Talk:Sinauli/Archive 1

Ruchika Sharma
Persistent IP and single-edit account edit-warring diff diff diff diff, trying to remove the following:


 * Notes


 * References

Sourced info, backed-up by additional info. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  11:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The following [preceding] comment of linking ASI & Hindutva is uncalled for, that too based on a report by "Wire" which always takes the view that India was & should remain a third world country. Using Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism in such deregulatory way shows hatred for an entire race, which happens to be third largest in the world. Note the credentials also "JNU". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.41.185.98 (talk • contribs) 6 april 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021
Hello, this is regarding the Indian map shown in this content, the northern borders are not true. So we request you to replace the Indian map with the correct one.

Thank you 106.76.210.98 (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made, then reactivate your request by setting the  parameter in the edit semi-protected template above your edit request back to  . Thank you. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Carts or chariots?
Another example of the'alternate facts' and narrative of the Hindutva universe. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  16:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What's up with these politically motivated comments? And also your joke isn't even funny user:ChandlerMinh Niger banda (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok. ChandlerMinh (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Financial Times
It's good to have some written source (Financial Times (feb 17, 2021), Secrets of Sinauli: Manoj Bajpayee, Neeraj Pandey’s Discovery Plus show is must watch for Indian history buffs) for the horse-chariot claim, but who actually "puts forth evidences (such as, size of the wheel, space in the chariot, chassis, pole, etc.) that show these were advanced and sophisticated light-weight chariots, with a D shaped chassis built for warfare, to be pulled forth by horses"? I'll bet there's no peer-reviewed publication in which this claim is being made. And my, what a rubbish:

See Surkotada, Indigenous Aryanism, and Scroll.in, Putting the horse before the cart: What the discovery of 4,000-year-old ‘chariot’ in UP signifies on these claims, which are rejected by mainstream scholarahip. "Secrets of Sinauli" is clearly Indigenist-inspired, and not a reliable source. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  18:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Uesugi
Uesugi gives additional info on the OCP, as being Late Harappan; it's not an "however," as if contradicting other info. And it's not on the Sinauli-finds; therefore, I moved it into a note. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Joshua,


 * I see you are too much against uncientific and politicized material related apparently to "Hindutva", but your way of editing that article is too much politized too. In order to have a coherent and scientific approach to Sinauli article, we should mention references in historical order and make proper assertions. The references to archaeologist Akinori Uesugi should be included after Parpola's quoting because it implies the archaeological view by an expert, which is not a Hindu nationalist, and telling that Sinauli's burials belong to OCP-Bara archaeological complex is very fit, because it can imply the non-nationalist view that the carts are indigenous and a continuity of previous Bara-Harappan period with no traces of Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranian features at all, which I think will be the view of other people like Witzel for instance, but the information must be kept as it is, the reader already got the information about the controversy in previous passages, it's not necessary to "overload" the reader. On the other hand, trying to keep the Parpola's version as the unique "non-Hindutva-related version" is not to see the future horizon that this site opens. It seems you try to "cut" any other reference after that of Parpola. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Implies" = WP:OR; Uesugi doesn't even mention Sinauli. Witzel (2019), Early ' Aryans' and their neighbors outside and inside India p.5 says:
 * My English is failing me here, but comparing "extra-Harappan organized society" to "extra-mural care," I suppose Witzel means that the finds belong to a non-Harappan society. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My English is failing me here, but comparing "extra-Harappan organized society" to "extra-mural care," I suppose Witzel means that the finds belong to a non-Harappan society. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Link to multiple waves
Regarding the Aryan migration that I highlighted and you deleted, you seem not knowing the indoeuropeanists use of that term, Parpola uses this term as a synonymous of Indo-Iranian as many other scholars also do. Please consult this and other Parpola's publications and you'll see that I am right by editing Aryan migration instead of Indo-Aryan migration. I've got some other things to tell you but it's late at night here. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * So, why then do you remove wiki-links? They give additional info on Parpola's views. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The link you provided mentions in the beginning a position of Parpola that he now has abandoned, it's from 2015, he changed his view in the paper from 2020. I did not remove "links", I removed the first one in the phrase which is erroneuos. Before 2020, Parpola thought there were two Indo-Aryan migrations, now he writes there were three different migrations (at least), the first one in his view was a previously "unexpected" Indo-Iranian migration (synomymous of Aryan migration), and the last two were Indo-Aryan migrations. I hoped you already understand that, but I see you didn't.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the phrase is correct: "According to Asko Parpola these finds were ox-pulled carts, indicating that these burials are related to an early Aryan migration of Proto-Indo-Iranian speaking people into the Indian subcontinent", but you linked "early Aryan migration" to Wikipedia's article "Indo-Aryan migration", that's wrong, it's an Indo-Iranian migration. --Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I see; I'll correct the text at "Indo-Aryan migrations." Thanks. Here's the link in question: Indo-Aryan migrations. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Secrets of Sinauli
it seems to me that "Secrets of Sinauli", see diff, is not WP:RS. What do you think? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The YouTube links are less than 3 minutes. ChandlerMinh (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * But does that make them WP:RS? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I would prefer them removed. They are based on TV shows. What is a StudyIQ video doing on Wikipedia? ChandlerMinh (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * And not in English; unverifiable. This review says it all:
 * B.B. Lal is not the kind of person who "command[s] unquestionable authority in the discipline"... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * when did we start dividing citations into web and printed citations? That's not acceptable. Too much of this article is based on media reports, which isn't appropriate for scientific content. Maybe ask at the wikipedia archaeology project? Doug Weller  talk 12:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We need to better define “chariot” as the term is widely being used when whatever they dug up Sinauli doesn’t feature horse remains or spoked wheels. There is too much speculations peddled as conclusive evidence for an earlier date of horse and chariot in India. The media in India is so biased spins the result at their convenience. Remember Rakhigarhi DNA.Ignore the blogs and reviews of documentaries. ChandlerMinh (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a string of interviews is in any way a reliable source, especially when the people being interviewed have scholarly opinions far from uniformly supported in their field. Further, I completely agree with Doug above that we should not be separating web and print sources; it's confusing to the reader, and also somewhat misleading, as the "web" sources are often news pieces. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We need to better define “chariot” as the term is widely being used when whatever they dug up Sinauli doesn’t feature horse remains or spoked wheels. There is too much speculations peddled as conclusive evidence for an earlier date of horse and chariot in India. The media in India is so biased spins the result at their convenience. Remember Rakhigarhi DNA.Ignore the blogs and reviews of documentaries. ChandlerMinh (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a string of interviews is in any way a reliable source, especially when the people being interviewed have scholarly opinions far from uniformly supported in their field. Further, I completely agree with Doug above that we should not be separating web and print sources; it's confusing to the reader, and also somewhat misleading, as the "web" sources are often news pieces. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

There hardly are scholarly sources on those finds. Parpola (2020):

Additional: I made the split between printed sources and web-sources, for convenience sake (sources which can be read xirectly, versus take some more effort to find), and precisely because most web-sources are newsreports: less reliable. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  16:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Manjul, Sanjay Kumar & Arvin Manjul (2018), Recent Excavation at Sanauli, District Bagpat, UP: A Landmark in Indian Archaeology. Purātattva 48: 220–225 & pl. 1–12.
 * Subramanian interview:
 * Kumar (2018), A note on chariot burials found at Sinauli district Baghpat UPIndian Journal of Archaeology.—April, 2018 (found at Google Scholar; JJ)
 * Benedetti, Giacomo (2020), The Sanauli Chariot and its Archaeological and Historical Context. In: N.I. buKhtoyAroV, I.M. derKAnosoVA, V.A. guleVsKij, Yu.V. neKrAsoV, A.S. menzhuloVA & A.V. linKinA (eds), Aktual’nye problemy agrarnoj nauki, proizvodstva i obrazovaniya: 255–259. Voronezh: FGBOU VO Voronezhskij GAU (copied from Parpola 2020; JJ).


