version of the POV: (a) when it is something positive, and the topic betrays inklings of other present-day nations or nationalities, try to apply the descriptor "India" or "Indian subcontinent"; if it is something negative, and the descriptor is "India," try to replace it with "South Asia." So Sanskrit obviously would be Indian or Indian subcontinental; the caste system would be South Asian.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am shocked that you spelled out your own POV. When something is positive about the region, you love using South Asia, but use "India" for any negatives. As mentioned above, I don't care much about it, but Wikipedia has tools for us to discover when someone has a clear POV. For Mughal Empire, one of the greatest empire in the region, you changed the lede to South Asia, I actually agree with you on it, though many sources still use India to describe it. However, for Sati (practice), you linked to the modern nation of India as seen here, you knew well that by the time of modern Republic of India came into existence, Sati practice was almost obsolete, and edit warred to keep “India” in the lede, instead of South Asia. In kurta, even when the sources used "India", you edit-warred for South Asia, stating The India of the ref is the South Asia of today and Old India and South Asia are the same, that is WP:OR (what is Old India, defined by whom?). And edit warring with me on caste to include only India in the lede, when South Asia there was most appropriate, since this is a Hindu practice all over the region and mentioned in the plurality of the references, and even practiced by Sikhs, Christians, and Muslims, all over the region. Again, I am fine with either, what I am concerned about is that you maybe trying to demonise a group of people or nationality. I have informed you several times to be more careful. The liberal in me is an optimist, I hope you will change your ways and be more collaborative, instead of seeming to be prejudice by others and use less of these caustic statements, which helps no one. Since, I posted this in WP:good faith, and sysop  is the only sysop who is commenting on this page, I hope they can moderate, since Fowler&fowler has a history with me and others of being aggressive and caustic. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This talk page is about improving the Sanskrit page. If you have any issues with my behavior, please take me to ANI or any other forum of your choice. However, littering this talk page with long disquisitions about your assessment of whatever it is you are attempting to ferret out in my behavior is a violation of WP rules. Have you understood that? '''Stop it. Enough is enough.'''. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC) (edit-conflict) Can you summarize in two short sentences how this is related to the improvement of this page, Sanskrit? If not, please collapse it and bring it up where might better be in place. rightfully reminds all to WP:FOC, since we all have made minor digressions here and there which were nevertheless related to our discussion. But this is totally off-topic. –Austronesier (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * my comment was a good faith response to this comment of Fowler&fowler, which was making a POV assumption about others here on this page and elsewhere, about which term should be used in Sanskrit. I wrote a detailed response in defense of others here on this page and the POV which the user themselves is promoting on this page. I made a revert in agreement was an IP, specifically with the use of “medieval South Asia”, a term not popular in academia yet, and found that to be WP:OR and WP:Fringe. In addition, medieval South Asia in the northwest, where I come from, already adopted Islam by that time, and we did not use Sanskrit much, if at all. Using Medieval India would have been most appropriate. I also have an issue of them using Hindu pictures for a language non-Hindus like Buddhists and Jains used throughout history. However, Fowler&fowler restored this disputed content before I returned. We live in different time zones. Like I said earlier, I do find this entire dispute in this particular section petty, but I want to make sure there is no POV here and described it in detail on my response to the post above it. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Fowler&fowler, I also agree with and, both works. In Indian English and Pakistani English, subcontinent is more widely used. South Asia is a modern geopolitical definition of the region used mainly by Americans and some academics in the UK starting in the mid-20th century. You need to explain what Indo-Pak subcontinent is, it is WP:OR. Shankargb (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Urdu term in Pakistan is برصغیر پاک و ہند Barr-e-saGhir pak-o-hind, or Indo-Pak Subcontinent.  See Google Books search with 28,000 returns   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Many Pakistanis also write South Asian subcontinent That's another 19,000 book returns. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Here's more definitive proof: A binary search: "indo-pakistan subcontinent" OR "indo-pak subcontinent" OR "india-pakistan subcontinent" OR "south asian subcontinent"  OR "South Asia" site:com.pk  yields 221,000 returns in Pakistani sites.  But the binary search:"Indian subcontinent" site:.com.pk  yields 9,000 returns.  221/9 = 26 to 1.  The Pakistani preference is clear: South Asia or "Indo-Pak subcontinent," but not "Indian subcontinent." Very best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fowler&fowler, in Pakistan we just say "subcontinent" not "Indian subcontinent" or "Indo-Pak subcontinent". India and Pakistan didn't exist before 1947. In Urdu, it is just "برصغیر" not "برصغیر پاک و ہند"‎. Pakistanis who speak Pakistani English mainly use "subcontinent", Indian English speakers use "Indian subcontinent" and American English speakers use South Asia, British English speakers use all 3. It is that simple. This is English Wikipedia, we use the type of English used in various countries. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course in Urdu it is barr-e-saGhir even in India. But if Pakistanis are asked to identify the subcontinent by name, they are not likely to say "Indian subcontinent."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, I am a man in my mid-40s, I never heard of this South Asian subcontinent you linked in my life. So, I opened it, in the first page, out of the 11 books, only 4 clearly used South Asian subcontinent, the rest used "South Asia" with mention of the word "subcontinent". This example of yours is very poor and highly inaccurate. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again with the WP:OR! Most will say "subcontinent" because only few in their Pakistani English speaking lifetime do they have to explain what it is. They will use Pakistan first, subcontinent next. I have never heard a Pakistani use Indo-Pak subcontinent or South Asian subcontinent in my life. I have been a Pakistani for 40+ years of my life. You are playing politics. Cheers! Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have now factored out Google books which is international and may have caused the confusion. So only on Pakistani cites: 427 returns and they all say in full "south asian subcontinent."  That term, btw, has been around, long before the partition of India.  The OED cites it in 1920 as an example of attested usage: 1920   Nation 20 16   The ‘Indian States’..cover, in various degrees of subjection to Great Britain, over a third of the South Asian sub-continent.
 * Also, Pakistanis today don't seem to prefer "subcontinent" to "South Asia" in pubished material. The binary search: "south asia" site:com.pk -site:books.google.com.pk (which again factors out Google books which is international) yields 202,000 returns  The binary search: "subcontinent" site:com.pk -site:books.google.com.pk yiels 45,000 returns That's 4.5 to 1 for South Asia.  Don't underestimate the NPOV power of today's internet.  Heresay is not always accurate.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It is important to be clear: we are not talking about speech, only published material. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are now moving the goal post after I dissected your POV again and again. Look, I read Pakistani English and Urdu books and newspapers. I read both Urdu and Pakistani English newspapers almost everyday. What you are saying is not true. You did this inaccurate Google search which has little peer review or any evidence of complete accuracy for me to find it of any value; you clearly falsified the first time either purposefully or unintentionally. What I know is undisputable, from experience and reading all my life, Pakistani English and Urdu use "subcontinent", not what you mentioned above. Kindly do not move the goal post again, I am not very fond of this game, which is moving to a point of dishonestly and unethical behaviour. I understand how to read and write Urdu. You would have been able to succeed with everyone else here, but thankfully, I am wise to all of these tricks. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Self-descriptions and self-assessments are of no value to Wikipedia, only the evidence is. As for "barr-e-saGhir pak-o-hind," it is used in printed Urdu in Pakistan.  A binary Google search: "برصغیر پاک و ہند" site:com.pk -site:books.google.com.pk brings up 10,500 returns, many to Urdu newspapers in Pakistan.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the change from Indian Subcontinent to South Asia. It is WP:OR to replace 19 lines on the page from Indian Subcontinent to South Asia that an editor thinks correctly describes. Every sentence has a different meaning if there is a reason for change each of those line change should be discussed here. There are valid citations:
 * The search methodology is WP:OR and flawed, look at this citation search result from the query, What is this search result got to do with Sanskrit?
