Talk:Sarasvati River/Archive 1

Specification
Could someone specify which Vedic reference (which book which verses) refer to this river?

In Sanskrit this name may be decomposed as 'saras' meaning a lake or water body, + 'vati' meaning a female associated with it. Loosely it suggests a "water goddess". Indeed there is a commonly worshipped deity in Hinduism by this name who is the guardian of language, learning and knowledge in general. A large number of non-Vedic goddesses such as Lakshmi and fertility goddesses are also associated with water, either ocean or lake. Thus the Vedic association of this name needs confirmation.

In answer to your question The Rig Veda refers on several occasions to the Sarasvati. There are two hymns to devoted to the river/goddess in Book 7, hymns 95-6. 97 is a plea for marriage and children where the river-woman stands for fertility. Paul B

Questionable statements
The article has some questionable statements.

The river has been identified [by whom?, see Avoid weasel terms ] with various   present-day or historical rivers, particularly the Ghaggar-Hakra river in India and Pakistan.

''Recent finding[sp] [this suggests that the "finding" has legitimacy] suggest the Ghaggar-Hakra river did once flow in great strength [but not in Vedic times, if at all], and was of major importance to the Indus Valley civilization, but that it dried up due to the redirection of its tributaries, at the latest in 1900 BC [not later than 30,000 BC, if at all] but perhaps much earlier. Clearly this is [not at all (because we don't know if the Ghaggar had anything to do with Vedic civilization)] of great importance in establishing the date of the Rigveda years'] 

See: SkepticalContrarian 23:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * http://www.ee.iitkgp.ernet.in/~soumitro/bt/archives/saraswati.pdf by Ashoke Mukherjee of Breakthrough, a science journal.
 * Hijacking India's History also at
 * Copy of Washigton post headline: A Hindu Quest for Some Holy Water; Attempt to Unearth Ancient Waterway May Affect Indian History and Politics also at

Indra/Shiva
The article says that "Indra was the river deity of the Sarasvati river, the disappearance of the Sarasvati river may have been one of the causes for the diminishing popularity of Indra in Vedic culture. Indra may have been "replaced" by the similar deity Shiva, who is the river deity of the Ganges." Err, what? Where does this idea come from (apart from User:Batten8 that is)? I've never heard of this stuff. What's the source for thse theories? Paul B 23:32, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * There is the theory that there is a continuity between Indra and Shiva. If I remember correctly, the information was from this site : "We also note that Shiva is the deity of the Ganges region which became the center of Indic civilization in the post-Harappan era. Vedic deities, like Indra and Agni, are those of the Sarasvati river to which the Harappan era belongs." So this theory tries to link the Indra-Shiva continuity theory with the disappearance of the Sarasvati River. I agree that this should be written in more detail or with more sources. I'm moving the twos sentences to the talk page for the moment, somembody can put them back later.


 * Indra was the river deity of the Sarasvati river, the disappearance of the Sarasvati river may have been one of the causes for the diminishing popularity of Indra in Vedic culture. Indra may have been "replaced" by the similar deity Shiva, who is the river deity of the Ganges. --Batten8 09:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Page move, scope of the article and recent edits by 83.76.209.47
Could we move this page to Sarasvati river? I think the prefix "Vedic" is unnecessary and confusing, because the Sarasvati for example also occurs in later texts like the Mahabharata. I wanted to suggest this move already some time ago. There is also one thing I'm not quite sure of: Should the article be spelt as "Sarasvati" or "Saraswati"?

Also, in which article to we put the IVC, Rig Veda, Geology and Helmland related information? Obviously, the name Ghaggar-Hakra is rather new and didn't exist at the time of the IVC, nor at the time of the Rig Veda. And AFAIK most scholars do agree that at least some references to the Sarasvati River in the Rig Veda do indeed refer to the present Ghaggar-Hakra river and the Punjab region. So while it is of course disputed if the IVC people also refereed to this river as Sarasvati, we know that they surely didn't refer to it as the Ghaggar-Hakra river. I would propose to put both the IVC and the RV related information in the Sarasvati River article, and if there are controversies they can still be explained in the article. The same goes for the Helmland river, that should also be treated in this article.

It would have been nice if User:83.76.209.47 Contributions would have discusssed his large-scale changes beforehand. While moving most of the text to Ghaggar-Hakra River, some very relevant information was unfortunately also deleted by him. I have to revert the article back, and will then try to balance out the information between the two articles. I'll try to keep the changes made by 83.76.209.47 though.

I would like to hear to some suggestions about these things. --Machaon 02:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I also merged the contents of Hakra River and Ghaggar River to the new article Ghaggar-Hakra River, as was proposed by User:83.76.209.47. --Machaon 11:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I support move of this article to Sarasvati River. However, this article consistently confuses arguments abut the Ghaggar-Hakra River with arguments about the Vedic Sarasvati River as described in the texts. Sure there can be a short section discussing the proposed identification. But details about IVC archaeology and geology should go to the Ghaggar-Hakra article. Also, did you read the information that was "deleted"? There were about five paragraphs saying exactly the same thing, along the lines of "recent satellite picutures, 500 IVC settlements, etc.". This stuff should be stated once, coherently, on the Ghaggar-Hakra article; this is not even disputed material, everybody believes (I think) that there were settlements along the River pre-2500 BC. It's just the conflating with the name "Sarasvati", a Hindutva idiosyncrasy, that makes the whole thing confusing. I have no problem with saying that Hindutva scholars make the identification. But the discussion of archaeology doesn't belong here: this is what we mean by the "principle of least surprise": Assume somebody is interested in IVC archaeology; they would expect this information in an article about IVC archaeology and geography of Pakistan, not in some article about Vedic texts. Baad 10:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let's move the article to Sarasvati River then. We only have the Ghaggar-Hakra River since two days, that's why I wrote my IVC and geology additions into this article, rather than having to split them up between two different articles Hakra River and Ghaggar River. Now that we have a single Ghaggar-Hakra River article, I think yes we could move the IVC and geology related stuff to Ghaggar-Hakra River. You're oversimplifying things when you say that the identification of the Sarasvati with Ghaggar-Hakra is "Hindutva". Most scholars (I think) agree that at least some references in the Rig Veda, and probably most references in later texts like the Mahabharata and the Brahmanas, refer to the Ghaggar-Hakra. What some scholars dispute is if all references to the Sarasvati in the RV refer to Ghaggar-Hakra. Anyway, scholars who identify the Sarasvati with Ghaggar-Hakra include Oldham, the Allchins, Gregory Possehl, Jane MacIntosh, Mughal, V.N. Mishra, Kazanas (1999:19), Sharfe (1996:358) and others. Even Witzel does equate some rigvedic ref's to the Sarasvati with Ghaggar-Hakra (e.g. 1995: 343, 349, 318, 320). Anyway, this is somehow a controversial subject, and therefore I do think that it is better to have two (or more) articles, and that IVC/Geology stuff is on Ghaggar-Hakra. There were some deletions by the anon user, though they may have happened by accident. For example, he added stuff on the Helmand but deleted some information on the same subject like this: "If the river name were transferred from Afghanistan to the Punjab, the transfer must have occurred before the Iranian language began to use the "h phoneme"." [(Bryant 2001)] There were some other minor things (and I didn't search them all), but the point is that such large-scale changes should have been discussed.

I will move IVC/Geology related material to the other article shortly. --Machaon 17:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Oxus, Kabul river
Thank you Dab for the cleaning up and the edits. About the "citation needed":


 * Furthermore, the superlatives of the Rigvedic Sarasvati (e.g. RV 2.41, 7.95, 7.36) would rather apply to the nearby Oxus or Indus than to the Helmand river.
 * This sentence refers to the fact that these superlatives don't really apply to the Helmand, except perhaps to local peasants unfamiliar with mightier rivers nearby like the Oxus or Indus. If they were familiar with these nearby rivers, they probably wouldn't have used these superlatives for the Helmand. (e.g. see Elst: "The Rg Veda in Afghanistan?").
 * I am unsure that this is a 'fact' since the Helmand is, after all, the largest river of Afghanistan. There can be no question that the Indus is mightier, and possibly also the Oxus. But is this supposed to be an argument for identifying Sarasvati as either Indus or Oxus, or is this actually an argument supporting the Helmand identification (since it is certainly possible to be familiar with the Helmand but not the Indus, while it is probably impossible to be familiar with the Ghaggar but not the Indus). dab (&#5839;) 11:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The superlatives of the Sarasvati are an unlikely description of a relative backwater like the Helmand except for absolute provincials who had never seen the nearby Oxus or Indus. It's not the most important argument, but could maybe be stated in some form somewhere. --Rayfield 13:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved to talk: Others point out that if the rigvedic people would have known nearby rivers like the Indus or Oxus, they probably wouldn't have used the superlatives of the rigvedic Sarasvati (e.g. RV 2.41, 7.95, 7.36) for the relatively smaller Helmand River.

And about Erdosy:


 * "it would be just as plausible to assume that Saraswati was a Sanskrit term indigenous to India and was later imported by the speakers of Avestan into Iran. The fact that the Zend Avesta is aware of areas outside the Iranian plateau while the Rigveda is ignorant of anything west of the Indus basin would certainly support such an assertion." (Bryant 2001: 133)........Erdosy's proposition that the Rigveda is ignorant of the geography west of the Indus basin is not a premise to, but rather a position in the Sarasvati debate. The Nadistuti sukta at least (10.75.6) is aware of western tributaries of the Indus, including the Kabul River.
 * But the term "Indus Basin" shouldn't it also include the Indus tributaries? Anyway, the second sentence of the citation is not really about the Sarasvati, only the first. We could also cite only the first sentence of the citation. --Rayfield 20:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * well, yes; but this rather drives home the point of the proximity of Helmand and Indus. The Kabul River and the Helmand originate within a few kilometers of each other, and you have to cross a single pass to get from the Khabul to the Helmand. I am not opposed to quoting Erdosy directly, but the whole argument here seems extremely flawed. Either Erdosy is being horribly misquoted or he has no idea of the relationship of Sanskrit of Avestan. If Sarasvati would have been 'imported by speakers of Avestan', it would, as a loan, not have been changed to 'hara-'; the whole point of the Avestan equation is that the name must have been pre-Iranian. I tried to salvage the part of the argument that makes sense. Unfortunately, Erdosy (1989) is lacking bibliographical reference. What exactly are we quoting here? I think it might be better to attribute the "out of India" argument to a more quoteable and coherent author. Be that as it may, it is certainly not generally accepted that the Rigveda is ignorant of anything east of the Khabul; Kochhar, for example, identifies several Rigvedic rivers as tributaries of the Helmand. I won't say that I am convinced by this, but it goes to show the 'conclusion, not premise' part. (personally, I do not think that much geography may be distilled from the early hymns; the Nadistuti is straightforward to interpret, but the early geography is fluid and hazy;) dab (&#5839;) 11:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume that "Erdosy, George. 1989. "Ethnicity to the Rigveda and Its Bearing on the Question of Indo-European Origins." South Asian Studies 5:35-47" is quoted. I might verify this later. Until we have a better quotation, we could still use the first sentence of the quotation. I'm not sure on what reference or argument you argue that Sarasvati would not have been changed to "Hara". --Rayfield 13:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sarasvati in the late Rigvedic books
I think that this title is not very fortunate, because it is disputed which are the late books, and especially because scholars argue that for example a late book may also contain some early hymns. I think the title "Sarasvati and other rivers" and a title "Sarasvati as goddess" would be useful. It can still be marked in the text if a hymn is late or early.--Rayfield 13:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Also late hymns (RV 8.21; 10.64; 10.177) describe in the present tense the river's greatness and say that many kings lived along its banks. The Rig Veda has no allusions to the drying up of the Sarasvati River.*


 * "10.177 also quoted by Kazanas does not actually refer to the Sarasvati." I think this should maybe actually read 10.17.7, not 10.177.

RV 8.21 may refer to Citra on Sarasvati in the Kuruksetra.--Rayfield 13:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with your edits. Still, there is consensus that 1 and 10 are the youngest books, and I don't know on what grounds this could be disputed. There is, in fact, some debate about books 8 and 9: some people seem to claim 9 contains the oldest bits altogether, others seem to think most of 9 dates to between 2-7 and 1/10; similarly, 8 seems to contain both older and newer bits. Fortunately, that's not the issue here. But I agree that the title was unfortunate: I came up with it under the influence of Kazanas' statement that there are lots of references to great Sarasvati in late books, and I decided to collect those. It turned out that there are just two invocations of S as a river in book 10, and none in book 1: the Nadistuti list and the list of three in 10.64. 8.21 may be early or late, no idea, but it just says "a lot of petty kings (rajakas) live along Sarasvati": no reverence, no evidence of greatness, just a straightforward geographical statement, so I preferred listing that verse under the discussion of the "course of S". What we are left with is the interesting observation that S seems to undergo the transition from a (specific) river goddess to the general goddess (of wisdom, waters etc.) in the late books 1 and 10. There are two late listings of S as a river, one placing it between Yamuna and Sutlej, and the other naming it with Sindhu [as we mention emerging as the greatest river in the late RV] and Sarayu [far from prominent in the RV, but of continued importance in the epics] as great river. I think it would be better to drop direct quotation of Kazanas here. Already because we have to fix his reference, and because we could not say that he 'points out' a fact; he alleges several things, he implies that book 8 is just as young as 1 and 10 (not true without qualification), and he implies that there are several late verses extolling Sarasvati as great (not true; there is one single verse, and two others that refer to Sarasvati as just geographically as a river without special reverence).
 * Thank you for your collaboration on this one, I think the article is making good progress now. dab (&#5839;) 07:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor point on RV 10.17
RV 10.17.7 says:
 * The pious call Sarasvati, they worship Sarasvati while sacrifice proceedeth. The pious called Sarasvati aforetime. Sarasvati send bliss to him who giveth.

Together with Kazanas description of this hymn as a praise in the present tense (see above), it seems that the invocations in 10.17 adresses Sarasvati as a goddess of the forefathers and also of the present generation. (Kazanas seems to associate this verse also with the river, but the river or goddess identification may be disputed here.)--Rayfield 15:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * of course. the point is that the hymn is rather emphatic about the antiquity of the goddess, which is of course seen as a sign of eminence also in the present time. dab (&#5839;) 15:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mandala 10
Thank you too for your efforts on the RV articles.

I have a question on Mandala 10: ''In the 1 and 10 of the Rigveda,...Only two of these references are unambiguously to the river, 10.64.9 calling for the aid of three "great rivers", Sindhu, Sarasvati and Sarayu, and the geographical Nadistuti list (10.75.5) discussed above. The others invoke Sarasvati as a goddess without direct connection to a specific river.''