 * I went through the photos (Kumar 2018) and the so-called chariots are so small, that they looks like some kind of decorative artefacts around the burial. They don’t look something that are war-capable. Also needs more independent scholarly opinion on Manjul’s “horse-driven” theory. ChandlerMinh (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The wheels are probably just over 2 feet (or less) in diameter. Look at Manjul standing next to it holding his own artistic rendering of the “chariot”. Where are these “chariots” kept now? I wish to see them. They look like something that can be drawn by humans. I don’t even think any animals are required to pull it. ChandlerMinh (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It's very surprising for me to see your argument is that the "chariot's wheels" are too small, and consequently "very light" to be apt for war, when the argument by some "experts", like Witzel, goes precisely in the oposite direction: they argue that it's too heavy to be "a war artefact". Anyway, maybe you're right in the first part of your argument, but not in your conclusion. On the other hand, there are some designs of ox-pulled carts in silver vessels from BMAC that show very small vehicles pulled by rampant bulls, Asko Parpola, both in his 2015 book, Roots of Hinduism, and in his paper on Sanauli (2020) mentions them and shows drawings. There is also the Daimabad copper model, commented by him, showing a man over a very small artefact and tiny wheels pulled by two animals, half bulls and half equidae. Regarding where are the Sinauli's wheels kept now, it's precisely shown in the documentary "Secrets of Sinauli". There's also an example of Hittite chariot with very small wheel: . Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above figure of Hittite chariot has spoked wheels. That is an entirely different deal. My points revolves around the fact that Sinauli “chariot” is solid wheel. Coming to Daimabad copper, this here is Daimabad artefact with a solid wheel pulled by bulls.
 * The horse of Diamabad is of much later date and from Jorwe levels(post 1300BC)
 * May be I am wrong about the conclusions I made from the size of the wheel. But Parpola himself sticks with “cart” ChandlerMinh (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Bottomline is: the Indigenists want to see the finds as chariots, as an argument against the migration theory. But the migrations happened in the first half of the second millennium BCE (Narasimhan et al. (2019)). The carts fit this picture, as argued by Parpola; but they also fit in a 'Harappan continuation model', given the presence of ox-carts in the Harappan civilisation. Ironically, the sentence and he further notes that "the rituals relating to the Sanauli burials showed close affinity with Vedic rituals." was added back to the lead, obviously with th idea that this supports the Harappan-Vedic equation of the Indigenists... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Bottomline is: the Indigenists want to see the finds as chariots, as an argument against the migration theory. But the migrations happened in the first half of the second millennium BCE (Narasimhan et al. (2019)). The carts fit this picture, as argued by Parpola; but they also fit in a 'Harappan continuation model', given the presence of ox-carts in the Harappan civilisation. Ironically, the sentence and he further notes that "the rituals relating to the Sanauli burials showed close affinity with Vedic rituals." was added back to the lead, obviously with th idea that this supports the Harappan-Vedic equation of the Indigenists... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Even in the Hittite figure of chariot, The wheel aren’t that small. Compare it with size of human and horse in that figure. The wheels at Sinauli seems only human knee high. But the Hittite wheel is bigger than that. Can anyone tell me where the Sinauli wheels are presently kept.? ChandlerMinh (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * you really need to respond at AE - I gather you aren't seeing alerts, etc, but you need to read and post there asap. Doug Weller  talk 09:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have replied at my talk page and gave my statement at the AE. I said will need more time to go through each of the requests. ChandlerMinh (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In reply to your question, the wheels together with the carts and other findings were transported, as the video Secrets of Sinauli suggests, to the Institute of Archaeology belonging to the Archaeological Survey of India, in Delhi. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Even though I already commented in the section below, you asked me to comment here, so I have to repeat that I would like to tell you that even though "Secrets of Sinauli" is not a "neutral" and is politically motivated, presents valuable archaeological information, and this section particularly: Discovery+ documentary in Hindi has an English commentary below, explaining the video. I do not think it should be applied into it the non-verifiability, because it bears some verifiably information, just like the archaeological findings. It should be treated with "caution" but not rejected at all. The edit I did was on the section dealing with the female burial, and it's a valuable information that readers should be informed of. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Seriously? This is what the "commentary below" says:
 * Who are those "experts"? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Who are those "experts"? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The findings were done by professional archaeologists from ASI (Archaeological Survey of India), and the details of this is found in the video itself, with comments of those archaeologists. The findings are genuine, even though the interpretation could be challenged, but it's important to inform the readers of Wikipedia on how this thread goes, if not, you are doing disruptive editing. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Bara-OCP cultural complex
regarding this revert, the term "Bara-OCP cultural complex" is only used by Uesugi, and a few sources who cite him. None of the sources used in this article, including Witzel and Parpola uses the term; Sanjay Manjul regards the OCP as an independent cultural style. Uesugi, as noted before, doesn't refer to Sinauli. Ochre Coloured Pottery culture is the WP:COMMONNAME; let's stick to that. And, grammatically, I wouldn't dare state that the 'Late Harappan culture belongs to the Bara-OCP cultural complex'. The Uesugi-note would suffice here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  18:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The purpose of keeping Bara-OCP cultural complex "label" is to inform of the most recent data published. Publications that do not link OCP to Bara are outdated, neither Witzel nor Parpola are archaeologists, Akinori Uesugi is. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That's one author. See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UNDUE. You can add the relevant info to the relevant pages. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Frustrations
Joshua, you are doing selective Disruptive editing by deleting my editions. It's obvious you are doing this because you are afraid that the "Nationalist" view can be introduced in a "big way" to the article, but it's not the case, what I do is presenting the hard data, not "influenced" by "interpretations". Even the section, I edited, highlighting the presence of "female warriors" shares only the archaeological findings and not any comment on Vedic or Hindu correlation. I see it's too much to reject a genuine archaeological finding by claiming it is commented in a non-accepted source, when it's not related actually to a political claim. You do the same by deleting the information related to Bara-OCP cultural complex by one of the most professional archaeologists in the matter called Akinori Uesugi, with your argument that it's only in a note, when you yourself previously and with no consensus changed it from the main text to a note. As far as I can see, the status of Bara-OCP can firmly be related to Harappan period, but it does not imply necessarily a Harappan-Vedic conection, which is you are afraid of. If this Disruptive editing continues the quality and development of the article will be unfortunately affected, and people will not be able to be properly informed on the way the research goes, and this article will continue to be labelled as part of a "non-significative" class. However, I'm not against all of the arguments you present in some comments, for instance you are right that the arrival of Steppe ancestry into South Asia is proved by Narasimhan et al. (2019) in the first half of Second millennium BCE. On the other hand, you should stopp your compulsive deletions, it only shows insecurity related to hard data.Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess you didn't read the section above? As for "Bara-OCP," Uesugi doesn't even mention Sinauli, as mentioned before. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  19:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sinauli's majority pottery is OCP, and Uesugi's professional classification of this kind of material is Bara-OCP cultural complex. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * See WP:COMMONNAME; and Talk:Sinauli with regards to this comment of yours:
 * As noted before, "Implies" = WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As noted before, "Implies" = WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Akinori Uesugi is a trustworthy source, and you deleted it in a Disruptive editing, as well as the rest of the information I edited above regarding Sinauli. Unfortunately, your tough position only contributes to a low quality of the article. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Female warriors
you re-inserted again the "Secrets of Sinauli"-source diff; as discussed at Talk:Sinauli, this is not WP:RS; it's ironic that you accuse me of disruptive editing, while repeatedly re-inserted such a non-reliable source, and not participating in the discussion of this source. And still in Hindi or whatever Indian language, failing WP:VERIFIABILITY. "Female warriors" is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, which really needs better source than a Discovery+ documentary in Hindi at YouTube. You better the basics of Wikipedia before you start accusing of disruptive editing. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  16:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I see you're very stubborn and do not like to hear arguments, but I would like to tell you that even though "Secrets of Sinauli" is not a "neutral" and is politically motivated, presents valuable archaeological information, and this section particularly: Discovery+ documentary in Hindi has an English commentary below, explaining the video. I do not think it should be applied into it the non-verifiability, because it bears some verifiably information, just like the archaeological findings. It should be treated with "caution" but not rejected at all. The edit I did was on the section dealing with the female burial, and it's a valuable information that readers should be informed of. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That's not how it works. You need peer-reviewed material (see WP:RS). The rest is not acceptable for sourcing on Wikipedia. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The policy of Wikipedia is also to apply "common sense"[], in order to change some "rigid" rules some editors abusively use of. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Carlos, "common sense" does not apply to sourcing on Wikipedia. Either you have reputable sources, or you don't. If your sources are not RS, they will always be deleted by other editors. As an "anybody-can-edit-Encyclopedia", this is our only protection, our only safeguard, against fringe ideas, fallacies, personal theories etc... and that's why Wikipedia can be edited by non-specialists and still have fairly reliable content: because we only rely on paraphrasing reputable, peer-reviewed, verifiable content (it's dumb, but it works). On the other hand, I know it can be frustrating for some who do have academic credentials and would like to share their educated "common sense" and analysis. If the point you are trying to make has some support beyond You Tube, you should have no trouble finding references on Google Books, JSTOR, or the like... If you can't find any, please just forget about it. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  19:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "...Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider 'rules'. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution 'violates' the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution..."[]. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Common sense here is that Discovery+ is a losy source for a bold statement, especially if there is no way to verify which "experts" claims to have found the remains of female warriors. Maybe we should make a simple comparison: for which grade of education would you accept "secrets" as an acceptable source? Definitely not university, also not college. Highschool? I don't think so. Primary education? The school library has plenty of books on archaeology; any decent teacher would say "Go to the library, kid. Or try internet, but at least, give us a written source. But not a YouTube documentary from a commercial company." That's common sense. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If you were applying the same "point of view" of common sense all the time half of the present article would be deleted, including almost all of your edits. Even though the docummentary can not be classified as the most erudite work, I sustain that the findings they report are authentic, and that only the interpretation could be challenged, and this could be solved by a new wording of the sentence refering to this issue, even you can add the word "dubious conclusions" or the like if you want, but my point is still that the readers should be informed of the findings. To me, the best way to apply common sense is to do that, and that's in order to avoid too politically-oriented conclusions. On the other hand, this edit is just a little portion of the article, not changing much of the whole philosophy of it. My policy is to not cease to give people updated information. Regarding the "scholar degree" of the documentary, I will give you an example, recently a Primary school boy found a very valuable stone female figurine in Israel which now is in the hands of archaeological authorities of that country. Even though the boy has not passed through Highschool, archaeologists consider the finding as genuine, they are not "throwing" the valuable finding to trash. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You are asking me to: "...If the point you are trying to make has some support beyond You Tube, you should have no trouble finding references on Google Books, JSTOR, or the like... If you can't find any, please just forget about it..." I see you are outdated by thinking that the "only source" is a "written source", that was the "medieval" way of thinking centuries ago and it's outdated now, and many serious editors in Wikipedia are using non-print sources right now, I can give you examples. Anyway, I do not say that "Secrets of Sinauli" should be treated as an "immaculate" source, it should be treated critically, but it's a source. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The “female warrior” should be mentioned. We shouldn’t be afraid of irrational interpretations. Just because an area was occupied by war waging people, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are the same as the ones represented in Hindu epics. The Indo-Gangetic plain is an ideal geography for the growth of civilisation. There could be many many unrelated cultures that shall be found on further excavations. ChandlerMinh (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