 * We have dragged this for too long and need to conclude Jaykul72 (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Jaykul72 (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. The consensus has already happened on Indus Valley Civilisation, in Talk:India, in the lead sentences of all the country articles India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Maldives. They all say only "South Asia."  You don't have any evidence.  Neither you nor Zakaria has any significant record of content creation on Wikipedia. You have just arrived. All you do is hold forth on talk pages without cogency.  It is not going to happen.  If you edit war, you are looking at penalties.  Don't say I did not warn you (both).  Wikipedia is not only about endlessly wasting time on talk pages, quoting rules, and more rules, without creating any content.  Wikipedia is not a democracy in that facile sense, it is a democracy only of ideas and arguments advanced.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We have dragged this for too long and need to conclude Jaykul72 (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Jaykul72 (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. The consensus has already happened on Indus Valley Civilisation, in Talk:India, in the lead sentences of all the country articles India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Maldives. They all say only "South Asia."  You don't have any evidence.  Neither you nor Zakaria has any significant record of content creation on Wikipedia. You have just arrived. All you do is hold forth on talk pages without cogency.  It is not going to happen.  If you edit war, you are looking at penalties.  Don't say I did not warn you (both).  Wikipedia is not only about endlessly wasting time on talk pages, quoting rules, and more rules, without creating any content.  Wikipedia is not a democracy in that facile sense, it is a democracy only of ideas and arguments advanced.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. The consensus has already happened on Indus Valley Civilisation, in Talk:India, in the lead sentences of all the country articles India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Maldives. They all say only "South Asia."  You don't have any evidence.  Neither you nor Zakaria has any significant record of content creation on Wikipedia. You have just arrived. All you do is hold forth on talk pages without cogency.  It is not going to happen.  If you edit war, you are looking at penalties.  Don't say I did not warn you (both).  Wikipedia is not only about endlessly wasting time on talk pages, quoting rules, and more rules, without creating any content.  Wikipedia is not a democracy in that facile sense, it is a democracy only of ideas and arguments advanced.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Kindly enlighten me, if such a consensus exists, which doesn't because of WP:OTHERSTUFF, why are you using "India" on Caste instead of South Asia? Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * if you want to change it, go ahead. Most users here, except Fowler&fowler, do not care., and I are fine with it. That makes it 4 vs. 1, you have WP:Consensus. Every article is different, even Fowler&fowler used subcontinent in Kashmir. Also, we have a policy: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And here is Jimmy Wales the founder of Wikipedia: "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.Jimmy Wales, An Encyclopedist's Lair, NY Times, November 18, 2007" Of course, he is being provocative, sardonic, not literal. He does not really mean people are idiots, but that they are being unproductive, not creating reliable content.  He's saying that ultimately WP respects knowledge, not mindless POV.  How do you think I feel, endlesslessly responding to unprepared, arrogant posts, from you guys, without content, without rigor, without neutrality? You have done nothing on Wikipedia, not even a thousand edits, most without content.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

And btw,, have also gone on record stating a preference for "South Asia." And has not said he prefers the Indian subcontinent to South Asia; in fact, he has said he prefers South Asia himself but opposes the notion of the "Indian subcontinent" being coupled with British imperialism, something about which I agree with him. Please don't misstate the situation or overplay your hand here. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am not doing any change on the page. You are most welcome not to respond to any discussion here, if you are sure that due consideration has been provided to the argument. We are all volunteers WP:VOLUNTEER no wasting of anyone's time. It would be false accusation to say I am being disruptive Jaykul72 (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So please tell your pal here to not egg you on. Disown his nonsense.  Do you seriously think I have not thought about what "South Asia" is, as the primary author of India, British Raj, Company rule in India, British India, and Kashmir over 14 years?   I mean what is this obsession for hanging your hat on this old usage, and then accusing me of not responding to you?  Seriously? Count my edits on this talk page during the last week. Enough is enough. You need to do something else.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again false accusations and baseless assumptions, which pal? edit counts WP:EC. Please stop this false accusations. WP:FOC I mentioned this countless times on the page now. Jaykul72 (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, kindly enlighten me, if such a consensus exists, which doesn't because of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:WORKINPROGRESS, why are you using "India" on Caste instead of South Asia? Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am warning you. If you keep up your disruptive bickering here, I will take you to ANI and request a topic ban for you from India-related topics broadly construed.  I have experience in this and success. I don't give out such warnings lightly. Please don't overplay your hand. You have done nothing on this page but Wikilawyer. You know nothing about Sanskrit.  Nothing.  I will not be responding to you.  But if you edit war, I will take you to ANI.  Good night.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This issue sprang back into focus today when an IP editor put back Indian subcontinent. This time I actually went ahead and read what Wikipedia says about "Indian subcontinent". This is in the lead The Indian subcontinent, or, sometimes simply called the subcontinent, is a physiographical region in southern Asia, situated on the Indian Plate and projecting southwards into the Indian Ocean from the Himalayas. Geologically, the Indian subcontinent is related to the landmass that rifted from Gondwana and merged with the Eurasian landmass nearly 55 million years ago. How is a "physiographical" region relevant to an article on Sanskrit? Does the Indian plate define the birthplace of Sanskrit? It makes no sense to link Sanskrit to the "Indian subcontinent" article unless we want to search for Sanskrit in Gondwana. Chaipau (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan vs Indic
I applied the research methodology suggested by Fowler&fowler to search for A: Sanskrit and Indo-Aryan and B: Sanskrit and Indic. The results are A: 7480 [] and B: 8140 []. I propose the lead line be modified as below:

Scholarly quotes:

Jaykul72 (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Jaykul72 (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * See Indic languages. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Indic is more suitable considering research results, also classical language being referred here isn't directly a child of IA but Vedic Sanskrit is the Old Indo-Aryan language. As Fowler&fowler says Many people consider "Sanskrit" to mean "Sanskrit after Panini," i.e. Classical Sanskrit Jaykul72 (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Start a move discussion for "Indo-Aryan languages" first. And don't forget to bring in the search results for:
 * "Sanskrit" + "Indo-Aryan languages": 2,630
 * "Sanskrit" + "Indic languages": 663
 * or without "Sanskrit":


 * "Indo-Aryan languages": 9,470
 * "Indic languages": 2.020
 * The initial search was flawed, because the adjective "Indic" can refer to much more than just languages (e.g. scripts including those for Dravidian languages), while "Indo-Aryan" is intimately tied to the language subgroup. "Indo-Aryan" is the WP:COMMONNAME. –Austronesier (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Add It has just come to my mind, a month ago you inserted a new sub-subsection "Influence of Sanskrit on Dravidian Languages" in the subsection 8.1., which then was (and still is—again) headed "Indic languages". This looks like a rather fluid application of the term "Indic languages": a month ago covering "Indo-Aryan" + "Dravidian", but now equalling (and outranking in prevalence) "Indo-Aryan"? –Austronesier (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Is Indo-European language fit for removal in the lead line?
I did a quick study of other language pages on Wikipedia, I find that it is not a usual precedent to show great-grand parent language in the lead paragraph. English - No, Swedish - No, Danish - No, Norwegian - No, German - No, Swedish - No. So is it fit to remove "branch of the Indo-European languages" from the below sentence:

Jaykul72 (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's a basic fact of Indian history that this language-family was introduced by migrations - and a basic fact that some people don't like this fact. See User:Jaykul72/Flawed Aryan Invasion Theory and Talk:Historical Vedic religion. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear fellow editor, while I like you, may I please remind you of WP:ADHOMINEM Jaykul72 (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * did I call you a vandal? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No you didn't, the shortcut link is incorrect WP:ADHOMINEM points to a wrong page although it shows on a different page! Well, I meant WP:PA point 2 Jaykul72 (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No. "Other WP articles are XYZ..." is not a valid argument unless they follow a WP rule or guideline. Every article has its own story. Also there are other IE languages that mention their root in the lead section; e.g. French, Persian, Russian, and many others. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly ! Besides, we are talking here about a language which is one of the three traditionally cited pillars of the Indo-European linguistics Cf Latin and Greek language. What do you see there? Please don't waste community time with unprepared posts and dramatic new sections, all busted flushes. Please collapse this thread. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, and including it does not create undue weight Many languages have the highest order language family in the lead: French – yes, Pashto – yes, Persian – yes, Irish – yes, Malay – yes, Somali – yes, Vietnamese – yes. And first of all: Latin – yes. What is good for Latin, won't hurt for Sanskrit. –Austronesier (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * please WP:VOLUNTEER "free time", "no set crews" Jaykul72 (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the Indo-European language classification is being misinformed as the source of Sanskrit but the due is for Vedic Sanskrit as the parent language. Let me quote here some citations:
 * The evidence of Proto-Indo-European is hypothetical as Leonard Bloomfield says:
 * Unfortunately, there are no grammarians in Greek and Latin that have documented any:
 * Only evidence of the PIE language comes from a study of sound changes and some artifacts excavated in northwestern China:
 * Bryant quotes Dhar that it was Vedic Sanskrit that has retained phonology with the hypothetical PIE:
 * It is Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit that are similar:
 * On the basis of the above: Vedic Sanskrit which is the 3500 year real parent language should be provided DUE in the lead line as the parent of Classical Sanskrit rather than Indo-European language.
 * Fowler&fowler you might possibly have a worldview of these discussions as "disputes", possibly that explains the frustrations, but for me this is learning. Wikipedia provides the catalyst for people to read books. Jaykul72 (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC) Jaykul72 (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Number of scholarly citations mentioned in this discussion till now: FF:0, A:0, JJ:0, JK: 14 Jaykul72 (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit that are similar:
 * On the basis of the above: Vedic Sanskrit which is the 3500 year real parent language should be provided DUE in the lead line as the parent of Classical Sanskrit rather than Indo-European language.
 * Fowler&fowler you might possibly have a worldview of these discussions as "disputes", possibly that explains the frustrations, but for me this is learning. Wikipedia provides the catalyst for people to read books. Jaykul72 (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC) Jaykul72 (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Number of scholarly citations mentioned in this discussion till now: FF:0, A:0, JJ:0, JK: 14 Jaykul72 (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On the basis of the above: Vedic Sanskrit which is the 3500 year real parent language should be provided DUE in the lead line as the parent of Classical Sanskrit rather than Indo-European language.
 * Fowler&fowler you might possibly have a worldview of these discussions as "disputes", possibly that explains the frustrations, but for me this is learning. Wikipedia provides the catalyst for people to read books. Jaykul72 (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC) Jaykul72 (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Number of scholarly citations mentioned in this discussion till now: FF:0, A:0, JJ:0, JK: 14 Jaykul72 (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm trying very hard to understand what you're trying to say with this collection of quotes (talking about WP:OR...). If I understand you correct, you're saying:
 * PIE is a theoretical reconstruction, initially based on a comparison of Greek, Latin and Sanskrit. So? Trying to dismiss linguistics? That's a standard fallacy from the Indigenist playbook;
 * Noting that Panini's Aṣṭādhyāyī has no equavalence in Greel and Latin. So? What's the argument? That Greek and Latin can't be used to make a comparison with Sanskrit, and that PIE therefore lacks a solid ground?
 * Indeed dismissing linguistics: "Only evidence of the PIE language comes from a study of sound changes." Kleinedler uses the phrase "only evidence" for archaeological artifacts, not for the linguistic reconstruction. Worse, you've omitted part of the source. The full quote is as follows:
 * You're grossly misrepresenting (or misunderstanding?) the source. It is this kind of editing which is so frustrating.
 * Regarding Dhar:
 * - Despite the rejection of linguistics, you're now arguing that Sanskrit is the language closest to the "parent ground," that is, PIE. Which was just a theoretical reconstruction, right?
 * - The argument that Sanskrit is the most ancient language is also common Indigenist lore.
 * - When referring to an author who responds to another author, you should first provide that author's view; otherwise, the response lacks context. "Latham's hypothesis" refers to Robert Gordon Latham, who argued that the languages closest to the area of origin display the largest variation.
 * - Not to mention the date of publication of Dhar, 1930; and his thesis that the "original homeland' was situated in the Himalayas.
 * Lastly, stating that 'Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit are similar.'
 * So, if I understand you correctly:
 * PIE is the parent language of Vedic Sanskrit, while Vedic Sanskrit is the parent language of Classical Sanskrit;
 * PIE is a theoretical reconstruction, yet Vedic Sanskrit is the ancient Indo-European language closest to PIE;
 * 'Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit are similar'.
 * Therefore, Indo-European should not be mentioned in the lead.
 * I'd conclude, following your arguments and quotes, that Classical Sanskrit is the language closest to PIE. Which makes no sense, of course. But what does make sense is that linguistics is a solid science, showing that Sanskrit descends from PIE. Further, Sanskrit has played a major role in the reconstruction of PIE, which makes it important information to mention in the article, and therefore is also mentioned in the lead. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd conclude, following your arguments and quotes, that Classical Sanskrit is the language closest to PIE. Which makes no sense, of course. But what does make sense is that linguistics is a solid science, showing that Sanskrit descends from PIE. Further, Sanskrit has played a major role in the reconstruction of PIE, which makes it important information to mention in the article, and therefore is also mentioned in the lead. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I am after this change in the lead line:

Jaykul72 (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And I haven't misunderstood or misquoted Kleinedler, full quote just goes on further reinstate the point that even the descendants of the PIE family from the area of Eastern Europe and Aral Sea, the Tocharian family, has died out. So there is no substantial evidence except for the artifacts of permits of local caravan routes.
 * However, the PIE->Vedic Sanskrit->Classical Sanskrit is undisputed. Jaykul72 (talk) 07:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, there are no citations for the text: "of the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-European languages" Jaykul72 (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * "Sanskrit" seems to be used here as a family name, for both Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit; so it makes no sense to say that Sanskrit originated from Vedic Sanskrit. At best, you can say that Classical Sanskrit originated from Vedic sanskrit. Which the lead already says, though in a strange way: "Modern Sanskrit is traceable to the 2nd millennium BCE in a form known as Vedic Sanskrit". What is "modern Sanskrit"?
 * And yes, you did, and do, misrepresent Kleinedler. Kleinedler refers to "The only evidence of their [Tocharian] existence." By omitting part of the quote, you suggest that Kleinedler refers to scarce archaeological evidence for PIE. And you're dismissing linguistics; Kleindler refers to scarce archaeological artefact with his "no substantial evidence," not to linguistics. As I said, dismissing linguistics is an Indigenist fallacy. Doing so by misusing sources is even worse.
 * And don't be silly about no citations for the text: "of the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-European languages". You're asking for the obvious. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification.
 * Addressing your point: if I read it correctly, you view the scope of this article as primarily about "Classicial Sanskrit" in contrast to "Vedic Sanskrit". With this understanding, your suggested wording would be fine. I see a problem here though, because the page (as it is construed now) essentially is not about Classical Sanskrit alone. It covers all stages of Sanskrit, and "Vedic Sanskrit" has been split out as a subtopic. So even though much of the descriptive part is about Classical Sanskrit, the history section clearly covers all stages. Turning this page into a main page for Classical Sanskrit (as your suggested opening sentence implies) would require a major rework. And it contradicts the understanding of "Sanskrit" in York & Robinson (2012). –Austronesier (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Another thing. Jaykul72, please read MOS:LEAD and MOS:LEADCITE. "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article". We have talked about lede-stuffing a month ago. This also includes unnecessary citebombs in the lead. –Austronesier (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I expanded what George Cordona says Sanskrit is an Old Indo-Aryan language called the Vedic Sanskrit in which the Vedas were composed.
 * Jaykul72 (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Any reason why you reverted the change? Jaykul72 (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it does not reflect what Cardona writes (or very clumsily and ambiguously), and because it is repetetive: the second paragraph already states that the earliest documented stage of Sanskrit—the language of the Rigveda—is called Vedic Sanskrit. You could add the BE citation there, but then you would have to change "Rigveda" to "Vedas". –Austronesier (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The quote is misleading, what George Cardona is saying that Sanskrit belongs to the Old Indo-Aryan language classification but the Old-Indo-Aryan language itself is Vedic Sanskrit. This isn't obvious when we read the sentence as of now. Second paragraph does not say Vedic Sanskrit the Old Indo-Aryan Language.
 * Can we just delete this? why repeat the same when already "Indo-Aryan is mentioned in the lead? Is there a reason for duplicating the Indo-European languages here? Jaykul72 (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Cardona does not write that only Vedic Sanskrit is "the Old-Indo-Aryan language". Old Indo-Aryan is a stage in the development of Indo-Aryan languages which is represented by Sanskrit in all its documented forms, starting from Vedic Sansrkit. The opening line in the BE "Sanskrit" article goes:
 * "Sanskrit language, (from Sanskrit saṃskṛta, “adorned, cultivated, purified”), an Old Indo-Aryan language in which the most ancient documents are the Vedas, composed in what is called Vedic Sanskrit.
 * Cardona writes in the BE article [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Indo-Aryan-languages "Indo-Aryan-languages"
 * "Old Indo-Aryan includes different dialects and linguistic states that are referred to in common as Sanskrit. The most archaic Old Indo-Aryan is found in Hindu sacred texts called the Vedas, which date to approximately 1500 bce.
