Talk:Iron Age in India

message: Here is my complete , comprehensive solution to the so-called Aryan problem
Part one is a high level overview. Part two is much more interesting
This is one of the longest research papers published in a peer-reviewed journal since independance.
Part 2 is particularly important
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two
> Mirror:
> http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25880426/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One
> http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25865304/SUJAY-NPAP-Part-Two
Links to the journal
Part one http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1324506
Part Two http://ssrn.com/abstract=1541822
Part 2 has methods to reconstruct the langauges of the harappans with checks and balances..  122.166.5.202 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  complete and comprehensive solution for the aryan problem 

message: I can't find any cites in Google Books to the  journal "The IUP Journal of History and Culture" and no cites in Google books or Google scholar to the author and IP above, Sujay Rao Mandavilli. This looks a bit promotional, certainly not something we should be using in the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sujay Rao Mandavilli 

message: Recent discovery of daggers in southern India dates to 2200 BCE , 1000 years older than rest of the world . http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/discovery-ancient-indian-daggers-may-push-back-start-iron-age-020352. (Text contributed by ) - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean to say that you reverted, because this is nonsense? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I removed the content from the article. I don't know if it is nonsense or not, but this source is no good. Hopefully, somebody can dig into the sources and unearth accurate information. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is a link to the Times of India article. It is known that the Indians had been experimenting with iron for centuries before the onset of the Iron Age. But Iron Age means the period when iron came into widespread use and started supplanting all the other bronze/copper implements. The date of that is determined by historians studying all the available evidence, not isolated archaeological finds or newspaper headlines. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very interesting discovery and we should certainly cite it once it is actually published, but the reporting is terrible. Megalophias (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron in 2200 BC 

message: The Tewary sources appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources and too much reliance on them in this article is a problem. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tewary sources 

message: The title of this article was changed without consensus. It should be reversed back. (2600:1017:B80E:4E3E:CDFA:AD8F:7708:5B6C (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "South Asia" seems to be more apt. The ancient kings who conquered parts of present-day Pakistan and Afghanistan obviously weren't bothered by the present-day borders. Nor were the Aryans who came from the BMAC, nor the traders who traveled throughout Asia. Not to mention the IVC-people and their exchanges with Mesopotamia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "India" in this case is historical geography, not the nation state. This was already established in the talk page of Indian subcontinent. (2600:1017:B80E:4E3E:CDFA:AD8F:7708:5B6C (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be good to establish a Wiki-policy, or Wiki-style, in this regard... It's too complicated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

text: I second Joshua Jonathan's comments. Also note this suspicious IP user notified a very selective group of users to fulfill his request; hence the requests are invalid. His edit summaries also look suspicious.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are a clear POV pusher. I am an old IP editor. Utcursch Kautilya3 RegentsPark are fimilar with my work and my IP location. Don't use names to justify what you are doing. The change in title is in dispute. Revert it back until we have a consensus. (2600:1017:B80E:4E3E:BCA2:321B:2B37:338C (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Pinging other users to come and support you to change consensus because you disagree on this topic, is not permitted. Please be wary of WP:CANVASSING. --NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: He reversed it without building any consensus. (2600:1017:B80E:4E3E:BCA2:321B:2B37:338C (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Canvassing is a misplced allegation here, I think; a discussion was started here, and should be continued. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

text: I am supporting the present title as well, because the linked sources and researches are about India. Capitals00 (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change  

message: I've started an essay on :Wikipedia:India - South Asia nomenclatura. I hope in time this may grow into a style-advice or a guideline. No idea how the development of an essay, let alone a style-advice or a guideline works, but I thought it may be best to just start with it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay

message: I move protected to prevent any further undiscussed moves, this is no endorsement of the current title. I'd have ideally preferred to restore the original title before these moves, but apparently my eyesight failed me by making me see an "in" where there wasn't any, but I don't think there's any point in fixing that mistake with another move, therefore I'm leaving it open for an RM discussion or just a basic consensus on whether the original title or this one should be used as "status quo" for a move discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 10:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title protection 

message: :Iron Age in India →  – The reason is very simple. Some Indian wikipedia members are attempting to shove there own nationalistic Indian pseudohistory onto wikipedia by intentionally mixing up South Asian history with Indian history. SOUTH ASIA refers to the regions (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) while INDIA refers to the Republic of India now. We're talking about the region of South Asia, not India. Hence forth for the sake of neutrality, this should be changed to South Asian Iron Age, just like South Asian Stone Age and South Asian Bronze Age which was again reverted to Bronze Age of India. This is totally unacceptable how some Indian wiki members are going around on wikipedia and deleting South Asia and replacing it with India or Ancient India or Indian subcontinent, all either fake terms or obsolete terms. Kindly consider moving to South Asian Iron Age. PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Under North India section, artifacts, revolutionized is spelled wrong. Try to be more specific about who is their near the end of the section.Bnbautis (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Spellings of artefacts and revolutionised are correct because we use Indian English for these articles. Capitals00 (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Errors 

message: This is article deals with an important subject. Yet somehow it is written like a middle-school essay. Limited content for an entire period of history that spans over a millennium?
This is the same time (or even earlier) to which the much publicised Sinauli “chariots” were dated to. No trace of iron was found at the Sinauli excavation site from that date, instead what found was copper. 
Secondly, the 1800-2400BCE date cites only a news article. No reference to any other sources or scholarly article despite being from five years ago.
Thirdly, Tewari (2003) dates iron artefacts to 1800-1000BCE. Seriously? that is 800 years! 1000BCE is very much possible, but why such a huge span of 800 more years back in time. Looks like 1800 BCE claim was just to push the dates further back to the normally accepted dates of Vedic period. ChandlerMinh (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: please look into it. ChandlerMinh (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual pov-pushing. There is a scholarly publication, though, here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few objections