Talk:History of science and technology on the Indian subcontinent

message: The image :Image:Meghnad Saha in Berlin, 1921.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      Image:Neolithic mehrgarh.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Meghnad Saha in Berlin, 1921.jpg

message: I wasn't aware of the existence of this article.  (I have now put it on my watchlist.)  I believe, there is a glaring disconnect between the article name and its leading content.
*Mehrgarh and, in general, regions that are clearly in modern-day Pakistan, shouldn't be included in an article whose name is "History of Indian science and technology."  Presumably, the Pakistan workgroup might want to have a history page themselves, or may already have one; the inclusion of these topics here would then potentially create a content fork.  Besides, when I read the Nature article a few years ago and included content from it in the Wikipedia page, Mehrgarh, I didn't, as far as I can  remember, encounter any mention of "India" or even "ancient India" in the article, only one of Pakistan.  It was the same with the BBC report from that time.
 
*You are welcome to change the name of the article to "Science and technology in South Asia."  (This is the tack taken in Britannica ("South Asian arts," "South Asian mathematics"), but it will still require discussion with the other regional work-groups or WikiProjects.
*Even in the absence of the issues mentioned above, "History of Indian science and technology" is ambiguous, since "Indian" itself is ambiguous.  At the very least, the name of the page should be changed to "History of science and technology in India" or some such formulation. 
I will take a more thorough look later.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name and Mehrgarh

message: The Indian contribution to mathematics is exaggerated in this article.  The mathematical content should not be created anew here, but should be a summary of the material in Indian mathematics.  Consequently, the stuff about the Kerala school writing the first calculus textbook etc. will have to go.  Aryabhata didn't invent the sine, the cosine or any trigonometric function; the Indians made a minor change in the pre-existing Greek definitions of these functions, which made them more easily computable.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you mean. Can you please point to the proof of existence of people like pythagoras?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakkuna Mattata (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear newly created SPA,  Whether Pythagoras was a person or a school, he was undeniably Greek (or Hellenic); I am not saying anything about the existence of Aryabhata, only that the "innovations" the mathematicians in early medieval India brought to trigonometry was one of changing the pre-existing Greek definitions of the sine and cosine (involving full chords of the circle) to half-chords.  The names they gave to these alterations have survived through the Arabic translations, but the main conceptual innovation (that the Indians altered) was Greek.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematics content

message: Hargobind Khorana's image has to go as well.  His contribution in explicating the Genetic Code had very little to do with India.  It involved experimental techniques that were developed at the University of Wisconsin in Madison and later at MIT.  Khorana had become a US citizen much earlier.  Unlike a writer (such as Salman Rushdie) who uses India in his works, a scientist is not similarly indebted in terms of the content of his work.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see einstein page. It mentions he was german born and it also lists his citizenships. So what is the reason Khorana, an Indian born, should not be mentioned on this page? Khorana spent a decent part of his life studying in India.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakkuna Mattata (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid Einstein is quite different.  He was a German citizen from his birth (in 1879) to 1896 and then again from 1914 to 1933 (a total of 36 years).  That means that he published the General Theory of Relativity (1915) and received the Nobel Prize (1921) as a German citizen.  Khorana, on the other hand, was born in Multan in present-day Pakistan, was educated there and then in Lahore, also in present-day Pakistan, where he received his Masters degree in 1945 at age 23.  That same year (two years before the Partition of India and the creation of independent India and Pakistan), he left British India to study in the UK and never to return to live or work in the subcontinent.  Consequently, if anything, he belongs to the History of Science and Technology in Pakistan page.  He had no education whatsoever within the borders of present-day Republic of India.    Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hargobind Khorana

message: I agree with none
 of the points raised above by user: Fowler&fowler. In my opinion this is a parent article and should only concentrate on overviews while the fine details eg. for silk details such as when did silk arrive from China? what instruments were used by the Indians? how did the advent of Islam help mix traditions? etc. can be left to articles like silk in the Indian subcontinent. These articles require attention and the fine details belong there. Similar for mathematics and such. As for scientists a modification of List of Indian scientists can take place with tables and figures but this 'parent article' needs to be one which presents an overview, eg. science and technology in the Republic of India which presents an outline while leaving the details to nuclear power in India and such.
However, I cannot personally involve myself here till at least March first week due to prior commitments both on and off Wikipedia. I hope that these discussions can take place at a gradual pace. The tag is there and should be there until each and every one of the concerns raised by user: Fowler&fowler above are addressed fully. To clarify, I myself was planning a rewrite as early as January 20 but could not complete. 
Also to user:Hakkuna Mattata I would suggest adopting a more leisurely and relaxed approach. Every single bit of information on Wikipedia can be debated and should be. This is but natural and is going to happen to in every article. Working together with all parties and incorporating every single point of view ultimately helps make an article better.
JSR 0562 05:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  Thanks for replying and look forward to your return.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I have found some time to further modify the article and still have a good lead and expansion of the 'colonial era' section left to do. When I finish these then I will ask for comments here on the talk page. Meanwhile allow me some time to try and make the article more consistent. JSR 0562 08:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply 