And why should it be mentioned, given WP:RS? Which "expert" makes the claim that the remains of female warriors were found, based on which artifacts and with which logic? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC) To help you out, here's what the FinancialExpress, Secrets of Sinauli: Manoj Bajpayee, Neeraj Pandey’s Discovery Plus show is must watch for Indian history buffs has to say:

That's a lot of "if's" and "first's", revealing a lot of speculation and unusual interpretations. Steatite inlay work fits well with a symbolic function of the artifacts. Again, WP:EXCEPTIONAL need better sources than commercial documentaries. And it's still unattributed: who makes those claims, inwhich formulation? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * In minute 1:26 from Discovery+ documentary in Hindi Dr Manjul, the present archaeologist which excavated there speaks in English the following: "Possibly that is also a warrier" refering to the find in the woman's burial. So the edit can say: "Dr Manjul proposes the possibillity of a female-warrior in a burial at Sinauli..." Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, I was able to see the full 55 minute documentary, but unfortunately that's only shared in Facebook, but it shows how archaeologists from ASI or some related Indian Institution's researchers do a scan in a portion of "square" ground block and show the profile of an object inside which features the contour of a bow, and they claim that's the bow of the female-warrior in the burial. They also found arrowheads made of stone which fit with their conclusions. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to comment on your approach: 1. Youtube is not an academic publishing unit. 2. ASI is a government entity of India. A political involvement is often suggested like in the Keezhadi excavation case. I have seen Dr. Manjul's monologues on Youtube, where he frequently compares Sinauli with Vedic texts to support a Indo-Aryan nativist view. My suggestion would be to wait for scholarly consensus on this topic through a wide variety of scholars who have contributed peer-reviewed material (just like for the Keezhadi excavations, which have been published only through a government agency yet).ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding your comment 1. on Youtube, I can tell you that many institutions just like Oriental Institute from Chicago use that platform for Academic lectures. It's wrong to say that they are not academically involved. 2. on ASI, almost all governments in the world have official academic institutions that more or less are involved with "nationalists views", and there's no reason to not receiving information on their findings. It's a very "sub-ordinated" way of thinking to "wait" for a supposed forthcoming "scholarly consensus" when people like Asko Parpola already published on the findings, using precisely and judiciously Indian newspapers as scholarly-oriented information, we can go on in this way, as the basic information on the female-burial was already commented in this Wikipedia's article. If we were to apply your "logic" we should delete all the article and wait for a supposed "academic illumination" which who knows when it will come, that's not the way Wikipedia works. What I'm proposing here is only a short paragraph to complete the already existing information on a burial, not a whole treatise on political motivations of ASI, for which another article would be needed. And an independent Wikipedia's editor can be capable enough to discriminate between political motivations and geniune scholarly findings. The findings in Sinauli are authentic, only the interpretation is politically motivated, it's so simple but some are complicating unnecesarily the issue. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you shared a youtube link to the Hindi channel of "Discovery+" (not academic), production by "Neeraj Pandey", a film director (not academic). So this video certainly doesn't fit any scholarly criteria. I don't know why this is still a discussion here.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright, it's true, Neeraj Pandey's production has many academic inaccuracies, starting from the dating of the findings around 2100 to 1900 BCE, when the C14 samples were actually reported to be around 1800 to 1500 BCE. I was thinking however that editors in this Wikipedia article could apply judiciously the policy of common sense, in order to find the genuine information in this source and have some valuable information: "...Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider 'rules'. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution 'violates' the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution..."[], but I see you and other people here are not willing to apply it. I will not insist, thanks for sharing your comment, maybe you're right and in future a more academic paper will be published. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the "political involvement" of ASI, see the comment by Ruchika Sharma, and the accompanying notes, which were censored by an IP at 16 february. Lal, who seems to give his opinions in the documantary, cannot be regarded as a reliable source. The only reason he is championed in India is because of his pro-Hindutva stance, but the scholarly impact of his publicatiins on the Indo-Aryans is zero, precisely because of this Hindutva-mythology. Regarding the sword found with the female coffin burial, this is what Manjul opinioned in 2018:

From symbolic sword to female warrior in just 2 years time, without any official publication... A shield with steatite inlays would be quite useless in battle; imagine how the inlays will hold when a sword is pounding on it... The steatite coasters at my table already fracture when they fall on the ground. Totally non-reliable ("We see the irrefutable and exact archaeological trace of warriors' migration from the Yamuna-Ganga Doab to Palestine"), but this blog offering the appropriate alternative explanation: "the symbolic shield burial of the Late Harappans in Sanauli." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Migrate excavation content to separate page
I suggest to migrate the excavation content to "Sinauli excavations" analogous to various other excavation pages.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean, the whole page? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not the whole page, only the content related to the excavations. ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears, that the whole page is now based on the excavations, an editor removed the Jain temple reference. Sinauli is an actual village right? ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Predating Indo-Aryans
regarding this removal, edit-summary "sources don't say so," which removed (in bold)

see Putting the horse before the cart:

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  18:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, According to Article some right wing claim that finding of chariot is blow to Indo Aryan Invasion theory. But Article don't support this claim in absence of radio carbon dating. The article is written before available of carbon dating of findings. According to Carbon dating, material are from c. 1850 - 1550 BC belongs to Late Harrapan or Orchre Coloured Pottery Culture (2000-1500 BCE) or Copper Hoard culture. Many Scholars  associate Cooper Hoard culture with Indo Aryan even before sinauli findings. So Sinauli excavation don't falsify Indo Aryan migration. Article put different opinion, But don't claim these are correct. In light of radio carbon dating Sinauli finding don't falsify Indo Aryan migration theory. So I think it should not be put in first paragraph of lead section. Dev0745 (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No, of course it doesn'f falsify the IAmt; but some people think it does. That's the point. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, Some people think, but I think it shouldn't be in first para of lead section as it's not opinion of scholar. Sinauli Findings question Indo Aryan migration theory is in later para of lead section. I think it is enough to suggest that findings question Indo-Aryan migration theory. Thanks..Dev0745 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Dev0745 is making a valid point. We should let the reader decide whether or not to believe in Aryan migration theory. The obtained dates for the carts/chariots, are well within the early 2 millennium date to which Aryan migration belong. By adding “predating the arrival of the horse-centered Indo-Aryans and thereby supposedly fasifying the Indo-Aryan migration theory” in the lead, we are making it look like Wikipedia is pushing a propaganda.(My personal opinion) Chandler Minh (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No problem, fine with me. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is "Ruchika Sharma" quoted here?
There are several prominent scholars (Ravindra Singh Bisht, K.N. Dixit, B.R. Mani, Sanjay Manjul, et al.) who believe that the chariots were horse driven. Why is a relatively obscure scholar given such a prominent space on this article? Similarly we should be first quoting archeologists here on a page about a excavation site; Michael Witzel is not one. Moreover it should be clearly mentioned that horse vs. ox is an ongoing debate. The article seems to making a pronouncement here using only opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.179.147 (talk • contribs) 24 july 2021 (UTC)


 * Because she provides a relevant perspective, which is obvious to anyone with any knowledge about the influence of Indigenous Aryanism in certain circles. Sharma and Manjul are the first persons referred to, c.q. quoted, not Witzel; that there is a "debate" is quite obvious from the lead. If there are scholarly publications from those archaeologist, please let us know. Though for Kashinath Narayan Dikshit that may be a problem; he died in 1946. NB: did you note how Manjul's comment "the rituals relating to the Sanauli burials showed close affinity with Vedic rituals" actually supports the link with Indo-Aryans? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * the K.N. Dixit IP mentioned and Kashinath Narayan Dikshit are two different persons. K. N Dixit appears in Secrets of Sinauli. Coming to The horse vs ox debate. The debate will never probably end. Sinauli findings were replete with animal motifs. Plenty of bull motifs were found, not a single horse motif have been found. ChandlerMinh (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)