User:Noleander/sandbox/5

I've read through all of the above, and read portions of some of the sources. Based on that, my analysis is the following:

The issue here is how to describe the influence of Greek astronomy upon the development of Indian astronomy in the Indian astronomy article, particularly in the Lead and in the "Global discourse" section.

The historical events took place roughly 2,000 years ago, and the paucity of documentation from that era means that historians have a difficult time pinpointing events and influences with certainty.

There is general interest among historians of science in the possible influence of Greece upon Indian astronomy. In fact, two works were published on the topic in the mid 1970s: one by by Roger Billard in 1971 or 1974 ("L’Astronomie indienne"); and another by David Pingree in 1976 ("The Recovery of early Greek astronomy from India"). Their conclusions about the influence of Greece differed in some significant respects.

Subsequent scholars remarked on the conflicting interpretations, and elaborated on the topic, including Yukio Ohashi (1994), Hubert Van Der Waeden (1980), Raymond Mercier (2006), and others. Because of the substantial amount of top-quality academic sources, there is no need to consider sources that are second-rate, such as those published by new-age publishers and the like.

All of the sources agree that there was Greek influence on Indian astronomy. They differ only in the magnitude and timing: when was the influence? in which eras? Was it a large influence? or small? I think most objective observers would also agree that historians do not know, and probably never will know, exactly what the magnitude of the influence was ... in other words, there will always be some uncertainty accompanying any assertion about the degree or timing of the influence. The uncertainty continues: as recently as 2006, UK scholar Raymond Mercier published a paper analyzing the PIngree/Billard interpretations.

My recommendation is that the article should tell the readers:
 * 1)  There was significant and repeated influence from Greece ranging from 3rd century BC to 4th century AD
 * 2)  Following the 4th century AD the greek influence waned  during the "classical Siddhanta" era, and  Indian astronomy made major progress independently.
 * 3) Some scholars assert that Āryabhaṭa produced some of his major results independently from Greek sources.

I think that items (1) and (2) above are high-level fact that could be mentioned in the lead (as well as in the body).

For item (3), it may be best if the article names (in the text, not just in the footnote) the specific scholars that promote that interpretation (BIllard, Ohashi, and Mercier). It is clear from their writings that their hypothesis is very strong and deserves to be presented as viable and within the mainstream (not to say majority).

The above analysis is based simply on my readings, and using my best common sense. DRN is entirely voluntary, and editors are welcome to accept, reject, or modify my recommendation. If editors want to start with this proposal, and suggest modifications, that is fine, and I'd be happy to continue helping as best I can, either here or in the article Talk page.