message: * There are two specific mentions to present-day Pakistani sites: a) Mehrgarh which now ends in less than one paragrah. b) Balakot which may have the earliest ovens and furnaces in the Indus culture. Both of these now have "present day Pakistan" written clearly (Mehrgarh already did).
* I have removed Biagi (2008). This was done to cut down on specific mentions to Pakistan sites.
* A couple of lines on Kalibangan added.
Sincerely,
JSR 0562 08:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there JSR.  Many apologies for not getting back earlier, but little emergencies in our household kept me off-Wikipedia.  Yes, I agree that the Mehrgarh part is small.  I was mulling over something else you said above (or might have said).  I was wondering if it might be worth making the point that Mehrgarh has significant links with other neolithic sites westwards of it, such as Iran, Mesopotamia and so forth, and that the general view now seems to be that Mehrgarh (after consistent drought or some permanent climate change) itself died out, but (perhaps as a result of migration) spawned chalcolithic cultures to its east, which in turn later spawned the IVC.  I'm sure we can find reliable references for this.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: PS Also, would you want to mention the domestication of chicken in the IVC?  True, "domestication" is not really ivory-tower science, but "stockbreeding" does have some connections with science.  I actually once collected references for this and the real facts are more complicated.  The chicken it seems, was domesticated in a number of different regions (such as Burma, South East Asia, and even China, in addition to South Asia); however, the strain that made its way around the world (and is now eaten around the word, was the domesticated Indian Jungle Fowl) which was known in the IVC.  Here is the link to User:Fowler%26fowler/Chicken, where I have that information, should you want to look at it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: PPS I noticed a map on the progress in rail construction by the 1870s.  I have an actual British House of Commons map from 1871 which shows all the constructed (or proposed and soon to be constructed) lines.  I will scan it and upload soon (since I need it in the Company rule in India article.  Also, I have a 1909 Imperial Gazetteer railways map somewhere. ... Yes, I just remembered, it is here.  Do you think comparing the picture in 1871 with that in 1909 might provide some useful (encyclopedic) information?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: All of what has been proposed above sounds good. I may, however, need a couple of days (all of the weekend) to finish some real life work that I have been putting off before getting back to Wikipedia. I hope we can move at a gradual pace.  JSR 0562 09:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break

message: Indian contribution to science and technology is vast, having had a huge influence on the world. However this article doesn't really show that. Its quite disorganized and needs to be improved. Maybe a similar structure to the 'History of science and technology in China' article would help improve this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.117.71 (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am commenting to clarify that the organization of paragraphs specifically is incredibly disorganized. One in the Middle Kingdoms section covers textiles, sugar, math, etc., all in the same paragraph. If it is organized chronologically, that should be made more clear. At the very least, transitions should be added between different topics within the same paragraph. Ideally, these should be separated into their own separate, smaller paragraphs with time clearly marked. 201.202.13.198 (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: I don't see much information particularly relating to the history of medicine in this article, and I was wondering if anyone knows whether there is currently a separate article on that topic? If not, any thoughts on whether creating a separate article would be preferable or not compared to adding information focusing on medicine to this article? I can see how it would deserve a separate article but don't want to start one unnecessarily.
I'm organising training sessions at the National Library of Scotland, and as they have some pretty strong digital collections relating to the medical history of British Colonial India, I was hoping I might encourage them to use the training session as an opportunity to contribute some of that information to Wikipedia. Would appreciate thoughts and responses very much to that idea, and also to whether it would be better perhaps to create a subsection in the article on the British Raj. There's currently a section on Famines, Epidemics, and Public Health, as well as a rather orphaned article, but both seem to me to be quite limiting in scope. Again, greatly appreciate the input! ACrockford (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See my reply at Talk:British Raj.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Medicine?

message: Mapping 41.114.71.139 (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global air circulation-monsoon winds 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion