Talk:Dwarka

message: The lost city portion has not been given its due. The fact that the excavation is still on and the artifacts and the man made boulders are still being recovered has not been mentioned at all. Please refer to the below link
http://www.arianuova.org/arianuova.it/arianuova.it/Components/English/A12-Dwaraka.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prat ran (talk • contribs) 07:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've removed some Sris and Srimads (no honorifics), and some wild association between archaeology and the Mahabharata. You are very welcome to discuss speculations on such identifications, you just need to cite your source every time ("Mr. X connects Y with Z, see reference"). There is more than enough cranky hand-waving on Wikipedia already. dab (ᛏ) 22:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: I feel that the quality of this article is not up to the mark. And I see the liberal use of peacock terms. Also unverified information such "Even in Tsunami or Earthquake the temple was not destroyed" which looks more like personal admiration put to words should not be allowed. I request the groups responsible to clear the article up.
And to vm, sign the post wioth four '~' as mentioned above.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijeth (talk • contribs) 09:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I am currently revising the article. --Shruti14 t c s 05:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality

message: This article needs much work. I have begun revising it, expanding short paragraphs, fixing general mistakes and omissions, and correcting grammar and style errors.  It still, however, needs much work before it can move up on the quality scale. --Shruti14 t c s 05:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One can use the talk page to clear out confusions as well in case there are any.इति इतिUAनेति नेति  Humour Thisthat2011  19:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements 

message: during last ice age, which was some 16000 years ago, sea levels were some 300 meters farther from the present coastal line. Lot more land was above sea level. So it is quite possible and probable for a civilization to exist at that location. But, the time period is something needs to be comprehended. Current understanding shows that mankind was still in hunter gatherer phase and  not in settled phase. But all that could change if more evidence is presented.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.240.160 (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  last ice age 

message: Dwarka (Listen) also spelled Dvarka, Dwaraka, and Dvaraka.........
Dwaraka = Dwa - Raka = Two cancers = Two arms = Двa ракa = две ръце....
Dwaraka = Dwa - Raka = Two rivers = Two kings = Две реки = двама царе...
Old Bulgarian City?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.230.235 (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what we call "original research", see WP:NOR. We rely on what "reliable sources" say. See WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The origin of the name? 

message: The following refs do not link to any full citations: "Dharaiya 1970", "Bandyopadhyay 2014", "Deshpande, p. 273.". – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oversight. Done. Thanks. --Nvvchar. 15:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken refs

message: I'm very skeptical about using a source over a century old for " Around 2000 BC the Harappans of the Indus Valley traveled to the Kathiawar coast and maintained relations with Mesopotamia and Egypt by availing the ports of Dwarka, Bhagatrav, Bharuch and Lotha, which was also followed by the Assyrians.[10]According to ancient history, Krishna had settled down here after he defeated and killed his uncle Kamsa at Mathura, after Jarasndha atacked Mathura."
This seems a bit too early for a start - see  and . I'm not sure what evidence was relied upon as I can't read the journal, but it clearly wasn't the current archaeological evidence. And we certainly shouldn't be calling Krishna an historical figure.
I'd like to see this use of the source justified please. Doug Weller (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks for your valued views. I am not a history student and hence can not throw more light on the subject. The source used is a snippet. I have done extensive search related to this part of the text but could not find any more linking to trade  with Mesopotamia and Egypt and Asiraya. May be you could help. Otherwise, I would prefer to delete this sentence. Ancient history has been changed to "legend".--Nvvchar. 06:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks for your very polite reply. I also searched and could find nothing and agree that it should be deleted - the source is simply too old. As an aside, I think we should avoid snippets. The problem with snippets is that they lack context, and the next paragraph might explain why the author thinks that the text in the snippet is wrong. Or that there are alternative views, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 1910 

message: 1) In the section Dwarka#Archaeological evidence is the following sentence:
*From the typological classification of the anchors it is inferred that Dwarka had flourished as a port during the medieval period.
It might not be clear to an average reader what is meant by "the medieval period". Is this the medieval period (Middle Ages) in Europe or a different medieval period in India, or is it the same historical time period as in Europe, but in India? I know there is a section later in the article on the medieval period, and I ought to read it, but I wonder if this phrase could either be linked to another article or explained briefly with either a phrase or a date range-plus-country so that it is clear. Corinne (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Medieval ages or period refers to period between 5th and 15th century. The archeological excavtions at Dwarka revealed antiquities of a period much eralier. It could be called the period of the Middle kingdoms of India. If you agree with htis I will make changes accordingly. Nvvchar. 03:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nvvchar Yes, of course. Anything that is accurate and adds clarity. Corinne (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

text: * Changed to the period of the Middle kingdoms of India.--Nvvchar. 10:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: NvvcharWhat the source actually says is "The underwater structures lying off Dwarka arc the remains of a jetty. It is difficult to date these structures precisely, however the binding material suggests that it may be of the late medieval period. Discovery of a large number of stone anchors suggests that Dwarka was an important port since the historical period and continued till late medieval period." Doug Weller (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Medieval period

message: 2) The last sentence in Dwarka#Early history is the following:
*In 885 AD, the pontiff of Shreemad Jagatguru Shankaracharya Peeth refurbished the temple.
I was surprised to see the word "pontiff" used in connection with a Hindu religious figure. In the west, the word is used only to refer to the Pope, in Rome. I wonder if this is a translation of a Hindu word, and whether there might be another word that is equally acceptable. This word is also used in another place in the article. Corinne (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It has become a common usage in India to address the highest religious heads of Hindu religion. News papers frequently use this suffix for the Adi Shankarachrya. Seer is also another term in usage. If you want it to be changed then I will use the word "seer". Nvvchar. 03:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Joshua Jonathan What word do you think is the best word to use? Corinne (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The original source for pontiff has been vanished; this blog may be the original source, though. Which is probably not WP:RS. The souce says "The head of the Shreemad Jagatguru Shankaracharya pith renovated the temple." Now, this head is head of the :Sringeri Sharada Peetham, and :Jagadguru is his title. So, this source has mixed the name of the matha and the itle of its head. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: NB: my knowledge of Indian geogarphy is limited, but to link :Sharada Peeth, which probably is supposed to be the same as :Sringeri Sharada Peetham in south India, to a temple in Sharda in Azad Kashmir, is painfull, to say the least... To link it to Sringeri Sharada Peetham, which is located in :Karnataka, also seems unlikely. I guess :Dvaraka Pitha is meant. , to the rescue please! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The heads of all the Peeth are referred to in similar ways, "Jagadguru" etc. I think your guess that it must have been the head of Dwarakapeeth is correct. There is no reason for the head of another peeth to get involved here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @JJ: Indeed, that blog is not RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I've added the name of the head, and changed back the name of the peeth (pith), since this is what the source says: The source reads "Shree Nrushinhaashrma (Who defected the Brihaspatguru in the debut of scriptures at Patan) The head of the Shreemad Jagatguru Shankaracharya pith." But what is "Shreemad Jagatguru Shankaracharya pith"? Does it mean 'the head of the peeth of Shreemad Jagatguru Shankaracharya', that is, the head of the Dvaraka Peeth? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This source, mentioned by Kautilya3, says that "sharada" means is another name for this western matha. My humble apologies; I was clearly wrong here. Only the original link was incorrect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I don't understand then why the southern matha is called :Sringeri Sharada Peetham. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, bith are called "sharada", which does not mean "western". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sharada means the goddess of learning, i.e., Saraswati. Sharada Peeth = the seat of the goddess of learning, which is essentially a way of saying a centre of learning. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wondering – I see "Sharda Peeth" twice in the last paragraph of the lead. Is that correct? Corinne (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

text: O.K. Thanks, but I was just looking at all the mentions of "Sharada", above, and then I saw "Sharda", so I wondered if that were a typographical error, but I guess not. Corinne (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Pontiff

message: 4) In the "Geography" section under Dwarka#Geography and climate, I added "to the rest of India" after "is well connected" because something was needed there, but if you think it should be "to the rest of India and the world", you can add "and the world", but I don't think it's necessary. Corinne (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no international airport at Dwarka. Hence, your correction is fine. Nvvchar. 03:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Airport

message: According to the Indian government, urban areas with population below 100,000 are called Towns  (archive). This settlement, as per 2011 census (sourced in the article body), has a population of only 38,873. Thus all mention of city in the article should be changed to town. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Town 

message: "Okhamandal Peninsula on the right bank of the 'Gomti' River".
Hyperlink of Gomti river is incorrect. Its directing to the Gomti river of U.P. 223.231.161.9 (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyperlink of Gomti river incorrect.