 * Hope this helps. –Austronesier (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This sentence definitely is meaningless "Sanskrit is an Old Indo-Aryan language." because Cardona says "Old Indo-Aryan includes different dialects and linguistic states that are referred to in common as Sanskrit" which derives to the meaning of the sentence as "Sanskrit is an Sanskrit"!! Jaykul72 (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Sanskrit is an Old Indo-Aryan language" vs. "Old Indo-Aryan includes..." (NB: includes, not is!). –Austronesier (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is anoither citation:
 * Should we delete it now? Jaykul72 (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete what? Why? There is says: Sanskrit is an Old Indo-Aryan language. –Austronesier (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't say that, it says Sanskrit is 'termed' the Old Indo-Aryan language. Which means Old Indo-Aryan language is term for Sanskrit. When you replace Sanskrit in the sentence above it becomes meaningless. Jaykul72 (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't say that, it says Sanskrit is 'termed' the Old Indo-Aryan language. Which means Old Indo-Aryan language is term for Sanskrit. When you replace Sanskrit in the sentence above it becomes meaningless. Jaykul72 (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

"The" or "an" Old Indo-Aryan language? –Austronesier (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * doesn't matter, it is the same meaning. Jaykul72 (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, please do not be disruptive. You rode into the article like some kind of lone ranger, stuffed nonsense into the lead violating what the sources said, and violating every known notion of an encyclopedic style.  Why have you only selectively cited the Proto-Dravidian bit?  And how many lexical items were there?  A dozen in the Rg Veda?  Why did you forget to mention Munda which has contributed more per Witzel, Masica (somewhere I can't remember off the top of my head), David Shulman, and even Krishnamurti?  And what is that bizarre synthetic sentence about the Rg Veda influencing all the modern Dravidian languages, including Tamil.  Do you have one source that says that?  What is "Modern Sanskrit?"  It became extinct in the 14th-century.  Ritual use or instructional use does not make it alive or modern as if it had continued to evolve and arrived to its reconstructed form.     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, your conjecture of tautology rest exactly on this kind imprecision. Identity and inclusion are two different relations, and are expressed in English by the very use of the proper article. –Austronesier (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:FOC what's the decision here? We have had enough discussion on this. The most significant word in the sentence is 'termed' you are misrepresenting it. Also you reverted my expansion of Cardona's statement. Why don't you we put it as it is in double quotes? Sanskrit is an Old Indo-Aryan language "in which the most ancient documents are the Vedas, composed in what is called Vedic Sanskrit.". You are not helping to improve the article. Jaykul72 (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Old-Indo Aryan languages are the Vedic and Classical Sanskrit. There is no firm boundary between the two and hence they are called Sanskrit. Jaykul72 (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Old-Indo Aryan languages are the Vedic and Classical Sanskrit. There is no firm boundary between the two and hence they are called Sanskrit. Jaykul72 (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Old-Indo Aryan languages are the Vedic and Classical Sanskrit. There is no firm boundary between the two and hence they are called Sanskrit. Jaykul72 (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * They are focussing on content. As already staed above, Cardona writes
 * That's not the same as
 * Sorry @Joshua Jonathan for making an in-line comment (F&f would slap my fingers if I did in one of their comments :), but this phrase is also a verbatim quote from Cardona, and nice 'n' concise. –Austronesier (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Slap! Anyway, the article now says "In a broader sense, "Sanskrit" refers to a number of Old Indo-Aryan dialects,[25][26] the most archaic form of which is found in the Rig Veda, composed between c.1500-1200 BCE.[27][25]" Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If we correct your proposal, it would be
 * Regarding removal, this sentence says the same:
 * Add Cardona as a reference to this line, and the Cardona-line can be removed. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding removal, this sentence says the same:
 * Add Cardona as a reference to this line, and the Cardona-line can be removed. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Add Cardona as a reference to this line, and the Cardona-line can be removed. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Add Cardona as a reference to this line, and the Cardona-line can be removed. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

You still deserve an explanation why it matters to differentiate between the correct phrase "Sanskrit is an Old Indo-Aryan language" and the problematic phrase "Sanskrit is the Old Indo-Aryan language". The latter implies the conjecture is that Sanskrit is isomorphous to Old Indo-Aryan. This is only true when it comes to extant documented texts. Sanskrit texts from every stage are the only textual representatives of Old Indo-Aryan. Yet, Old Indo-Aryan is not just that. Old Indo-Aryan is the earliest stage of the Indo-Aryan branch, from which all known languages of the later stages Middle + New Indo-Aryan are derived. The crucial point is that some documented Middle Indo-Aryan variants cannot fully be derived from the documented form of Old Indo-Aryan (i.e. Sanskrit), but betray features that must go back to other undocumented variants/dialects of Old Indo-Aryan. [See] This means, Old Indo-Aryan includes Sanskrit, but is not identical to it. –Austronesier (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty to add this info to Indo-Aryan languages. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)\