Is there a reference for this? I think the wording is a bit too strict. In Scharfe's conservative listing of rivers (Hartmut Scharfe, Bartholomae's Law Revisited, 1996) he accepts the Sarasvati River (Sarsuti) identification in RV 10.17.7-9; 10.30.12; 10.64.9; 10.75.; 10.184.2. This is a very conservative listing, he says he "left out many references to Sarasvati, i.e. wherever there is likelihood that the word refers to the goddess Sarasvati, probably the deified river." And still he sees the River in 5 Mandala 10 hymns, not only in 2 hymns. (In Mandala 1 he only sees one hymn where he thinks Sarasvati is the River (RV 1.164.49), that would make 6 references to the River in RV 1 and 10; and in RV 2-9 he only sees 10 hymns where Sarasvati is the River). Maybe it should be reworded a bit.--Rayfield 22:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * yes, this may need qualification; for example, it shouldn't sound as if Sarasvati was always unambiguously referred to as a River even in the early books. In my view, there is no strict line that could be drawn between the River and the anthropomorphic goddess, so that it is impossible to say "this refers to the River, that refers to the Goddess". Of course Sarasvati retains aspects of a River goddess even today. The point of this particular discussion is to look for "secular" references to Sarasvati as a river, such as "on the banks of Sarasvati", "Sarasvati lies between this and that River" or "Sarasvati flows to the sea".
 * To invite Sarasvati to "sit on the grass" (10.17) refers clearly to the anthropomorphic aspect. 10.30 invokes Sarasvati with "the waters" in general, clearly in her role as a River goddess, no argument there, just as is  to say that Indra drinking Soma is "refreshed by Sarasvati". I don't see how 10.184.2 can be taken to refer to a river literally; here, Sarasvati is just invoked as a fertility goddess, together with and in the same terms as Sinivali, who never was a river goddess.
 * Sarasvati is a very special case among the Rigvedic rivers, since it is the only one that became detached from the river itself and grew into an independent (and major) Hindu goddess. I would certainly agree that she never entirely ceased to be the "deified river", so that all references are to the river, in a way, even if not all describe her as an actual river. We should still make the difference between references in a "river context" and others in a "fertility" or "wisdom" context. 10.30 is in an "aquatic" context, I agree, so surely it can be taken to refer to the river, but as likely as not already to the "invisible", mystical river.
 * I am sure we will find a satisfactory wording here; after all, there are only 72 references to Sarasvati, and this article could easily discuss them all. dab (&#5839;) 07:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

especially in some hymns of the late books 1 and 10, the goddess Sarasvati (the later Hindu goddess of knowledge) is becoming abstracted from the river.

Is there a reference for this statement, and can we make this conclusion based on the RV? Sarasvati can probably also be interpreted as goddess in several RV 2-9 hymns (e.g. 2.1.11; 2.30.8; 3.54.13; 5.5.8; 5.46.2; 6.49.7; 6.50.12; 7.9.5; 7.35.11; 7.39.5; 7.40.3 etc.). --Rayfield 21:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, you are right, as I say above, I agree this should be modified. dab (&#5839;) 22:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Map
can a similar map be made for this page like this one used on dutch wiki or one on french wiki.nids(&#9794;) 09:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * it can. If you do, correct the spelling errors and source it to a reliable publication. I imagine the source for these images is (it would be so much easier if people could name their sources up front). dab (𒁳) 12:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarasvati or Saraswati
I changed most instances of the form "Saraswati" to "Sarasvati" in the text. I only did this for consistency with the article's current title. I did try to keep "Saraswati" in direct quotes and references to the goddess Saraswati, whose page is spelled with the W, I hope I didn't miss any. I don't know which should be preferred, but if it's "-wati", the page needs to be moved via requested moves.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You can keep -wati or -vati. This type of problem arises many times during writing Indic words in English alphabets. I prefer -wati. WIN 04:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the use within the article should accord with the article title. And since the article is currently at "Sarasvati", that's it needs to be spelled in the article. I'm changing it for the second time now. If -wati is to be preferred, the page will have to be moved as I said above.--Cúchullain t/ c 06:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

we shouldn't distinguish between the spelling of the name of the goddess and the river. It's the same name. "Sarasvati" is just the more 'scholarly' spelling. 'Saraswati' is acceptable, but we shouldn't mix spellings. In this article, we should keep '-vati' throughout. dab (𒁳) 07:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. To be technical, the "w" should rarely be used, if ever in any Indo-Aryan word, considering that it never is pronounced as one. A similar problem occurs with Diwali, which is really pronounced as Dee-va-lee. GizzaChat  &#169; 10:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the river and goddess should have the same spelling, but I don't know enought to have an opinion on which it should be. If you think it's -vati, suggest a move at the goddess' page. This really needs to be sorted out.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

" Sarasvati is just the more 'scholarly' spelling ". What's something `scholarly' in English spelling for a pure Indic word ? Is it more scholarly that English script have scriptual problem than Devanagari script of India ? Is it `more scholarly' that English script reads different despite writing in similar manner ? e.g. put and but. Devanagari script will not have such problems. So,stop honouring your flaws as something `more scholarly'. WIN 11:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WIN, I'll discuss "scholarly spelling" with you once you manage to compose your plain English edits in correct orthography ans syntax. You might also want to read up the relevant Wikipedia articles instead of inquiring on talkpages. Or, you can always try WP:RD/L: Wikipedia isn't just the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", it is also the encyclopedia that anyone can read, isn't that great? You could profit immensely. There are also different language editons? Why not treat yourself to a much improved editing experience in a Wikipedia project where you are actually fluent? dab (𒁳) 12:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You are just diverting the topic. Write first about above `scholarly' spelling. It's your nature to denigrate opposition. WIN 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

kindly consult Sanskrit (s̪ɐrɐs̪β̞ɐt̪iː?). If you don't understand it, ask at WP:RD/L. dab (𒁳) 10:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In India, -wati is prefered than -vati. It's like telling that Yog is wrong and Yoga is right. For an Indic word, western world can have different way of writing or pronouncing, but that should not be portrayed as "more scholarly", as told by Dab. If western people can not pronounce some indic word properly then it's a matter of pronounciation ( & hence comes writing ) differences. Dab's portryal of his POV as only correct is wrong and shows his habit of denigrating others. WIN 06:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "In India". Nobody is saying -wati is wrong, but -vati is prefered in western countries and thus is the used spelling on Wikipedia. Chopper Dave 07:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WIN, please don't accuse Dab of pov-pushing just because you disagree with him. False accusations just annoy people and don't progress the discussion any further. To both WIN and Chopper Dave, Wikipedia is governed by the Neutral Point of View policy so that no biases can be seen from the neutral eye. Both of your arguments, of which one is saying that -wati should be used because it is Indian and the other that -vati should be used because it is Western (they are both huge generalisations btw) are fairly weak. A substantial proportion, but not a majority of the English-speaking people in the world is Indian so region or spelling should not be favoured on those accounts. Dab's reasoning behind the -vati spelling being more "scholarly" is that all the prominent Indic (Romanised) transliteration schemes use v instead of w (and rightly so, it's no pronounced like a w). You may not realise the difference in pronunciation between the v and w if English isn't your native language but if it is, you would realise that the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages don't have a "w" in the way it is pronounced in English. And why on earth do you believe a different spelling suggest a certain POV? In this case, the "POV-pushers" aren't saying any derogatory about the Saraswati River. Lets kindly move on from this hindrance and develop the article further. GizzaChat  &#169; 07:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks for the information. Chopper Dave 08:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding tranliteration methods, the practice for articles containing Indic text is to use IAST which has no "w" at all. The Devanagari character व् is transliterated as "v" in IAST.  The reason for using the IAST method of tranliteration is that it is the academic standard for tranliteration of the Devanagari writing system, not any political motive. Buddhipriya 20:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already told that I don't have problem of using -vati or -wati in my first answer. I was objecting Dab using " more `scholarly' ". So, no issues hence forth. WIN 09:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of ref. sentences by Dab & Rudra
Dab, you are deleting well ref. points. You are telling it as "confused additions" (sic). I know that you are confused to see above ref. sentences as it is against your understandings. Stop deleting them again. Instead write your confusions here. WIN 04:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * your edits weren't even grammatical. don't expect people to clean after you. dab (𒁳) 07:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Dab, you are adopting the same malign practice which you had adopted when I had introduced B.B. Lal papers as external links in IAM or OIT. My additions are straight from Kazanas papers whose mothertongue is English ! WIN 11:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * this isn't malign at all, I'm just protecting articles from substandard additions. It is not my fault if your edits are substandard throughout. You could consider picking a subject area where you are competent. You suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and have not profited to clear this up over many months. Wikipedians are not here to educate you, to correct your English, or to clean up after you. If your additions are no good, usually they won't remain. dab (𒁳) 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's your resposibility to state what's `subordinate' ? I know that anything which is against your POV is `subordinate'. That way you are telling Kazanas, G. Possehl and P.H. Francfort as `subordiante' ! State who has stated this. Otherwise it's your pure tactic of POV pushing.

Witzel's view of dravidians in Punjab in mid-Rigvedic period is not `subordinate' as per you, even though it's pure speculation. Then also his words are protected in WP article of IAM. Then, what your linguists who portray opposition as `subordinate', were doing for last 150 years. BMAC settlements were burned and IVC towns were not burned. Then also Invasion of IVC was favoured by linguists for many decades. It's your pure pseudoism clearly evident here. WIN 05:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

your additions are substandard, not subordinate. It is your edits, not your sources, I called substandard: they are in broken English, in orthographical disarray, and without any merit in terms of content. Some of your sources could well be cited, by somebody who understands them and can compose a paragraph in coherent English. You start rambling about "samudra" in the intro, in the middle of a discussion of "saras". Are you really that confused? "samudra" is taken from a single verse in RV 7.95, it's not like the term was in any way associated with Sarasvati, as you would make us believe. The term may mean "ocean", "sea", or "soma vat" in the Rigveda. We discuss this at samudra. dab (𒁳) 10:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Dab, I am adding G. Possehl and P.H. Francfort again which you deleted. I am warning you that it's your resposibity to mention ref. additions which is agianst G. Possehl and P.H. Francfort.And, not delete them. Mention of samudra during article introduction was added to counter previous mis-guiding additions which stated that Saraswati name came from saras meaning pool or lake. So, it's utterly in bad faith to yell about adding samundra & Saraswati related Kazanas' words. By the way you know that Kazanas' mothertongue is English and my additions were taken straight from Kazanas article. So,do you mean that Kazanas' is `substandard' and `without any merit in terms of content' ? Stop your allegations. Instead go and write a book about your denigrating views or publish on some website. Remember that I will not allow your mis-representations or deletions of my/others well ref. sentences in this subject. WIN 04:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you don't like it, but "Sarasvati" does come from saras "pool". It's in the name. "Samudra" otoh is just a term that happens to occur in one of the several hundred verses on the Sarasvati in the Rigveda. If you're going to try and present Kazanas as a source on equal footing with Mayrhofer, you are just making (even more of) a fool of yourself, and still haven't understood (or even bothered to read) WP:UNDUE and Fringe theories. You should not talk of "misrepresentation" if your entire "knowledge" on the matter stems from online ideological pamphlets, while you don't recognize an academic source if it is shoved in your face. Go and edit some blog, but stop pestering Wikipedia with your naive nonsense. dab (𒁳) 10:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As per you Hindu Indians and their ancient etymological understanding of Saraswati is wrong and recent Western linguist's etymology is right !!!

And, G. Possehl and P.H. Francfort should be crackpots as you write in your denigrating style ! It's not naive nonsense. Stop accusing all scholarly oppositions. WIN 06:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * what "ancient understanding"? The IVC was discovered in the 1920s, and the etymology of both Sarasvati and Samudra are undisputed. dab (𒁳) 11:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There you are wrong.IVC might have been discovered in 1920 but Hindu legends of Saraswati river are not from 20th century !

"etymology of both Sarasvati and Samudra are undisputed" - but that is as per Western linguists who have never accounted Indian view and formulated speculative Aryan Invasion Theory !

I am again reverting your deletion.WIN 04:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * you are working based on flawed dichotomies (Aryan Invasion, Western linguists) and, of course, naive ideology impermeable to reason. I wish you joy with your worldview, but please stop pestering Wikipedia about it. dab (𒁳) 15:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You should know that Hindus revere dried Saraswati river and not at all Indus river, which is still flowing. Nearly 66% of currently known IVC sites are from this dried river area. This is enough to show that even for IVC people this river, and not Indus (Sindhu), was of prime importance ( as also found in Rig-Veda ). So, it's not some `naive ideology'. Then, why many western scholars from different sciences are questioning / opposing IAM ? What's their `naive ideology' ? WIN 12:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * what can I say, you don't listen, you don't learn, you keep adding confused and misspelled ramblings, you have nothing to say and make sure we all listen to you saying it. This is going nowhere, WIN, Wikipedia simply doesn't operate like this. dab (𒁳) 12:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dab, don't delete the well ref. sentences again & again. This is against WP policy and I should be telling you that WP doesn't operate like this. For Indian topic, Indian view is deleted !!! And, writing this is called as ramblings !!! You are behaving like a Dictator and deleting Paleogeography section which is properly written & refered ( written by somebody else ). WIN 04:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * your paragraph is offtopic and flawed. It presents the terms etymology as a matter of belief in either "out of India" or "Aryan invason". While the etymology is in fact clear and undisputed, and has nothing to do with such a dichotomy. Sarasvati may be notable to "out of India" literature, but that doesn't mean that "out of India" literature is notable to the topic of Sarasvati (this article). You are pushing fringe literature, annd misrepresenting serious literature which is of course against WP policy. Now stop it and try to learn something instead of wasting people's time. dab (𒁳) 10:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your portrayal of "Sanskrit, an indic language's ethymological understanding for Saraswati by Western linguists is more proper than Indians ! And, then telling Indian ethymology as painted with `Aryan Invasion' or OIT meaning " - is really laughable. You can not tell that " since western linguists have believed in this ethymology for last 150 years ( or since AIT ) then this ethymology is only correct. For western linguists this is `clear and undisputed' and hence your meaning is incorrect. And hence your meaning is based on OIT." That means Indian brahmins will have to learn afresh indic Saskrit from western linguists who are more `scholar' than native brahmins ? (!!!)

Dab, this type of views are really pathetic. What happened to your `naive ideology' allegations ? Instead of answering my questions, you are just rambling here on WP. WIN 05:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

-- an excellent summary of many surreal encounters to be had on Wikipedia. I thank you for this gem and might quote it in the futur :oD dab (𒁳) 11:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Rudra, give your reasons of deletion for my well ref. points and section. You are deleting well ref. subject points without discussion. You don't have any valid reason and hence propogating your POV based version. WIN 04:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected
I have protected the page till you guys resolve your dispute. Please do not edit-war. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * it is up to WIN to sketch possible compromise variants of the version he wants to impose. If he refuses, block him for disruptive stubborn slow edit-warring. If anyone can be bothered to collect WIN's activities over the past months, it may be time to take this to the arbcom. I won't do this because it would mean hours of work, and my time isn't free. dab (𒁳) 08:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

For more details about Sarasvati river's ancient cources read http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/kach/rannofkutch1.html which contains detailed maps and findings of archeologists. AND IT'S NOT MY WRITTEN VERSION. Infact it's Dab who is trying to push his POV based version by deleting well ref. points and misguide readers. WIN 13:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * giving us a hindunet.org link to a giant page full of the most diverse sources and claims goes nowhere towards defending the particular change touting the clouded interpretation of Kazanas and friends you have been pushing for weeks now. I am sure this page has a lot of information we might incorporate. This would require a competent editor sifting through it. Probably not you. dab (𒁳) 14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ouch. It looks like a classic Kalyanaraman page: a magpie's nest of snippets, quotes, maps and whatnot, dementedly "formatted" into unreadability.  Yes, there's good stuff in there, but don't even start without a bottle of Aspirin handy.  rudra 22:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The above given hindunet.org link is just one more ref. Whatever ref.are provided in the changes are well ref. points. You have a grudge for Kazanas & is evident from your failed tactics to redirect Nicholas Kazanas to Out of India theory article. And,telling Kazanas' interpretation as clouded also shows clear hatred for him. And, this is pure POV. And, pushing your POV on WP is not allowed.

Palaeogeography section is not written by me. But I strongly oppose it's deletion as it's well written with ref. Even above sited link will provide scope of some more additions in that section.Your deletion warring clearly shows that you even don't want to keep this well written sub-section, as it gives those details which are against the very version you want to push on WP. Now I am again telling you that pushing POV is against WP policy.

You are not providing any scholarly discussion on this talk page for point of objections, as even you know that you can not find one in it.I know that you want to prove hypothetical Indo Aryan Invasion / Migration theory as something fact. And, hence you are opposing this additions as it's showing facts which are against your POV. And, pushing POV is against WP policy. WIN 05:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kazanas and his theories are not notable WIN. I'm sorry, that's how it is, nothing to do with me or my views. In so many months, you haven't allowed that simple fact impress on your consciousness. Your edits are simply not helpful. Please try to find some editor who is either intelligent or has some basic education in the field argue your points for you. dab (𒁳) 10:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Kazanas is not sole person objecting hypothetical AIT. You have told that hindunet.org 's above mentioned link has a lot of information that can be included. But, now I am seeing that it's external link is being deleted ! The hypocrate virtue is evident from such deletions. And, MISGUIDE readers is your mantra. WIN 11:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oxus Amu Darya Rasa Volga
If the river Oxus Amu Darya was the Saraswat river mentioned in the Rig Veda,it does take the age of Rig Veda to 3rd Millenium BC. It makes sense then that the Rig Veda never mentions about the Indus Valley civilization because in that time when Rig Veda was composed the Aryans were still in Central Asia. If Volga was Rasa and Amu Darya was Saraswat has there been enough excavations done in these river valleys. Before establishing the location of Saraswati river in India - Gaggar enough excavation should be done in Russia in Volga, Amu Darya, Sta Arya and Caspian sea ( home land of Kasyapa clan ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.18.94 (talk)
 * this is patent nonsense. Most of the RV was clearly composed in the Punjab. It it contains references to the Oxus, that may correspond to traces of the early 2nd millennium situation, that's all. dab (𒁳) 14:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition
Note: WP India Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate, please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 09:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

article attrition
The article had acquired the usual flotsam of hand-waving about "left leaning historians" (why "left"? because Afghanistan is to the "left" of India?), deletion of tidbits disliked by Hindutva orthodoxy, and similar innuendo usually associated with this topic. --dab (𒁳) 13:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

References of saraswati in mahabharata
i have added some References regarding saraswati in mahabharata like- 1)In adi parva of mahabharata(1.90.26) it is mentioned that king matinar performed yagya in Fire altars at the bank of saraswati river,At Kalibangan fire Vedi (altar)s have been discovered, similar to those found at Lothal which S.R. Rao thinks could have served no other purpose than a ritualistic one.none of any river in the world having ancient city of fire altars along its bank including ganga,yamuna,indus.this shows that saraswati river was main vedic river in vedic time.adi parva of mahabharata(1.90.26) 2)In sabha parva of mahabharata(2.29.8) it is mentioned that "nakul conquered the sudra and abhir who lived at the bank of saraswati near sindhu(indus).mahabharat 2.29.8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkbdce (talk • contribs) 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

first of all i m sorry to wikipedia to give them extra trobles,but i was new i this area and didnot know how to add or edit any page and what is the policy.now i m aware of every thing.i urge wikipedia that i have add some reference of saraswati river related to Ghaggar-Hakra River in mahabharata with reference sourecs this time.i hope wikipedia will accept this accoring to there policy.i will respect ur policy in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkbdtu (talk • contribs) 12:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Helmand
If helmand is the original sarasvati. 1. How does it fit with the sapta sindh? 2.why not a single ancient settlement is found on the sides of the river? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirjhara (talk • contribs) 07:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

organization
this article needs a clearer division of scriptural references, geographical facts, and forwarded theories. Some material may better be exported to Ghaggar River. Afaik, the drying up of the Ghaggar is dated to 2000-1500. By 1500 BC, the Indo-Aryans were in the Punjab even according to the AIT (the probable dates of immigration ranges around 1750), and afaik the theory has been forwarded that Sarasvati came to play such a prominent role in the Vedas precisely because of the terrifying fact that she had disappeared. Bottom line, lots of people accept Ghaggar as Sarasvati, without necessarily rejecting a migration date of ca. the 18th century. Another common proposition is that the name moved witht the migrating tribes, i.e. it was Helmand before migration, Ghaggar after migration, and even other rivers further East in late Vedic times. I'll try to dig up some references. dab (&#5839;) 30 June 2005 11:46 (UTC)

What are your references for the drying up being between 2000-1500? I am coming across 1900 more often. Assume the latest date (to nicely fit into the AIT theory) of 1500, the Indo-Aryans moved into India 2.5 centuries before and immediately wrote a deeply philosophical work (Rig Veda). The other IE tribes took considerably longer to produce any sort of large scale literature (except the Iranian Avesta which is arguably derived from the Vedas e.g. turning S > H (sama, sapta, soma, saraswati, sapta sindhu becoming hama, hapta, hoama, harahvaiti and hapta hindu respectively) please note how every other IE language kept the S happily (which is why in English 7 is seven and not heven) the Iranic branch along with the Greek branch seem to be the only ones (to my knowledge) who liked turning S into H (Greek hepta for seven and hex for six).

Anyway the point is that why did the Indo Aryans in India form a distinct and comprehensive culture and a literature which describes the Saraswati in its heyday (not in it's final decades) so quickly after they entered India? This coupled with the fact that even Witzel himself regrets that archeological evidence for the AMT is scant.

One more point, without Archaeological Evidence the BMAC culture is touted as being IE while to imply the IVC is IE would be sacrelige.

I am not a Hindu; I am a British Pakistani who was born Muslim but is now atheist I have no political agenda, I am just annoyed that the British still quote with pride statements such as Macauley's desire to create, in British India, "a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect." These are disgusting statements which legitimise the destruction of indigenous cultures. Max Muller posited the AIT first only to mellow out in his later years and accept how much India has helped shape the world.

With the discovery of the IVC we should have changed our views on the AIT however a great paradox was allowed to be born; we have the ruins of a civilisation with no literature and we have a huge literature ( not just the RV but later texts too) with no corresponding civilisation. The pasupati seal depicts a Yogic position where the legs are crossed with the soles of the feet touching is fairly strong proof of the continuity of Yoga at least. The Gundestrup Cauldron only shows a man seated with no particular thought given to how this legs are arranged or whether the feet touch; it is not a yoga position.

One day in 20-30 years with the death of Witzel and the old school AIT/AMT proponents the truth will surface. Indian History is the greatest and most beautiful in all the world; ahimsa and vegetarianism are two beautiful, complex and extremely civilised ideas which the Indians came up with millennia ago but are only becoming well known in the western world now. Please just compare the amount of wars initiated by and involving Europeans vs the wars initiated by and involving the Indians. 90.199.242.52 (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Conclusive date of drying up
Several conflicting dates for the drying up of this river are posited. Ranging from 4000 BC to 1900 BC. Both would predate any AIT and both would make Vedic Sanskrit the oldest (by virtue of it mentioning the river Saraswati flowing) Indo-European language. Why isn't this taken more seriously? It's as if people have selective blindness if anything even so hints at the origins of the Indo European languages being in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.242.52 (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The Ghaggar is still flowing, so how can there be a conclusive date of its drying up? There have been drier and wetter climate phases for thousands of years, so sometimes it flows more, sometimes less. The dates conflict because they were obtained by different methods.
 * - Yash Pal et al 1981 (which was cited a lot) assumed that the Harappan settlements on the Ghaggar-Hakra were abandoned because the river dried up, so they dated the loss of the river to the archaeological date of the settlements being abandoned - that is the source of the dates around 1900 BC. But in fact some of the Harappan sites were built right on the paleo-floodplain, along an inland delta, so it must have already been much smaller than its greatest ancient flow at that point.


 * - Other dates are based on geology, which is tricky, because it's very indirect. One study looked at the age of sand dunes lining the Ghaggar-Hakra flood plain; they found that they hadn't been disturbed for 10-15 thousand years, so the river can't have been much larger since then, or they would have washed away. Others noted that the floodplain of the G-H was much smaller than that of the major Punjab rivers, and not deeply cut into the plain, but was much more steadily flowing during the Harappan period than it is at present. Other studies have looked at the source of rocks in different sediment layers in the riverbed, testing them for levels of various minerals or radioactive substances, to see whether they come from the high Himalayas or just from the foothills: the latest one I know of found that both the Yamuna and the Sutlej had stopped flowing into the Ghaggar channel by 10 thousand years ago at the latest. So the big ancient channels date to the Pleistocene. But some of the older research did give more recent dates, that you have probably seen.


 * - The Saraswati of the Rig Veda is identified as the Ghaggar-Hakra based on the 'River Hymn' in RV 10, where it is placed between Yamuna and Sutlej. Other hymns praise the Saraswati as being a great and swift river that flows to the sea. Putting them together, we can argue that the Ghaggar-Hakra flowed to the sea during the RV time - this is the most natural interpretation. *However*, there are many other possibilities. The different hymns (probably written centuries apart, by different people in different places) could be referring to different rivers with the same name (there are numerous rivers called the Saraswati today, for instance, and there were very likely at least two at the time). The translation could be wrong - it actually says "to the samudra", which usually means ocean, but literally means "gathering of water", and could apply to e.g. the water of the atmosphere, or a confluence of rivers. It could be a mythical or divine river. It could have *not* really flowed to the sea, but people at the time thought it did, invisibly or underwater - just as many Hindus believe the Saraswati meets the Ganges and Yamuna nowadays. (In fact, in the Mahabharata, which is often cited as referring to the Saraswati being dried up, it actually says the Saraswati reaches the sea in Gujarat, near the present temple of Prabhas Patan, which is also a Triveni Mahasangam nowadays. This is also mentioned by one of the medieval Arab geographers, so it is a very old continuing tradition.) So anyway, there are lots of possibilities besides the most straightforward one.


 * - I can recall a number of western sources (Kenoyer I think was one? and Danino) mentioning the Saraswati date as evidence against an Indo-Aryan invasion in the 2nd millennium BC. But that was before the new dates; no one is going to put the Rig Veda that far back (for very good reasons). Either the really early dates are wrong or the interpretation of the Rig Veda is.Megalophias (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

7.36.6
I removed this:
 * In RV 7.36.6, the Sindhu is referred to as the mother of the Sarasvati, i.e. the Sarasvati is here described as a tributary of the Indus.(Elst, Koenraad: The Official Pro-Invasion Argument at Last. Elst refers to Hans Hock 1999)

this is apparently misquoted. 7.36.6 says no such thing,this is the verse that addresses Sarasvati as sindhumata "mother of rivers". Whoever interpreted this as Sindhu being the mother of Sarasvati has never heard of a tatpurusha. I'm not sure what to make of the reference; somebody seems to be debunking someone else in the tired AIT debate, but Hock 1999 is not listed in the references, and something seems to have become garbled by whoever inserted this. dab (&#5839;) 11:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The reference is to Hans Hock's paper "Through a glass darkly" in Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia, Ann Arbor 1999, ed. Bronkhorst and Deshpande.

On page 164, it reads: "...which declares the Sindhu to be the mother of the Sarasvati. .... (RV 7.36.6ab) "When the honorable (rivers come) together longing(ly), (and) Sarasvati as the seventh, whose mother is the Sindhu..." --Rayfield 12:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Bahuvrihi and tatpurusha can be distinguished in Vedic according to which member retains the accent: the first in a bahuvrihi, the second in a tatpurusha. In 7.36.6, the accent is on the i of sindhu, as can be verified from The TITUS Database.  Hock is correct, Griffith is mistaken.  rudra 22:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Hock is wrong! "Sindhumata" has the meaning "mother of sindhu (tributary)" not "sindhu the mother of ...". Also Hock's view contradicts Yajurveda Samhita (White Yajurveda) 13, 35 (665) according to which Sarasvati had two fountains, which suits to the two major fountains of the Ghaggar-Hakra River.--87.178.216.214 (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sarasvati goddess
Funny, that the term "Sarasvati" mostly refers to the goddess, and only two times to a river; and yet, Witzel was omitted in the article. Shines another light on the supposed drying up and the supposed earlier dating for the Vedic period. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   22:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This assertion is very strange and contradicts most references. "Hindu Goddesses: Visions of the Divine Feminine in the Hindu Religious Tradition" By David Kinsley talks about the importance river on his chapter on the deity Sarasvati. Quoting from the Sarasvati article of Britannica: "The river Sarasvati is revered above all others in the Vedas (a collection of poems and hymns) and is by far the one most frequently mentioned". . I am removing "In the Rigveda, the name Sarasvati relates mostly to a goddess;" which tries to make a distinction about Sarasvati the river and the goddess; which contradicts most references that consider the Vedic Sarasvati as the river and its goddess, the same entity. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 06:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, good argument. I'll have to check the sources. I've placed the Goddess-section now with the Rg Veda section.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Importance
This seems like a relevant section to me, but it's strange to have it in the lead, without elaborating it in the article. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   08:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Drying-up
Why is the Sarasvati said to have "dried up", while the textual sources speak of "diving under" and "disappearance"? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Saraswati Civilisation
This is a problematic section indeed: I'll read the Giosan article further. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.statetimes.in/news/the-saraswati-civilisation/ is a dead link
 * Giosan et al.: "Contrary to earlier assumptions that a large glacier-fed Himalayan river, identified by some with the mythical Sarasvati, watered the Harappan heartland on the interfluve between the Indus and Ganges basins, we show that only monsoonal-fed rivers were active there during the Holocene." (p.1688)
 * Giosan et al.:"Numerous speculations have advanced the idea that the Ghaggar-Hakra fluvial system, at times identified with the lost mythical river of Sarasvati (e.g., 4, 5, 7, 19), was a large glacierfed Himalayan river. Potential sources for this river include the Yamuna River, the Sutlej River, or both rivers. However, the lack of large-scale incision on the interfluve demonstrates that large, glacier-fed rivers did not flow across the Ghaggar-Hakra region during the Holocene." (p.1689)

It's even worse. It's not just WP:OR, it's fraud:
 * "The report said that the Saraswati was "not Himalayan-fed by a perennial monsoon-supported water course.""