 * I have already provided enough citations to state that Old Indo-Aryan language classification is essentially Sanskrit and Vedic Sanskrit. There are WP:RS authors who have mentioned that due to similarities between the two languages you just call them "Sanskrit". Any proto language beyond Old Indo-Aryan is hypothetical "undocumented variants and dialects" which has been reconstructed by using Sanskrit itself . Vedic Sanskrit has 3500 years history. Therefore, due weightage would be when you mention classical Sanskrit then state that it derived from Vedic Sanskrit before quoting the Indo-European connection. Jaykul72 (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The "3500 years history" of Vedic Sanskrit are just as "hypothetical" as the existence of "undocumented variants and dialects" (inferred based on evidence from MIA and NIA languages) and the existence of Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Indo-European (inferred based on evidence from regular correspondences between IE languages using the comparative method). The dating of Vedic Sanskrit at c. 1500 BCE directly hinges on our understanding of the timeline for the breakup of Proto-IE. If we refain from relying on "hypothetical" data, we are compelled to write that "Sanskrit has a history of 2100 years". Not sure if anybody really wants this here. –Austronesier (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Vedic Sanskrit addition in the lead line
I am after this change in the lead line:

Sanskrit is a classical language was added in the recent changes. There needs to be DUE representation for Vedic Sanskrit by adding the text that I have proposed above then we could delete this line: Jaykul72 (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Why do you repeat your proposal when it's already clear that it is incorrect, and that there is no support for it? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The paragraph beginning "The broader definition ..." is highly problematic especially in a lead. It is too detailed; it caters to a POV; it is incomprehensible to an ordinary reader, a result very likely of WP:Lead fixation which usually throws DUE-related caution to the wind, introduced (very likely) at a time a few months ago when no one was watching.  It will need to go.  Also, as I've already stated, there is nothing called modern Sanskrit, or living Sanskrit.  More people around the world know Latin than do Sanskrit at a higher level of functioning and Latin is not considered living.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The phrase "modern" was added to the original sentence;Witzel does not use it. I have removed it. "The broader definition" was introduced . Cardona (EB) says more or less the same; I've edited the sentence to make more sense of it. "Broader" refers to Sanskrit as referring to both Vedic and classical Sanskrit; see the edit-summary in that diff. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I like your approach generally, but you have made the paragraph too complicated. We cannot have that level of complexity in a lead.  Please allow me to simplify it using Witzel and other sources that are already in there. A lead is meant to be a gently ramping up summary.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * compare the present lead to that of three hours ago, and you'll see that the lead is much better now. The paragraph "Old Indo-Aryan Sanskrit can be treated as a dominant ancestor," formerly introduced by the phrase "broader definition" is not my work, except for moving "The broader definition of Sanskrit refers to the whole range of mutually intelligible Old Indo-Aryan dialects spoken in North-western India at the time of the composition of the Vedas" upwards, and changing it into In a broader sense, "Sanskrit" refers to a number of Old Indo-Aryan dialects,[25][26] the most archaic form of which is found in the Rig Veda, composed between c.1500-1200 BCE.[27][25]. Not as complicated as "broader definition etc.", I think. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is. Thanks, and to as well! Let us consolidate what we have in the lead thus far for now. Best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Cardona does not say "Sanskrit" refers to a number of Old Indo-Aryan dialects. That is misrepresentation of the citation. Cardona says it is the Old Indo-Aryan which includes different dialects and linguistic states which are referred to in common as Sanskrit
 * Further mentions that Sanskrit an Old Indo-Aryan language was used for the composition of the Vedas and the Vedas were composed in Vedic Sanskrit.
 * Further the two Old Indo-Aryan languages are Sanskrit and Vedic Sanskrit
 * The lead line is substantiated by the Vedic Sanskrit earliest of which is composed to 1500 BCE which equates to 3500 years. Cardona is one citation and the other is here:
 * Further the two Old Indo-Aryan languages are Sanskrit and Vedic Sanskrit
 * The lead line is substantiated by the Vedic Sanskrit earliest of which is composed to 1500 BCE which equates to 3500 years. Cardona is one citation and the other is here:
 * The lead line is substantiated by the Vedic Sanskrit earliest of which is composed to 1500 BCE which equates to 3500 years. Cardona is one citation and the other is here:

Jaykul72 (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Jaykul72 (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you over and over misquote that "Cardona says it is the Old Indo-Aryan" when he actually writes that Sanskrit is an Old Indo-Aryan language? –Austronesier (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And please try your luck at any noticeboard in WP and ask whether
 * "Sanskrit refers to a number of Old Indo-Aryan dialects"
 * is a faithful paraphrase of
 * "Old Indo-Aryan includes different dialects and linguistic states that are referred to in common as Sanskrit"
 * or not. I'm eager to see the result. –Austronesier (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation of syllabic/vocalic r's
Per the discussion at Help:IPA/Sanskrit, I'm proposing the vocalic r's (ऋ and ॠ) be transcribed as a syllabic approximants (ɹ̩ and ɹ̩ː), which is consistent with the source cited on that page as well as with Pāṇinī's classification of those sounds being vowels (i.e., they do not touch any part of the mouth), as opposed to flaps (ɽ̩ and ɽ̩ː), which do touch the roof of the mouth. That way, we can update the Help page, and subsequently, any pages which reference it. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)