The study says the contray; see above. Unbelievable. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   14:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Identification - what's left?
Most of the section on identification is about the Ghaggar-Hakra River and the Harappan civilisation, not about the Vedic sarasvati. The arguments of Danino deserve a more elaborate presentation. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   07:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The references identify the Vedic Sarasvati with Ghaggar-Hakra River and then discusses its course. The reference titles: "Saraswati – the ancient river lost in the desert", "Vedic River Sarasvati and Hindu Civilization", "Possible contribution of River Saraswati in groundwater aquifer system in western Rajasthan, India". -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 07:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

India: a sacred geography
The following sentence is sourced qith Eck (2012), "India: a sacred geography":
 * "The Vedic Sarasvati river is generally thought to be located at the east of the Indus (Sindhu) river"

Yet, the book says
 * "Many think the river once flowed east of the Indus"

That's different from "generaly thought". Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please reword. An Archaeological History of Religions of Indian Asia by Jack Finegan p. 15 also lists Sarasvati flowing east of Indus as a opinion of many scholars. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 07:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I'll read it this afternoon. Looks like Eck has quite some info on the Sarasvati.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, my point still is: the text suggests that the Sarasvati has been proved to be Ghaggar-Hakra River. Given the dates for the development of the Indo-Aryan culture, this seems unlikely, unless they took over existing mythologies. As it is now, the article serves to "prove", or at least suggest, a certain POV.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article should prove it. But definitely say that Ghaggar-Hakra River is the most popular theory as evidenced by various references that present the summary of the theories. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 07:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

But how about scholars who reject this identification? Or who don't even bother to study the topic? It seems to me that somewhat undue weight is being given to this identification. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   14:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Wilke
"Annette Wilke says the "historical river" Sarasvati was a "topographically tangible mythogeme", which was reduced to a "small, sorry tickle in the desert", by the time of composition of the Hindu epics. These post-Vedic texts regularly talk about drying up of the river and start associating the goddess Sarasvati with language, rather than the river."

Good quote. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   14:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Identification - mythological river
I think that the subsection on "Mythological river" should come first. It has been regarded as such for centuries; only recently attempst have been made to identify it with real rivers. As it is now, it gives undue weight to these attempts. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   16:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Identification is of the Vedic Sarasvati, while the Triveni belief where Sarasvati is mythical is Puranic. Adding references. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll see it later. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   16:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The info on the mythologocal part is now divided over two subsections; I think they should be in one. And isn't there more info on the mythological part? I love this image of the Milky Way as a divine realm which touches the Earth; it's beautifull.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The mythological part by Witzel is about the Vedic Sarasvati river, while the other part is about the Puranic Sarasvati river of the Triveni. They stream from different traditions. The Triveni belief originates after disappearance of the Vedic Sarasvati and is considered its legacy. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan A message was left on the talk, before reverting and expanded further after reverting. Why should the identification of Witzel of the Vedic Sarasvati and the Hindu Puranic belief of an mythical Sarasvati? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

How about another name? The difference between "Vedic" and "Puranic" should be mentioned; thanks. Have you got more info? It's a nice topic. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   07:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ludvík quotes Witzel while discussing the Vedic texts. Ludvík has another section about the river in the Puranas (Puranic is the adjective). Currently, a short para about the river in the Puranas is Post-Vedic texts. The river becomes subordinate to the goddess (who has acquired a much greater role), by the Puranic times. Romila Thapar says numerous present-day rivers were named after the Vedic Sarasvati, which is the present-day situation. Since the Puranic belief of the Triveni is a present-day belief and a legacy of the Vedic Sarasvati, it should be noted in Present-day Sarasvati. It is also inaccurate labelling the Sarasvati of the Triveni as a "heavenly river", as it is believed to be "underground" or "subtle" or "symbolic" in presence. Redtigerxyz  Talk 07:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The placement of the "extended" (two lines) info from Witzel at the start of the identification-section is fine with me.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Identification - two theories
Darian speaks of "tow theories". This excludes the statement "has been generally identified with the present-day Ghaggar-Hakra River or dried up part of it". Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   16:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * One theory: Ghaggar. Second theory: Helmand. He does not propose them, but notes the "main" theories.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that that statement is problematic, because it suggests it's widely accepted. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   17:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ghaggar is the most cited theory. Reworded. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The rephrasing "Identification theories" is good.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Other Sarasvati-rivers
Since "Other Sarasvati-rivers" are not the real (read Vedic) Sarasvati, but as Romila Thapar says part of the Vedic Sarasvati legacy. Should the list be incorporated in "Contemporary religious meaning" (Really like the new avatar of the section and the apt title, User:Joshua Jonathan) OR be removed completely.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I'm happy you appreciate the new title. It's been an interesting read; I've become less sceptical about the identification of the Sarasvati with the Ghaggar-Hakra, but it's also clear to me that this identification does not support an earlier dating of the Vedic people; "drying-up" seems to have been taken too literal. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NB: I'd prefer subheaders.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilisation as Sarasvati civilization
IMO, we need to remove this section from Ghaggar-Hakra River as this hypothesis is independent from the identification with Ghaggar. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 07:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess I agree (I'm not sure which section you mean exactly). The section on the historical course also seems to long to me. And the geology-section is unsourced, and contradicted by the monsoon-section.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant Sarasvati_River, which should be created as a separate section and expanded further. Removed sections: IMO, the para "Satellite images in possession of the ISRO and ONGC..." is needed. Rest looks ok. Also, I remember reading "Other scenarios suppose that geological changes diverted the Sutlej towards the Indus" part somewhere about the drying of Sarasvati or Ghaggar (not sure), will search the reference. Also, there are discussions about the course of the Sarasvati through the Thar/near Indus valley without identification with Ghaggar in particular. e.g. http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/102/05/0685.pdf; also in the Hydrology and Water Resources of India where Ghaggar is consider as a related river. We need to add a section on that too. Please suggest an appropriate location for the same. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At "Course of the historical Ghaggar-Hakra River"?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , as a separate section somewhere since these discussions do not identify the Sarasvati with any present-day river. Should I put that in Identifications or as a separate section before identifications. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, you mean the Harappan civilisation? I'd leave it as it is now; the topic is the Sarasvati-river, not the Harappan civilisation. It's fine to leave a small subsection in the article, I think, but not expand it further.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Problematic attempts to identify
How the current statement, These attempts are problematic, since the Ghaggar-Hakra river was already dried up at the time of the composition of the Vedas, let alone the migration of the Vedic people into northern India, is actually supported by the given citations? Bladesmulti (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This way:
 * ''"Annette Wilke notes that the "historical river" Sarasvati was a "topographically tangible mythogeme", which was already reduced to a "small, sorry tickle in the desert", by the time of composition of the Hindu epics. These post-Vedic texts regularly talk about drying up of the river, and start associating the goddess Sarasvati with language, rather than the river.[86]


 * ''"Michael Witzel also notes that the Rg Veda indicates that the Sarsvati "had already lost its main source of water supply and must have ended in a terminal lake (samudra)."[4]


 * "Ashoke Mukherjee is also critical of the attempts to identify the Rigvedic Sarasvati, noticing that the attempts to push back the dating of the Vedic peoples are unrealistic and not in line with the accepted data of the entry of the Vedic people into northern India, namely no earlier than 1500 BCE.[5] Mukherjee concludes that the Vedic poets had not seen the palaeo-Sarasvati, and that what they described in the Vedic verses refers to something else.[87]"


 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Even with these 3 statements, there is nothing clear whether the previous statement has any serious issues, sentence looks like an opinion. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the text in lead is UNDUE to Ghaggar and only the theories need to be noted in the lead. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

why the River Saraswathi existed but the IVC was not Vedic
Dear Sir,

This is with respect to your article on the Saraswathi river. The identification of the Saraswathi River with the Ghaggra-Hakkar is accepted by leading archaeologists such as the late Gregory Possehl as well and i don’t think any other scenario is feasible. This is because of the following factors (a) The River Saraswathi explains the desertification of Rajasthan. It also explains the transfer of populations to the Ganga-Yamuna doab. The Indus Valley Civilization could not have flourished or taken shape with the Thar Desert sitting right in the middle. However, the IVC was pre-Vedic as was explained in my papers, and the transfer of power happened through a series of acculturations. 27.57.163.173 04:50, 18 April 2015
 * Would you be kind enough to tell us which papers you are referring to? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Iron
There some dispute with the dating of Iron after recent excavation. See - 1800 - 1900 may seem near. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither of these are remotely serious sites. You really must learn to access scholarly information, not just link to random websites. Paul B (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was talking about other recent excavation if you had read, yes there are scholarly publications about the origin of Iron for these dates as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You might be getting confused between knowing iron and knowing how to smelt it. Smelting was figured out only in the latter half of the second millennium BC according to all sources I have seen. Before smelting, whatever was made of iron would have been too brittle, probably expensive and not competitive with bronze. But, you need to be more worried about the chariot, which was only invented around 2000 BC in the Sintashta culture. It reached Anatolia by 1800 BC and we have to assume a similar date for India. The earliest domesticated horse remains we have in India so far are from 1700 BC. Kautilya3 (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I had not confused them, not just wrought iron, but smelting took place around 1800 BCE in India. We can mention this, probably somewhere in the section that includes the dating of the use of Iron. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, all fringe theorists have to go into the Indigenous Aryans page, and that if they are important enough. Kautilya3 (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a fringe theory as these legible discoveries supersedes those 18 - 30 year old estimates that were provided by Witzel. Also see Bladesmulti (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Bryant: ''"The iron evidence supports the concencus that places that will place the date of the Rgveda somewhere within a 1900-1200 BCE bracket." (Bryant 2001, p.247)''. The point is still clear: indigenists try any argument to underscore their point. Find a scientific journal, a reliable one, which gives these datings, and adresses the dating of the Vedas. Is there evidence of iron in the Punjab at 1900 BCE? Rakesh Tewari speaks of the Middle Ganga valley. And regarding Satyamurthi, A critical approach to theories on ancient India: "It is in this background that Rabindranath Tagore affirmed that the present brand of Indian history is a nightmarish account of India." Rabindranath Tagore? Didn't he die in 1941? What does he have to say about present-day history? Also nice: "On the notion of Aryanisation of India on the basis of introduction of iron, the use of horses, and knowledge of spoked wheels, ample material is provided by him to shatter the theory." It's more of the same. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Quote says that the first "use of iron which makes it appearance in India" not before 1200 BCE, but these researches concludes that it was used before 1800 BCE and Uttar Pradesh is a part of India. It is from 2003, it is relevant as the quote of Witzel. But then I also think that the quote is undue because it is not about Sarasvati River. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to a note. it's not undue, though; the real topic of this article is the familiair Indigenist story, of which the Sarasvati-river form a part. Sort of a coatrack, again.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Witzel is not an archaeologist and he might not pay attention to the subtle distinctions that we are talking about. Since we understand what he means, we should paraphrase his discussion. There is no mention of iron in the Rig veda, and so it was composed before iron came into everyday use. There is plenty of mention of horse. So it was composed after horses were imported into India. Isn't this as clear as it can get? But Saraswati poses a problem. That is why it needs to be discussed. I don't agree that this issue is UNDUE. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I had seen JJ's response. He had already sorted it. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to my satisfaction. But I will think about it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There mention of black (krsna) metal (ayas) in the Atharvaveda and other post RV texts, which is usually taken to be a reference to iron, though there have been attempts to argue that references to ayas in RV refer to iron. It's usually just taken to mean 'metal', which is clearly synonymous with bronze in the early hymns. Paul B (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the Table 2 here I am unable to match the "Date BP" and "Date cal BC" columns. Can somebody else figure out what these columns mean? "Early part of second millennium BC" is mentioned in the paper, but most of the dates in the table are in the second half. I would say that iron was known perhaps 1800-1700 BC, but was perfected and became widespread only after 1500 BC. I think the point of the paper is really to highlight that the iron technology was developed locally, not imported. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"Importance" section
When I deleted the Importance section saying it was "fringe theory", reverted it with the summary, ''Don't agree. This is about religion, not science; it explains why the Sarasvati is so important in Hinduism.'' Normally a sensible man, I believe Joshua is wrong here, because this is not religion, but pseudo-religion. "Hindus believe"? That there was a "Vedic state" called "Brahmavarta" on its banks, "some 10,000 years ago"? And they also "believe" that "Vedic Sanskrit" was born here? The sources for these pronouncements are some unpublished conference talk of some unknown person, and David Frawley's article on the web site of a "New Age answer to David Attenborough". Even "religion" needs reliable sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm... You may be right here; I don't know. I have no idea if this is common believe in Hinduism. But for me it was informative to read; it makes sense of the importance of the Sarasvati in Hinduism. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NB: this is an interesting article on the 10,000 date. It is wrong in rejecting the Indo-Aryan migration theory, and sees the IVC as Vedic, but has interesting things to say on the end of the Ice Age, the development of agri-culture, and the flow of the Sarasvati. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Haven't checked yet, but would expect Diana Eck's book to have material about the religious importance of Sarasvati. Abecedare (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that Eck is already cited in the Contemporary religious meaning section. I would suggest renaming that section to Contemporary religious importance and removing the current Importance section, which contains content that is either redundant, or fringe. Any objections? Abecedare (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No objection.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to add some references about Sarasvati from the later Vedic texts.
Hi,I think these references from the Vedic texts can be added in 'Other Vedic texts' section:

From Taittiriya Samhita 7.2.1.3 :"They go with the Sarasvati. This is the path that goes to the gods; verily they mount upon it. They go calling aloud; verily fastening misfortune on another they attain support. When ten (cows) make a hundred, then is one time to stop. Man is of a hundred (years of) life and of a hundred powers; verily in life and power do they find support. When a hundred make a thousand, then is one time to stop. Yonder world is measured by a thousand; verily they conquer yonder world. If one of them perish or they be oppressed, then is one time to stop, for that is a suitable opportunity." This is apparently a reference similar to the Sarasvata-sattras or rituals conducted near Sarasvati as explained in the Shrautasutras.Although the Shrautasutras mention the Vinashana as the starting point of the rituals,in this passage there is no mention of Vinashana.

From Satapatha Brahmana 5.3.4.3: "He first takes (water) 1 from the (river) Sarasvatî, with (Vâg. S. X, i), 'The gods took honey-sweet water,'--whereby he says, 'the gods took water full of essence;'--'sapful, deemed king-quickening,'--by 'sapful' he means to say, 'full of essence;' and by 'deemed king-quickening' he means to say, '(water) which is recognised as king-quickening;'--'wherewith they anointed Mitra and Varuna,' for therewith they did anoint (sprinkle) Mitra and Varuna;--'wherewith they guided Indra past his enemies,' for therewith they indeed guided Indra past the fiends, the Rakshas. Therewith he sprinkles him,--Sarasvatî being (the goddess of) Speech: it is with speech he thereby sprinkles him. This is one kind of water: it is that he now brings." This verse is about sprinkling Sarasvati's water on a new king on his declaration.This plus the mention of Sarasvata-sattras could mean that Sarasvati played an important role in the late Vedic culture even after she lost her former glory.

From Atharva Veda 6.30.1 : "Over a magic stone, beside Sarasvati, the Gods Ploughed in this barley that was blent with mead. Lord of the plough was Indra, strong with hundred powers: the ploughers were the Maruts they who give rich gifts." Although the hymn is for the hair growth,we see explicit mention of ploughing and planting barley near Sarasvati,which could mean that the lands near Sarasvati was fertile even during the time of AV. Regards, --AryaBharatiya (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * We are not allowed to interpret ancient texts as Wikipedia editors. That would be original research. You would need to find secondary sources that make the connections you are implying. Also, we don't use direct quotations unless there is an exceptional need to do so. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Kautilya, Here I provide the references.Check Vedic index for the passage from AV and TS.Many things said there are outdated for numerous decades,but the references to Sarasvati in aforsaid texts still stands. As for the passage from Satapatha check on Michel Danino's book..


 * Sarasvata-sattras are mentioned in various books.I personally became aware of it while reading through this book.Sadly no copy is available online.But I also found reference about it on this book. It means that Sarasvati played an important role in Vedic culture even after she lost most of her waters. Cheers,--AryaBharatiya (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe WikiQuotes?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You need to eliminate all the unnecessary whitespace in your messages.
 * As per WP:HISTRS, only historians are reliable sources for history. Religious Studies scholars are reliable for religion but sometimes they can also talk about history in a reliable way, e.g., Michael Witzel (who is actually a linguist). People like Michel Danino are not reliable for anything. They are just enthusiasts. The Ludvik book looks fine. As for Rajendra Nath Sharma, you would need to tell us what his background is. The book you mentioned does not have any academic citations . So, off-hand, we can't treat it as reliable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya,sorry,I'll type in one paragraph from now on.It seems that both Vedic Index and Danino's book are already cited numerous times in the article.See here and here.So I see no problem in adding additional details from the same works.Both Ludvik's and Sharma's references to the Sarasvatasattras sums up the same thing which is also found in Pancnavimsa Brahmana,so you can pick which is more reliable(I would say Ludvik,since it deals with Sarasvati alone while Sharma's work mostly deals with the culture of Shrautasutras). Best wishes,--AryaBharatiya (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits on Saraswati
Hi all,

I have made the following edits in the article:
 * 1) In the etymology section, I simply added "lake" as a meaning of Saras and "she with many lakes". This was ALREADY present in the Helmand section of the article.
 * 2) In the etymology section, I added that "exact cognate" is from Lommel (already cited). It is not supposed to be cited as a fact, which it seemingly was. I also added false cognates possibility, because (a) saras+vati = is already mentioned in the article at several places, and (b) I have proven with citation that the Avestan term for lake is Vairi.
 * 3) In the Helmand section, I have organized the criticism into points for easy understanding. Originally, the language of criticism consisted of two small paragraphs written in unencyclopedic language. I have even added "counter-criticism" by Kochhar because the original criticism seems to be missing the point. Then I added the dictionary meaning of Samudra with reference, reiterated the possibility of false etymology from the previous Etymology section, and also added a few points in which Kocchar's paper (already in reference list) has a weak logic. Everything is handles using encyclopedic language.

Please feel free to edit it as necessary, add more references and counter-criticism if needed (I have some more references from a book by Bryant), or "citation needed".

Lastly, I perfectly know that many people of Leftist ideology consider themselves as authentic and authoritative keepers of History, ignoring all facts and logic that come from the other side of the political spectrum, and using various excuses to do so. Kindly be reasonable and keep Wikipedia non-political and NPOV.User:Magicalsaumy (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your effort to brand the scholars' conclusions as "speculative" and adding your own OR about the etymology is certainly not acceptable. Everything that is written on Wikipedia should have a reliable sources. Only when reliable sources disagree do you have any scope to discuss their relative merits. I have reverted it again. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pure WP:OR. read alsoWP:AGF and WP:PLATFORM. And take notice of the ARBIPA-notification Kautilya3 sent you.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

How to clean up this page
This page continuously oscillates between the river Sarasvati (which presumably exists, even though there is no clear agreement on what it is), and all the ideas of the Sarasvati river in Hinduism. In other words, the history/science/fact are mixed up with religious beliefs/myths. The readers are thoroughly confused. (See, e.g., the recent discussion at Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation.)

I think there are two ways to go. Either we split the page into two pages (one on the real river and one on the Hindu beliefs), or we clearly delineate the science and religion so that they are not mixed up. Which alternative do people prefer? - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Sarasvati is primarily a river of the Rig Veda. That is what any article on it should be about.  Some scholars have attempted, unsuccessfully thus far, to identify a real river, extant or extinct, which might have been the inspiration for the literary descriptions in the Rig Veda.  That should be no more than a section at the end, occupying no more than one sixth of the article length. For, given the poetic and impressionistic descriptions of the river in the Rig Veda, nothing approaching the precision of identification in modern hydrology, limnology or geology can be achieved.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am removing the following two paragraphs from the lead (at least for now): "The work on delineation of entire course of Sarasvati River in North West India was carried out using Indian Remote Sensing Satellite data along with digital elevation model. The palaeochannels are validated using historical maps, archaeological sites, hydro-geological and drilling data. It was observed that major Indus Valley Civilization sites of Kalibangan (Rajasthan), Banawali and Rakhigarhi (Haryana), Dholavira and Lothal (Gujarat) lie along the River Sarasvati.""Many scholars have identified the Vedic Sarasvati River with the Ghaggar-Hakra River, which flows in northwestern India and Pakistan. This was proposed by several scholars in the 19th and early 20th century. Satellite images in possession of the ISRO and ONGC have confirmed that the major course of a river ran through the present day Ghaggar River. Another theory suggests that the Helmand River of southern Afghanistan corresponds to the Sarasvati River. Some scholars have pointed out that the Sarasvati also represented a heavenly river Milky Way."

The reason for the deletion is the there are too many violations in it of WP's rules and principles. For example, delineation of the entire course" presupposes the existence of a real historical river, which by no means is certain; it presupposes that the Rigveda is a historical document, which too by no means is certain. As it turned out, the satellite images were of beds of different rivers.  Also the Government of India's quote that Kalibangan Banawali Rakhigarhi and Dholavira and Lothal all lie along the River Sarasvati makes for perplexing geology.  The river would have to make a hard left (almost right angles) at Kalibangan (or even harder left at Ganweriwala in Cholistan) if it were to then course down to Lothal and Dholavira, presumably in distributaries; otherwise, it would then make a hard right at Lothal to empty in the Rann of Kutch, near Dholavira (see here).  Also, as recent geophysics work on the Indus Valley Civilization has shown it takes a lot more than examining satellite images to say with certainty where the course of a dried up river lies. For all these reasons, this speculation does not belong to the lead. Similarly, posting a picture of the Ghaggar river in this page also violates NPOV. Even using the words "identify,""identification"is POV, as we are again conflating near-myth and near-reality. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am happy with this clean-up. The Government of India page is not a reliable source for us. No comment regarding the hard right and hard left. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

"Palaeo Channel of North West India"
I've removed this piece of text twice:

I did this for several reasons: Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote in question is not from K.S. Valdiya and his team, but from minister Sushri Uma Bharati;
 * The quote (emphasis mine) "this river was once upon a time the lifeline of the north-western states of India and a vibrant series of civilizations from Mahabharat period to Harappa had flourished on the banks of this river" indicates that the minister does not have a neutral point of view, and is pushing a political POV. The supposed "Mahabharat period" is purely mythological, not factual: which civilization  was there before the Harappans; for which groups is this narrative important?
 * The source does not mention Ghaggar-Hakra River, let alone an explicit identification of the Saraswati with the Ghaggar-Hakra River;
 * The source does not mention Danino; ergo, "thus giving credence to Danino's theory" is WP:OR.


 * Valdiya 2002 p.23 does not mention Danino; nor is there a "Danino's theory"; what Danino says is that those people who say that the Vedic people where in India before 1500 BCE, based on the presumed identification of the Sarasvati with dried-up ancient river courses, may be right. So, the sentence "thus giving credence to Danino's theory" is still WP:OR.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Condensing the clutter, correcting the place names and location
2404:E800:E61E:452:F1AD:E5AC:E656:F51F (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The article had wrong spelling of the town, I have inserted the contemporary spelling to make it easy to identity. Some of the place names, that were are correct 100 years ago but have changed now 9e.g. newer districts have been created, hence changed the name of district where the place it located to its correct current district name) and so on.
 * Too many headings, for example, there were more headings for notes, external links, see also, references and so on. To reduce the clutter, and to improve the readability, I have grouped those together as sub-sections under two sections. This in line with wikipedia guideliens for excessive number of "support" sections in an article, to group them together.
 * Some of the related headings were grouped under (e.g. vedic, other vedic and post-vedic were placed under a higher order heading "scriptures") and so on. Thanks.


 * You did a nice job messing-up the structure of the article. The way you re-grouped the references, external links etc. is at odds with Wiki-guidelines. Yet, your grouping of "Importance" with "Contemporary religious meaning" makes sense.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Further Imrpovements Need
Someone has done a good job of cleaning it up, since i visited this last. Further improvements are suggested:
 * Article is mostly one sided POV, which basically repeatedly tries to prove across various sections Ghaghhar-Hakra is not Sarasvati. Its provides no literature-based counter argument and counter-counter arguments to arrive upon a balanced conclusion. This needs to be added.
 * Article is too heavy on old sources and more recent critique based on on the newer research needs to be included
 * Some of the text based on around lack of DNA claims and other speculative arguments by Danino (2015) in Sarasvati River section are no longer valid, and can be easily refuted with latest 2016-17 Rakihigarhi DNA results of 5,000 years old skeleton.
 * Need to add all potential paleo-channels, their likely shifts and geo-causes for the shift, change in flow rate and linage to various fluctuations of ice ages in India with dates, any associated civilizations, dates for all of these, etc. This could be a sub-heading under "identification with sarasvati" to documents various "shifting" paleo=channels with likely dates of changes and volume of flow in the channels with references, with short scholarly literate based critique of these hypotheses, by also linking them fluctuations in various eras. For example (I am just throwing the dates, need to research the exact dates, if any):
 * 50,000 BCE?, Sarasvati flowing west-to-east from Shivalik Hills to Ganga-Yamuna confluence,
 * 10,000 BCE?, due to plate tactonic of two craton, the Aravalli Craton (west of Aravalli Range in Rajasthan) and Bundelkand Craton of larger Indian Craton, Sarasvati changed course from west-to-east (Ganga-Yamuna) to North-to-South flowing into Great Rann of Kutch, identification of its course, civilizations, dates, etc?
 * 6,000 BCE? to 4,000, several slow shifts towards Indus and confluence with Indus near Lal Suhanra National Park which lies in a dried up paleo-channel of Ghaggar-Hakra River. May variations in the shifts by identifying all paleo-channels.
 * 3,000 BCE? to ??, ice age drying up, monsonal changes, etc leading to gradually reducing flow rates and eventual drying up of Dhrisdavati and Ghagghar currently flowing up to Rajasthan sand dunes.??
 * More text is needed, the how Helmund basin (not the river or its tributaries, make it more explicitly clear) came to be called cognate Sarasvati. Include all potential hypothesis and their critique, for example:
 * Indo-Aryans were originally from Iran and moved to Ghagghar-hakra and started to call it new Sarasvati (this was previously more accepted)
 * Indo-Aryans were natives of India, who descended from (this more likely based on the latest Rakhigarhi DNA tests, in abscence of more data, use this data even though it might have its own counter critique) pre-harappan and they moved towards east in Iran and Helmund, also towards west in UP and MP, once Ghagghar-hakra started to dry up.
 * There were several back-and-forth migrations between (Helmund Basin) and IVC basin, try to identify each wave with date and its direction (Iran to India, India to Iran, there might be multiple simultaneous bi-directional migrations). Once we list those, we can build a better picture. If you have suggestions, but do not yet have robust enough text to be added to the article, drop the comments please.

This will allow us to start forming a larger picture, assigning due literate-based possibilities to these hypothesis. Thanks

2404:E800:E61E:452:F1AD:E5AC:E656:F51F (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Reply by JJ:
 * There are no data available yet on Rakihigarhi DNA; yet, there is plenty of new DNA-material available on Indo-Aryan intrusions into India.
 * Indo-Aryans coming from Iran: is there any source which makes this suggestion? I suppose you mean present-day Afghanistan?
 * Indigenous Aryans: no need to pay undue attention to this outdated fringe-theory here.
 * Back-and-forth migrations: there probably were multiple waves of migration into India.
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sarasvati River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060914233919/http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/glaciology/glaciology1.htm to http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/glaciology/glaciology1.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/VedicSaraswati1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

New sources
This source may be of interest: Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   10:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Helmand
Nobody in historical memory 'gave' the Helmand the name 'Sarasvati'. It's simply that the river was called the Sarasvati in the past. The fact that it's the same name as the vedic river has led to the argument that it was the orginal 'sarasvati' of the Vedas. The Helmand is important to this issue and certainly should not be censored out.

_______

Helmand theory is a fringe theory for it is based on mere speculations and is not widely accepted like Ghaggar.

Even though Wikipedia article mentions that Ghaggar is a theory, it is well-known outside Wikipedia that it's much more than a theory and is close to the fact.Onkuchia (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Shivalik
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarasvati_River&diff=854927534&oldid=854925446&diffmode=source

What copi-vios you are talking about? There's no need to misrepresent the source and ascribe the widely accepted view to just one scholar. And could you please stop using "argue" word for scientific and geological studies?Onkuchia (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You copied text from Prasad. In cases like that, you ought to use quotation-marks, to make clear the text has been copied. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Despite my edit-summary diff and this talkpage-tread, in which you pinged me, you've now restored a copy-vio two times... diff diff. could you take a look here? Thanks.  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It is no copi-vio. It is evident that I have constructed my own statement. And there's no need to use quotation when it is not necessary. (In this case, the views are widely accepted by many scholars).Onkuchia (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Prasad p.14:
 * Onkuchia diff:
 * That's a copy-vio. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a copy-vio. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a copy-vio. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Max Mueller's Samudra
I am removing this passage for discussion:

Max Mueller is from another century. Current scholarship accepts Konrad Klaus's analysis, which has specifically focused on the meaning of Samudra in the Vedas. See for example. It is WP:UNDUE to use Max Mueller to contradict Klaus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It's WP:SYNTHESIS. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I know that Max Muller is from another century. I also know that his views are widely accepted in Hinduism related Wikipedia articles.

Probably you don't know that R.U.S Prasad (2017) is part of current scholarship. He's not from another century or millennium. If the old sources are discussed by modern scholars, they are acceptable. And there's no reason to conflate Witzel's (fringe) theories with the mainstream scholarship. Accepting only Witzel's views as some kinda gospel truths violates Wikipedia's NPOV stance. Witzel's views have also been questioned and refuted by other scholars such as Koenraad and Danino.

Undue importance? Helmand theory itself is a fringe theory and is not taken seriously by the mainstream scholarship. This theory is even below criticism and has got undue importance in the article.

Well, R.U.S Prasad is working with Witzel. He's an associate in the department of Asian studies, Harvard University and is acknowledged by many scholars. Both Max Muller and Prasad's views would be included in the article in the light of NPOV.Onkuchia (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please don't confuse the issues. The view that you have added is Max Mueller's and you have attributed it to him. RUS Prasad is incidental. If Prasad has compared and evaluated Max Mueller's and Konrad Klaus's analyses and drew any conclusions, please let us know. Otherwise, this is a non-starter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That's not how NPOV works. We're not here saying that Muller refuted Kalus' arguments. So Prasad doesn't need to evaluate and compare their views. However he's fairly evaluated and compared the two ideas regarding Saraswati and Veda. Klaus has claimed that Saraswati flows into a lake ie Samudra is mentioned as lake while both Prasad and Max says that Saraswati flows into the Indian sea'. There's a huge contrat and deserves to be mentioned. Emotions should be kept aside.Onkuchia (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Joshua, you may explain how it is WP:synthesis


 * The context (identification of Sarasvati with Helmand and the use of Samudra in Veda in) of both the sources is the same. However the conclusions are different. Klaus makes an extraordinary claim that Saraswati flow into a lake. In contrast, Max Muller, RUS and others asserted that it flows into the ocean (Indian ocean).Onkuchia (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly, calling Witzel fringe. Even more silly is to call him fringe, and then state R.U.S Prasad is working with Witzel. Derived authority? From a fringe author? You can't have it both.
 * Regarding Mueller: you refer to Prasad. So attribute it to Prasad: "Prasad rejects the Helmand theory, referring to ..." And note that Prasad, in that alinea, is not referring to Klaus. You did (emphasis mine): However, Indologist Max Müller. You're juztaposing two authors, referring to a third author, who is not juxtaposing those two authors. That's synthesis. You're writing your own thesis, not an encyclopedia. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, right; Prasad (p.20-23) also thinks that the Sarasvati was glacier-fed, and that the Rigveda was written when it was a mighty river; ergo, the Rigveda must be older than 1000-1400 BCE. The only possibility for that would be if the Rigveda contains verses which go back to Harappan traditions. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course, Rigveda is older than 1500 BCE. That's a pretty common view among archaeologists and scholars who have identified Sarasvati with the Ghaggar path. Recent archaeological data also suggests that Vedic age was evolved out of Harappan age. Your personal opinions wouldn't neutralize scholarly views. R.U.S Prasad's views would be included in the article to maintain a good NPOV Onkuchia (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Multiple desccrepancies in Sarasvati River Article
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan Article

There are multiple sentences and paragraphs in the Sarasvati River article which do not reflect an open and broad minded view, but rather show an assertive and one-sided view relating to The river Sarasvati. Listed below are some of the sentences:

The last line of the first paragraph of Sarasvati River "The name Sarasvati was also given to a formation in the Milky Way" is a speculative view or theory of a single scholar and it is not agreed upon by multiple others. Hence it should not be stated as a fact but more like "Witzel suggests the Sarasvati could be the Milky Way".

In the second paragraph the line "However the geophysical characteristics of the Rigvedic Saraswati river do not correspond to the Ghaggar-Hakra river" is again said as a statement of fact, but it has strong arguments against it: The Sarasvati river flows from the mountains to the Ocean but not the Helmand river. The same could be said about the Helmand River section, Many scholars argued that Kochhar's theory has serious flaws.

The Mythical River section contains statements related to politics of India. Political views and statements should have no place in an article related to a River.

I would like to know from you the specific reasons to remove my edits and revert to the earlier. User talk:Truthteller301 —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Discussions of this kind are best done at the article talk pages. To put it briefly, Wikipedia relies on scholarly sources for technical content (history, archaeology, linguistics etc.) Michael Danino is not a reliable source. So his opinions don't count. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yep.While Witzel, on the other hand, is a highly respected authority.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   21:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Well User talk:Kautilya3, Michel Danino has published multiple papers on Indian history and his book on the Sarasvati river has reference to multiple papers and article by dozens of scholars from 19th century to present. There are hundreds of Historians, Linguists and Archeologists both Indian and international, who do not agree with the so called Aryan migration theory as there is no strong evidence in the ancient literary sources or archeological sources or genetic sources.   -- User talk:Truthteller301


 * Witzel himself changed his position on the Aryans and the Vedas multiple times. He earlier strongly asserted the Aryan invasion theory and then later changed his position to Aryan migration and today he says it was not a migration but just a trickling in of Aryans, but a miniscule trickle of Aryans could not have changed the entire linguistic and genetic landscape of entire subcontinent. Saying Witzel is a highly respected scholar is an individualistic opinion and many more would disagree. Ancient History can only be interpreted, theorized and speculated. Unlike classical Science which has experimental and mathematical proofs, Historical events can be interpreted in many ways as there is mo way to go back in time -- User talk:Truthteller301


 * See Talk:Indigenous Aryans/Archive 3:
 * I doubt it if there are "hundreds of historians" etc. who do do not agree with the "so called Aryan migration"; if there are so many, nevertheless, they're standing outside the mainstream of academic research on this topic. David Reich, referred to by you, is one of the leading scholars in this respect. See also the works of David W. Anthony and Asko Parpola, among others. Or scroll through Eurogenes Blogspot, Indo-European.eu, or Gene Expression to get an update of your knowledge of the scholarly mainstream on the Indo-european migrations.
 * Your statement "a miniscule trickle of Aryans could not have changed the entire linguistic and genetic landscape of entire subcontinent" is your personal opinion, nay, misunderstanding. Saying "Witzel is a highly respected scholar," on the other hand, is not "an individualistic opinion," but a statement of fact. See also here for the credentials of Michael Witzel; incomparable to the wishfull thinking of Danino.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your statement "a miniscule trickle of Aryans could not have changed the entire linguistic and genetic landscape of entire subcontinent" is your personal opinion, nay, misunderstanding. Saying "Witzel is a highly respected scholar," on the other hand, is not "an individualistic opinion," but a statement of fact. See also here for the credentials of Michael Witzel; incomparable to the wishfull thinking of Danino.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

in David Reich's own wikipedia page it is written that Reich pointed out that their work does not show that a substantial migration occurred during this time so even the mainstream scholars dont generally follow the same mantra. Most of the Archaeologist have completely debunked Aryan Invasion theory proposed as the predecessor of Aryan Migration Theory including Dr Mark Kenoyer who also believes that Indo Aryan language was spoken in the Indus Valley, indo aryan language completely being indeginious to South Asia and Harappan civilization and that indo european languages spread from India to europe Rameezraja001 (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC) https://www.harappa.com/sites/default/files/pdf/CulturesSocietiesIndusTrad.pdf


 * You're taking a quote out of context. Narasimhan et al. (2018), The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia:
 * Add a multitude of recent publications from the last two months. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * i see so many discrepancies in this study and if one reads the comments section of the links you posted, one may easily understand that.Rameezraja001 (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read that article by Kenoyer?
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  20:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * i think you missed this bit
 * Kenoyer in many lectures states the language of the indus valley maybe indo aryan, making it the origin of indo european languages. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zcGLlLEbmI (27:40)Rameezraja001 (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop using this talkpage as a WP:FORUM for WP:FRINGE ideas? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * i think you missed this bit
 * Kenoyer in many lectures states the language of the indus valley maybe indo aryan, making it the origin of indo european languages. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zcGLlLEbmI (27:40)Rameezraja001 (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop using this talkpage as a WP:FORUM for WP:FRINGE ideas? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Kenoyer in many lectures states the language of the indus valley maybe indo aryan, making it the origin of indo european languages. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zcGLlLEbmI (27:40)Rameezraja001 (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop using this talkpage as a WP:FORUM for WP:FRINGE ideas? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Kenoyer in many lectures states the language of the indus valley maybe indo aryan, making it the origin of indo european languages. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zcGLlLEbmI (27:40)Rameezraja001 (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop using this talkpage as a WP:FORUM for WP:FRINGE ideas? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, Dr. M. Danino is a well-known professor and researcer. He's a member of Indian Council of historical research. His book "The lost river" is one of the most popular books on Sarasvati, which is published by realiable Penguins books. The book is also cited by geologists and archaeologists. He is certainly a reliable scholar in this article.

And what do you think about Rajesh Kochhar who is an astrophysicist? What's his relevance to the Vedas and religion especially Hinduism? He's apparently working outside his field, and yet his fringe views got two Paras. This article needs improvements in the direction of NPOV and mainstream scholarship of Geologists and archaeologists.Onkuchia (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Why are you pinging me for Danino? I have no interest in him.
 * As for Rajesh Kochhar, he worked in the Indian Institute of Astrophysics, but his interests are broader. He has worked in history of science (especially Indian science), and philosophy of science etc. His paper on Sarasvati was included in a well-recognized collection on Indo-European Studies,, which is enough validation as far as I am concerned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * danino is not professor, he's a guest professor. He suggests that the IVC was Indo-Aryan. That's WP:FRINGE. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh! So there's an unwritten rule to censor those who speculate that IVC might have a connection with Vedic culture. Afaik Danino doesn't explicitly assert that IVC is Vedic. He points out the commonalities. He also makes a distinction between Vedic civilization and Vedic culture.

And what do you think about Astrophysicist turned Vedic scholar Rajesh Kochhar who states that Krishna and Rama are historical figures, and Rama lived in Afghanistan in about 1450BC. (source: The Vedic people, p.209) Of course there's no bias.Onkuchia (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Valdiya
Valdiya (2017), Prehistoric River Saraswati, Western India, is another "nugget" for believers. Valdiya p.42:

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Another copy-vio. Valdiya p.6:

Onkuchia diff:

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Valdiya is a well-known internationally recognized geologist with many awards and honors.[http://ksvaldiya.info] It's perfectly fine to have opinions based on the inputs from archaeologists and textual implications, I reckon. I'm more concerned with the popular controversial authors such as Witzel and Thapar who are widely known for speculative and misleading theories that can't be verified by either textual or scientific studies.Onkuchia (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That's your personal concern, though it's telling; Witzel is an acclaimed scholar, who's contributions are dreaded by people who believe in Indigenous Aryans. Anyway, it's you who's WP:CHERRYPICKING from his publication. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Witzel's theories are certainly not cherished as facts among many historians.Like Valdiya, Witzel derives facts out of Vedas.

What's the point of this discussion? The author believes that Rig Veda is the oldest text and cannot be dated to 1500BC based on archaeological data, and Mahabharata might have happened between 2000-1500BC based on some other inputs.

Astrophysicist Rajesh Kochhar, who's pushed by Witzel himself, also believes in its historicity. And they are not alone. Modern scholars are smart enough to distinguish between mythology and possible historical events. Textual evidences (excluding mythology) are not generally dismissed by historians and other scholars.Onkuchia (talk) 10:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Problemetic text from Helmund river section
Please rephrase, remove or provide proper secondary citations from this section, because currently the citation is simply pointing to another wikipedia article instead of a proper secondary citation. It violates verifiability, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, etc. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not clear what you are talking about. What "problematic text"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Text based on blog post removed
Text, based on Rajesh Kocchar's blog post WP:RSSELF (personal blog) which is WP:SELFPUBLISH (self published) on his own website, violates wiki guidelines related to verifiability, reliabilist, fact-checking, etc. I am removing this contentious text. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The same policy page that you pointed to says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Kocchar has published peer-reviewed publications on the same topic. He is an established expert. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kautilya3. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:FORK
See Adi Badri, Haryana, Somb river, and Markanda River, Haryana. See also User:Thecutehero. any connection with 222.164.212.168 and 202.156.182.84? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  08:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Deccan college-IIT Kharagpur study about an extinct river in Rann of Kutch.
Torsa Sengupta et al. (2019), Did the Harappan settlement of Dholavira (India) collapse during the onset of Meghalayan stage drought?, Journal of Quaternary Science, Volume 35, Issue 3. Abstract of the study:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChandlerMinh (talk • contribs) 14:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The bolded sentence says that an eventual Sarasvati River was monsoon-fed. If you want to press a case for the existence of a Himalayan-fed SR, you'll have to try better than this... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

"Perennial" and Himalaya-fed, after all?
User:Anandcv added added info on a recent publication, Chatterjee et al. (2019), On the existence of a perennial river in the Harappan heartland, Nature, to the lead. I've copied it into the body of the article, with some copy-edits. As to be expected, the OIT and Vedic enthusiasts embrace this study as proof for their Vedic Sarasvati civiliastion. Well, maybe the Ghaggar was Himalaya-fed, after all. But it does not mean the IVC was Vedic; after all, the Ghaggar had dried-up by the time the Aryans arrived. But Harappan people may have contributed stories to the Vedic lore, when the two populations mixed in northern India. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  14:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC) typos corrected. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really. Even if Ghaggar had received Chenab waters, the Rigvedic Saraswati descriptions still wouldn't apply to it. So, there wasn't any IVC lore that contributed. There was a different Saraswati earlier (the Helmand-Arghandab rivers), whose name was reused for this one. An interesting question is whether Ghaggar might have been its original name after all. There is also another river called "Ghagra", which was renamed to "Sarayu" by the Vedic people. And that name too never caught on! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, what to make out of this study, looks interesting to say the least. Mentioning the Saraswati river is already pointing to a clear bias though. We have to wait for other studies to substantiate the results and the interpretation of the same.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I read the article yesterday; it's interesting. Note that the authors argue that the Ghaggar turned into a seasonal river at ca. 2500 BCE, when the Harappan civilization had just reached it's mature phase. So, maybe Himalaya-fed, but long before the demish of the IVC, and long before the Aryans arrived. It means that even at the time of the mature IVC the mighty river had become a memory. But it does give an explanation for the chnages in settlement patterns in the third millennium BCE. It's interesting. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am new user, I just wanted to discuss as it is an interesting topic. A paper published in Nature by researcher from IIT Kanput, Imperial College London, Uni of London, Denmark Unis etc https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01643-9. The paper establishes/asserts that this Ghaggar-Hakra palaeochannel channel was fed by Sutlej river. About 15 kya Sutlej started to change course and completely stopped feeding Ghaggar channel shortly after 8 kya and settled to the current course of Sutlej. the Sutlej makes a sharp turn in district Ropar/Rupnagar of Punjab, India. At places near Kalibangan (IVC site) the river Ghaggar or possibly Sarawati is as wide as upto 10km asserted by this paper in fig 4a drilling sample locations from GS11 to GS14 which is about 8-9km wide and showing results in Fig 5 this 8-9km wide tested samples gives dates of 150 kya to 23kya time when water was flowing that wide (more than 8-9km) through this palaeochannel. Per the data it can be said that this Ghaggar (possibly Saraswati) was a major "Grandest of Grand" river from about 1,50,000 years ago to about 23,000 years ago as indicated in figure 5 with grey fluvial channel sand (in yellow). Interestingly river Yamuna was also feeding into the same channel up until 50 kya before it started to change course and started feeding into river Ganga asserted in several other papers from 80s to today. I think given the amount of evidence we have (from several papers), it is quite established that this was infact Sarawati river which was flowing from Himalayas to the Indian ocean before the departure of Sutlej river. Remember that the Rigveda - the oldest books mention Saraswati as a Grand river where as in the newest books (book 10) Saraswati is just one of the rivers and Sindhu is now referred as Grand river.--Chena32disc (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

And how old you think that the oldest books of Rig Veda are? 10,000 years? You're referring to Singh et al. (2017). This is what the Wiki-article says, under "Objections" (against identification with the Sarasvati); read the second reference!

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be careful in dating Rigveda. The question is about Saraswati. Sutlej was also known as river Shutudri in Vedas. Yes Satluj was flowing in the paleochannel of now known Ghaggar-Harka. From the figures in the paper, Sutlej river was coming south from Rupnagar district and meeting with Ghaggar/Saraswati river. Also near Kalibangan, the river was as wide was 9-10 kms (Grandest or Grand IMO). Prior to meeting Sutlej, few other channels are also merging into Ghaggar. The war of Mahabharata has majority claim lying 5100 yBP and 7500 yBP. The Mahabharta also sort of portrays a flux state of river Saraswati. Ramayana is prior to Mahabharta, when? I am not sure. The three Vedas are prior to Ramayana ofcourse as per the Valmiki ramayana. Of course Rigveda been the oldest contain many description of Saraswati river from its Grand state to "just one of rivers".
 * The question is the existence of Grand Saraswati, for which we have more than enough evidence now. Sutlej was feeding Ghaggar/Saraswati 8kya and so was Yamuna 50kya. Out of curiosity, have you read Rigveda? The word Arya is not a race or not even a tribe. The tribe (let's call it a tribe) called Purus called themselves Arya in a sense of being noble than all other tribes to the west and east of them. I think there is too much politics involved with these words in the mainstream - which in my opinion is quite a waste of time.--Chena32disc (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * please don't use this page to discuss the river, this page is for improving the article and if you want to change the content you need to present sources meeting WP:RS. New editors often think these pages are forums, but they aren't. Doug Weller  talk 17:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the photo on the right hand side of the wiki page and found it is outdated. The established facts from the published papers are probably more reliable than historians. There are many similarities of names between Vedic Sanskrit and Old persina or the Avesta, if we keep focus on findng similar names then we would be making things confusing. By the way, the fact is that it is the earlier books of Rigveda which shows cultural similarities with the Avesta not the older ones. There is more than enough evidence in the older books of Rigveda to establish that Saraswati was infact existing in the areas of harayana. Regardless, Wikipedia is probably not a place. Mainstream narrative is what is reflected in wikipedia how ever wrong it is.--Chena32disc (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's right. We can't always be sure that something is true, hence the saying WP:VNT!verifiability, not truth and we can't interpret, eg "per the data it can be said]] is against policy, see WP:NOR. If you can find a better free photo, great Doug Weller  talk 11:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this point raised by on photo dipicted in the Lead, which serves as a summary of the article? Then, it seems valid argument, as the photo presented dipicts the text/argument in a Sub-Section of the article. Where as most of the textual content and other pictures are on Saraswati River in India. Can the picture in the lead be shuffled with some existing pic showing SR flowing in Indian region and the Helmund placed in its relevant Sub-Section?Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 16:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, my objection was with the photo, which is showing Helmand river. Yes, a good photo of saraswati river or at least it's dried bed/palaeochannel is available. One example is this the second Photo in the website, it shows saraswati in contrast with other contemporary rivers. Good thing is it shows Saraswati of the time when Satluj was also flowing into Sarawati as proved by Singh et. el. I think there is tremendous amount of evidence available for the existence of Saraswati. Rigveda in chronological order also move from east to west. From older books to newer books, Rigveda describe the stage of Saraswati river from Grand to "just" one of the rivers. Which perfectly fits in as per the available information about this Ghaggar/Sarawati palaeochannel. As I discussed above also, this palaeochannel is as wide as 10km near kalibangan site. Perfectly fits with the "Grandes of Grand" description of Saraswati river in Rigveda. Although in my opinion, it does not have to be 10km wide to be considered as "Grandest of Grand" a few Kms can also fit the description, but it must also align with the description of Saraswati river being ending upto the Ocean. I am reading a few published paper currently to corroborate evidence to have a sense of when it was flowing into the ocean + the width of this river that time. Also upper channel of Sarawati river (above the merging of Shutudri/Satluj with Saraswati/Ghaggar. --Chena32disc (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

mythological?
Shouldn't we say in the very first para that the location of the river, or whether it actually existed, is uncertain? --RegentsPark (comment) 21:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * how can it be mythological when Rigveda mention it to be between Yamuna and Sutlej. Latest paper published by IT kanpir, Imperial college London etc proved that Satluj was feeding into the Ghaggar Palaeochannel, "Himalayan fed river". It is the old name of this palaeochannel. Only because the name was Sarawati and is mow Ghaggar. Is it the only reason? Well Sutlej was also known as Shutudri in old times. Indus was know as Sindhu, whose name has now been changed or corrupted. Ganga is the original now Ganges. Names can change with time. It is a simple thing. Specially when many thousand years have passed. All the evidence and published material aligns with it being Saraswati in old times, many archeologists now also use terminology of saraswati palaeochannel. Sure name Saraswati does come from older tradition which some call as mythology. We have found high conctration of IVC sites along this palaeochannel. As Rigveda mentioned about living along Saraswati river another alignment. After the published studies, many archeologist papers are also now using the terminology of Saraswati palaeochannel. I think this obsession of calling it mythological should rest now. Do you have anu evidence that Saraswati was not flowing through this very palaeochannel? I would to see it. Most scholars in the latest publication are also using this terminology as well. Except those anti hindu elements ofcourse. --Chena32disc (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * - I didn't have time to really look at this, but is interesting.  Doug Weller  talk 17:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the river did not exist, it may well have. But, reading the article, and the link Doug Weller sent, it appears that there are many alternative theories as to where the river could have been, had it been at all. In a nutshell, the Sarasvati river can be summarized as: "A river of spiritual importance described in the Rigveda, that is not extant in modern times, that might have been at x or y or z, or may not have existed at all". That's not clear at all from the lead. For example, we have to wait till the third paragraph to learn that the river doesn't actually exist, and that too by implication. I think we should be clear about both the spiritual importance of the river, about the alternative possible locations, as well as about its possible mythological character. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Rigveda
Seems like an uneducated editor who perhaps cannot even read English is claiming "the translated hymns of Rigveda about mention of Saraswati being flowing from Mountain to the Ocean" is a POV pushing? Are you out of your mind? can't you read simple English? Do you want me to tag in the Wikipedia committee for a review of your preposterous claims? --Xavidesh (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added the translated hyms of Rigveda and its description reference in the introduction and highly cited Nature publication. If you remove this. Then we should get the Wikipedia committee to review your POV pushing and your decision to remove my edits.--Xavidesh (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You changed
 * into
 * That, together with adding Danino's opinion to the lead, who is not WP:RS, is definitely pov-pushing of a WP:FRINGE-theory. The additional translations, on the Rig Vedic course, were added to a section on Rig Vedic praise, duplicating existing quotes. Both are being used to support your fringe-claims.
 * Singh is already referenced in the lead; adding info on the Sutlj changing it's course 8000 years ago is irrelevant in a lead-paragraph stating that the Ghaggar-Hakra was monsoon'fed, and dried up at ca. 4000 years ago. Whar are you even trying to suggest here?
 * Please read the article first, with attention, before you duplicate again quotes on the Rig Vedic course in a section with Rig Vedic praises of the Sarasvati. Or add a Rig Vedic mention of it's course 'from mountain to ocean' after post-Vedic descriptions
 * Regarding the committee, be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. Your interest is clearly with pushing fringe-theories, not with improving Wikipedia, as shown with your inattentive additions. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Singh is already referenced in the lead; adding info on the Sutlj changing it's course 8000 years ago is irrelevant in a lead-paragraph stating that the Ghaggar-Hakra was monsoon'fed, and dried up at ca. 4000 years ago. Whar are you even trying to suggest here?
 * Please read the article first, with attention, before you duplicate again quotes on the Rig Vedic course in a section with Rig Vedic praises of the Sarasvati. Or add a Rig Vedic mention of it's course 'from mountain to ocean' after post-Vedic descriptions
 * Regarding the committee, be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. Your interest is clearly with pushing fringe-theories, not with improving Wikipedia, as shown with your inattentive additions. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Now that you have again removed the Rigvedic hymns. This is clear that you are intentionally deleting the Rigvedic hymns for some motivated reasons. There must be NO reason when the Hymn is not mention anywhere. You reference less claim of Samsudra is NOW called as Ocean is a complete LIE. No such reference in entire millions of Sanskrit manuscripts refer Samudra to anything but Ocean. I will request the committee experts to jump in and review your POV pushing. You can remove Danino as you seem to declare anything unreliable that does not represent your OPINION. You definition of NPOV is actually one sides views and you are completely insecure to even represent the other point view which is again against the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. --Xavidesh (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss this here. Joshua claimed repetition. I find in the Saraswati river page, there is no where this Rigveda Hymn of 7.95.2 is mentioned. I added it in the later part which Josh deleted siting repetition. Where is repetition? Why this hymn cannot be added? This is referenced and translated by T.H. Griffith which is the most sited and used translations of Rigveda anywhere. rather Joshua seems to now change the meaning of Samudra to something else in the past. Is is not against wikipedia policy of NPOV? Please answer.--Xavidesh (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Samudra
I would like to know that as well. Interested to see what proof do these editors have to prove that the original meaning of Samudra was different from the Ocean.

I am keen ask one more question to these editors: Name one author which you consider as reliable who supports indigenous Aryan theory? For me all PIE homelands are mere hypothesis. Genetics predictions are in contradiction with linguistics data and textual data. They all seem to ignore the fact that the Avesta actually as per the data shows cultural similarity with newer books of Rigveda (following same chronology as even Witzel supports). So do the Mitanni kings - their names are similar to names mentioned in new books of Rigveda & are completely absent in old books and the numbers they are using are pure basic. especially "eka" for one which is Vedic (not indo-iranian) and word "satta' for seven (Sapta in Sanskrit) which you can see is already a prakritised version of Sapta. Based on these simple facts (available in public domain) any author who call Mitanni as Pre-Vedic is a complete Fringe theorist. Prove me wrong if anyone can. Lets see if these editors can answer the two simple questions I asked

--Chena32disc (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Rgearding the Rig Veda quotes, you added diff the following to the Praise-section (now deleted by Doug Weller):
 * The Sarasvati River section has:
 * "RV 7.95.1-2, describes the Sarasvati as flowing to the samudra, a word now usually translated as "ocean.""
 * "RV 7.36.6, "sárasvatī saptáthī síndhumātā" can be translated as "Sarasvati the Seventh, Mother of Floods,"[67] but also as "whose mother is the Sindhu", which would indicate that the Sarasvati is here a tributary of the Indus."
 * So, yes, that's a duplication of quotes, at the wrong section.
 * Regarding samudra, "Ocean", the article says:
 * "RV 7.95.1-2, describes the Sarasvati as flowing to the samudra, a word now usually translated as "ocean.""
 * Samudra says:
 * "Samudra (Sanskrit: समुद्र; IAST: samudrá) is a Sanskrit term literally meaning the "gathering together of waters" (saṃ- "together" and -udra "water"). It refers to an ocean, sea or confluence."
 * "The term occurs 133 times in the Rigveda, referring to oceans (real, mythical or figurative) or large bodies of water as well as to large Soma vessels, e.g. RV 6.69.6 [...] ye are the lake [samudra], the vat that holds the Soma."
 * What's your problem here?
 * Regarding Danino: believe me, not WP:RS, other than for his own opinions, and definitely WP:UNDUE for the WP:LEAD, as you added this:
 * The fringe pov is already summarized in the last paragraph of the lead; that suffices.
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  10:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The fringe pov is already summarized in the last paragraph of the lead; that suffices.
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  10:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  10:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * as I expected any Indian POV is a fringe article, any author who present evidence in favour of indigenous aryans is a fringe author. Samudra is now NOT an ocean as per Wikipedia editors. Btw thanks for showing no evidence for that. Who else is unreliable. One comment above that came into my favour asking a genuine question has been collapsed by you? Is Shrikant Talageri also unreliable? How about Koenraad Elst, Igor? BBLal? Vacant Shinde? This is a complete blocking of another POV by editors. I shall request Wikipedia to look into this. So called list of unreliable sources which are in fact all the Indic authors and sources.--Xavidesh (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * thanks for sending my threat after threat on blocking me from doing edits for some Invisible reasons. This only proves your POV pushing and forced blocking of other POVs. By the way I will ask this question. Can you name on author which is considered by your a reliable one but also supports indigenous Aryan POV? Please name one?--Xavidesh (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

please show where I've said anything about the word Samudra. I object to people making false accusations against me. religious texts are primary sources, and we need reliable secondary sources using them. As Shakespeare wrote, "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose" - which is why quote mining from scripture is a bad thing. You say you are going to ask Wikipedia to look into something-- what exactly do you mean? If you want to question a source's reliability, go to WP:RSN but you need to ask what you want to use the source for. Some sources can be reliable for Topic A but not for Topic B. Meanwhile I'm tired of your attacks and I've warned you about them enough. Doug Weller talk 11:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The Rigvedic hymn of description of Saraswati river flowing from mountain to the ocean. Is described in this article as flowing to Samudra, a word which NOW referred to as Ocean. The thing is you people find some fringe author writing obscure things and publish here as a reliable source because they support the narrative that you are pushing here. As long as the author is pushing the same narrative as YOU. However fraudulent the case or data or evidence might be, is considered reliable here on wikipedia. Where as any author or researcher or even scientist who present evidence to show indigenous aryan, which as per wikipedia should be considered as another point of view, but is rather declared as a Fringe author. Such example is declaration of Michael Danino as fringe (read above). Who else is unreliable source? Koenraad Elst? Vasant Shinde? B.B.Lal? Igor?. Please mention ONE SINGLE author who supports indigenous aryan theory based on archeology, linguistics, or textual evidence, whose work is presented here as reliable fact. The thing is - I know, many others know (all wiki talk pages are full of people being harassed by you senior editors) and YOU know, that you are merely pushing a narrative. Who are kidding here? All the articles related to Indian history or science here on Wikipedia are a cry for pushing a narrative without any intent to maintain Neutral Point of View. There is NO Neutral Point of View here which is why I maintained not wasting time adding content to wikipedia. I also regret donating money to them as well. Chena32disc (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Another thing is about you asking me to go raise issue of source reliability. Dude, i dont get paid to do this. I have a life of my own and I cant fight a nexus of editors. You have a job to do here and I have a job to do in the real world where I make tangible contribution for the betterment of people's life as a nurse. Chena32disc (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)




 * good for you. I make a tangible contribution here. But evidently you aren't going to answer my question because you can't show where I said anything about "Samudra". Sadlyrefuse to show good faith. I see that Michael Danino isn't exactly a perfect source and I'd argue that Hindutva itself has a dubious approach to history, eg Hindutva. I see no evidence that you understand our NPOV policy. And of course Indigenous Aryans is fringe, are you disputing that? One problem is that you haven't made specific suggestions for changes  Doug Weller  talk 16:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It clearly says in the third paragraph of the main introduction of this wiki article - " samudra, a word now usually translated as "ocean," but which could also mean "lake." Not to mention that there is NO source supplied for this FALSE claim, This is complete LIE. Rigveda uses word Samudra which both in its etymology and the sense, and the definite contexts, in which it is used in the Rigveda, means nothing but the ocean. The word for 'sea', *móri, is firmly attested in Celtic (e.g. OIr muir 'sea'), Italic (e.g. Lat. mare), Germanic (e.g. NE mere), Baltic (e.g. Lith. mãre 'sea') and Slavic (e.g. OCS morje 'sea') (MALLORY-ADAMS 2006:127). In the case of mīra (Indo-Iranian word for sea): Pāṇini gives the meaning of mīra as samudra (Uṇādi-Sutra ii, 28). This word, mīra indeed is an old word which has been replaced in the Rigveda by the much more popular new word samudra as confirmed by Panini stated above with reference. Not theory can be better than Panini attestation. The word for lake in Germanic is see and meer (same pronunciation as of Indo-aryan mīra) for ocean which can be seen reversed in meaning in English. This is not the only word which has gone through prakritisation in the pre-rigvedic times. Another such word is of Elephant - ibha, which is an old word not found in post-Rigvedic texts until it was revived later, and so old a word that it has already undergone Prakritization in pre-Rigvedic times itself from the original form ṛbha to ibha (like Kṛṣṇa becomes Kisna), is given in the Panini's Uṇādi-Sūtra (iii, 147) as hastī "elephant". I know I will be and am wasting my breath here. Now wonder why in academia Wikipedia is considered highly unreliable. All you do is push a certain pov and it is clearly evident on most talk pages related to Indian history or even the current affairs. --Chena32disc (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding In the case of mīra (Indo-Iranian word for sea): Pāṇini gives the meaning of mīra as samudra (Uṇādi-Sutra ii, 28). This word, mīra indeed is an old word which has been replaced in the Rigveda by the much more popular new word samudra as confirmed by Panini stated above with reference. - you surely have a scholarly source for this theory, that samudra was replaced with mīra in the Rgveda? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, right: Talageri, The Proto-Indo-European Word for "Sea/Ocean". Who argues, contrary to Mallory, who you misleadingly give here as a reference, that IE meer, mīra, originally refered to "sea," and not to "lake." Even referring to Dutch, my native language, where "meer" indeed means "lake," taking this as evidence that in nautic languages "meer" may originally have referred to sea, and later came to refer to "lake." What a bullshit. Mallory is WP:RS, Talageri is WP:FRINGE. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , why aren't you answering my question, where did I discuss the word "Samudra"? Where do I show a pov. I also asked if you think indigenous Aryans is fringe, but again got no answer. Wikipedia doesn't pretend to be a peer reviewed source so of course academics (and I was one a long time ago) shouldn't view it as one. It's often an excellent way of finding sources. By the way, we have a detailed article Reliability of Wikipedia. Please show good faith and answer my questions. Doug Weller  talk 12:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier this wiki article in paragraph 3 say so. Thanks for proving my point. Your western sources which are considered reliable are peddling lies. If anyone especially a person with contrary POV present 'evidence', Your notorious racial discrimination and bias editors declare those sources as 'fringe'. BRAVO.... keep doing that and thanks for proving my point. That was my whole original point and you just proved it. No wonder wikipedia is considered an unreliable source of information in academia. --Chena32disc (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Issues with my edit
I made a bold edit to lead. Please note your objections, if any. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Revert of Edits on Saraswati River
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan

Hi,

I have cited the journals from nature.com in regard with year of appearance of Sarasvati river. And, also deleted the some part where Romila Thapar makes controversial claims there.

I want to mention that Wikipedia should be a platform of facts and neutral point of view but what I see in reference to this is there are instance where wiki texts puts some isolated views. Rather it should be the facts from research papers, and that what I have tried to do through my edits.

I want to ask, whether it is important to give only isolated conclusions. Aren't we smart enough to make conclusions when facts and chronological order is presented to us?

Thanks ~rkrishnavedic

End of copied part


 * your edits diff removed/added the following:
 * Removed (bold) from
 * without explanation;
 * Removed
 * without explanation;
 * Added
 * Had you read the article, you'd have noticed that Chatterjee et al. (2019) is already mentioned twice, in footnotes, which is the WP:DUE weight it deserves. The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; your addition is not a due summary of the article;
 * Added
 * That's a personal opinion, promoting a fringe-theory. If you continue like that, you're on your way to the exit.
 * Added
 * That too is a personal opinion.
 * Removed
 * Wikipedia should indeed be a platform of facts and neutral point of view. Your edits don't contribute to that. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Added
 * That too is a personal opinion.
 * Removed
 * Wikipedia should indeed be a platform of facts and neutral point of view. Your edits don't contribute to that. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should indeed be a platform of facts and neutral point of view. Your edits don't contribute to that. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should indeed be a platform of facts and neutral point of view. Your edits don't contribute to that. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should indeed be a platform of facts and neutral point of view. Your edits don't contribute to that. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Chatterjee et. al. (2019) (again)
I've removed diff the suggestions of Chatterjee et al. (2019); they're already mentioned in note e and note q, with the addition of a comment by Sinha et al. (2020):

Given this comment, Chatterjee et al. (2019) does not warrant more than mentioning them in a note. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  13:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Sidhav 2016
Not a reliable source. No citations, it needs to be removed I'm afraid. Hetalben Dhanabhai Sindhav also wrote, also no citations. I can't find any mention of the author except here which turns out to be copying our article. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Haraxvatī
you twice removed the sentence "whose older name was Haraxvatī in Avestan": This is part of the paragraph from which you removed this line:
 * diff, edit-summary removed unsourced POV - Harut is not named after Haraivaiti (Arachosia) region not is it in the same region
 * diff, edit-summary RV - which sources? This is what the sentence read: Helmund basin in ancient Iranian Avestan Haraxvatī and Harahvaiti, is cognate with the mythological Iranian Avestan Arədvī Sūrā Anāhitā river and Sarasvati river.]] Clearly, the "citation needed" is noted.|undefined

The sentence is referenced to Kochhar (1999); the sentence you removed is "whose older name was Haraxvatī in Avestan," not " Helmund basin in ancient Iranian Avestan Haraxvatī and Harahvaiti, is cognate with the mythological Iranian Avestan Arədvī Sūrā Anāhitā river and Sarasvati river"; and there is no citation needed in this part of that paraghraph. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * There is no river in Zoroastrian scriptures called Haraxvatī. Harut was never called Haraxvatī. It's next the Hari-Rud (Herat), so it's named after that river not Haraxvatī.
 * I guess we can say that's the opinion of Rajesh Kocchar within the sentences in the article. ComicbookCollector (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know where "Harut River" came from. Arghandab is what is mentioned by Kochhar. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Mahabharata
your recent addition diff, edit-summary "I cite a recent research work analysing the astronomical references within the Mahabharata supporting the drying up of the river before the compilation of the Vedas.",

is problematic for a number of reasons: Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  07:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1891 is not exactly "recent";
 * the bulk of the Mahabharata was composed between the 3rd century BCE and the 3rd century CE; 3067 BCE is a completely unlikely dating. At that time, the migrations from the Eastern European steppes, which ultimately brought the Indo-European languages to India, had just started;
 * "Therefor" - whose conclusion is this? Yours? That's WP:OR;
 * "much before the proposed dates for the compilation of the Vedas" - supposedly 1500-1100 BCE for the Vedas? That's a scholarly mainstream dating, in contrast to 3000 BCE for the Mahabharata. These dates cannot be compared in such a way.

Chaudhri et al (2021)
@Joshua Jonathan @Kautilya3

The statement that cite Chaudhari et al. says this:

Chaudhari et al also says this which is not mentioned in here in this article:

Which means that river identified with Sarasvati of the epics was present as late as just 600 years ago. Only mentioning that it received enormous amount of water until 11,147 BCE is misleading, as it would make readers think that river completely stopped existing after 11th millennum BCE. This would in turn add to the pseudohistory claim of dating Rigveda to 13000 years before present. ChandlerMinh (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll take a close look later. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  10:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Wiki-article does not state that the river completely stopped flowing after the 11th millennium. I can't access that Chaudri-article, so I can't estimate which hamlets/villages they mean., nor which specific course they're referring too: the Hakra too? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  11:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, I can't find that specific sentence about AD 1402; what I do find, in the abstract, is
 * 'Input-channels' is quite different from 'paleochannel'. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  19:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont know why you can't access it. It is on page 13 of the paper. I have e-mailed it to joshuajonathan@outlook.com ChandlerMinh (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont know why you can't access it. It is on page 13 of the paper. I have e-mailed it to joshuajonathan@outlook.com ChandlerMinh (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Reading the paper now. I don't expect much from an author affiliated to the "Kurukshetra University"; sounds like the "Deutsches Volkgsgemeinschafft University." Typically, they speak consequently of the Saraswati River, suggesting it's the same as the glacial Ghaggar-Hakra and the dried-up Hakra, but they nowehere say so explicitly. From the discussion:
 * Cunningham, 1862: Cunningham, A. (1862). Four reports made during the years 1862–65. Archaeological Survey of India, II (Govt. Central Press, 1871). https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Four_Reports_Made_During_the_Years_1862.html?id=8ApVAAAAcAAJ%26redir_esc=y - see Danino p.4;
 * CGWB. (2016): Paleochannels of northwest India: Review and assessment (2016). http://cgwb.gov.in/Ground-Water/Final%20print%20version_Palaeochannel%20Expert%20Committee_15thOct2016.pdf - available at SCRIBD;
 * Singh, N. P., & Punjrath, N. K. (2018). Water exploration along the paleochannels of mythical Saraswati River. Proc. GeoIndia Conf. AU, 495 - bonus-points for the one who can trace-down this publication.
 * How exactly are they "autheticated"?
 * How exactly are they "autheticated"?


 * The full sentence (p.577) above is:
 * Which villages/k]hamlets? Present-day, or Harappan? I guess present-day, given "still fresh in the minds of rural residents." But what tract exactly was floing then untill 1402?
 * P.574:
 * P.579:
 * So, what do we make from this? That, according to Chaudri et al., some water kept flowing permanently throught the Ghaggar-Hakra paleochannels untill 0-1402 CE. Worthy of inclusion? The publication has been cited four times, their neutrality is questionable, and thier descriptions are unclear...
 * P.579:
 * So, what do we make from this? That, according to Chaudri et al., some water kept flowing permanently throught the Ghaggar-Hakra paleochannels untill 0-1402 CE. Worthy of inclusion? The publication has been cited four times, their neutrality is questionable, and thier descriptions are unclear...
 * So, what do we make from this? That, according to Chaudri et al., some water kept flowing permanently throught the Ghaggar-Hakra paleochannels untill 0-1402 CE. Worthy of inclusion? The publication has been cited four times, their neutrality is questionable, and thier descriptions are unclear...


 * P.576 has a nice nugget:
 * If we take this literally, the Harappan Civilization already existed 23,000 years ago.
 * If we take this literally, the Harappan Civilization already existed 23,000 years ago.


 * P.578:
 * 5 ka is still 1500 years before the Rig Veda... Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 5 ka is still 1500 years before the Rig Veda... Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Identification of Indus-Valley-Civilisation as Indus-Sarasvati Culture
This minority view is considered contentious but it is supported by published research as cited in the article. A neutral point of view should perhaps avoid political labels since such views are subjective.

129.143.130.248 (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)