Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation/Archive 1

message: I've altered the bit about ninetenth century Aryan theory, partly because the original text implied that these were theories about the collapse of the IVC. But this was before the IVC was discovered! Partly because its acount of the 'laughable' nature of these theories is, I think, simplistic and ahistorical.  Paul Barlow
yes no maybe so i love this palce i went there for vacation it was boring though
--Good call!  Pfaffenblogger
:The nature of the Indus civilization's agricultural system is still largely a matter of conjecture. But the matter is important. It is possible that this civilization teaches an important lesson. By means of collective social action and harmonious integration with the natural environment, human beings may have once created considerable economic prosperity without social inequality or political oppression. If this is indeed the Indus civilization's achievement, it is among the most noble in all human history.
Ummm....  This is really not very NPOV, is it?  It looks to me like some bizarre blend of communism, environmentalism, syndicalism, etc. inserting its view(s) into something pretending to be scholarly.  Call for votes: should this be deleted or reworded?  --Michael 02:16 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:Yeah, get rid of it. Do you have to use "Michael" for a signature? There is a rather more famous user here called user:Michael, and you don't want to be getting confused with him. -- Tim Starling 02:23 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::OK, I'm reworking it.  There's another such paragraph in the conclusion near the end that's going to get the same treatment.
::As to my signature, I used "Michael" because that happens to be my name.  I reasoned (not unreasonably, I assumed) that if someone wanted the full details of me they could just click.  :-)  Anyway, I've modified the signature so I don't get associated with a hostile user. --Michael Richter 03:01 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:::The signature thing is no big deal, it's just annoying. Any edit by User:Michael requires immediate action, so every time someone sees your signature they have to check who you really are. Plus whenever I see such a signature I sigh and roll up my sleeves. I don't know why, it's just an involuntary response. :) -- Tim Starling 03:21 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::::It's no big deal either way, so I don't care much.  I should point out, though, that edits are signed with my full user name: User:Michael T. Richter.  It's only in the talk pages with the double-dash, multiple-tilde thing that it said "Michael". --Michael Richter 14:36 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
The deleted paragraph would have seemed less non-NPOV, perhaps, if it had been properly contextualized -- the two other earliest civilizations, Egypt and Mesopotamia, were both associated with the rise of extreme social inequality, despotic centralized power, and warfare, all of which have long been seen to be necessary components of civilization formation. The IV Civilization suggests that market formation & regional integration coupled with relative social equality is an alternative path to urbanization & civilization. Perhaps someone could take a stab at expressing this in place of the original paragraph, which richly deserved deletion. User:pfaffenblogger 13 Aug 2003
:Pfaffenblogger had a good point here, back in August. Does the present article make this contrast sufficiently clear? (Without crowing about the superior humaneness of IV Civ, of course.) --Wetman 18:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did it.  Someone revert me if I've overstated things. -- Finlay McWalter 00:40, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Barlow's message

message: Why are there virtually no links to support any of the substance of this Featured Entry? There is one good one. Additional inks to the basic archaeology on which all this is based are sorely needed. Wetman 01:56, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The IVC is indeed one of the most interesting historical enigmas today, and Thor Heyerdahl's musings in Aku-Aku (I believe it was) about the potential relationship between Indus-Valley markings (there is insufficient evidence to indicate that it was a full-blown alphabet or syllabary) and the Rongo-rongo of Rapa Nui are interesting (in fact, I don't remember the name of it, but there is a whole book written on this very subject by someone else.  I read it when I was in high school over 15 years ago and have long since forgotten the name and the author...)  All of that said, however, Wikipedia has a fairly strict policy that the Wikipedia is not the place for the publishing of original research.  If you find the subject sufficiently interesting, perhaps you should develop a website of your own that deals with it, in as much depth as you can muster, and then link to that site from the IVC page in the wikipedia. :-)  TShilo12 05:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links?

message: Shouldn't this part of ancient Indian history be added to the Indus Valley Civilization article? Or should it be a new article. Although it isn't sure exactly how old this sunken city in the Gulf of Cambay is, but it's definitely a part of Indian history (and history of human civilization, btw) and older than the cities of the Indus valley (Harrapa and Mohenjo-daro).
If you don't know what I mean, check these articles:
* Lost city 'could rewrite history'
* The lost city of Cambay
-- Bender235 21:53, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: touted in January 2002 and never heard of again? Sure, it would be among the oldes cities if it was 9000 years old. But just how are they going to date submerged ruins? But well, we can write an article about it anyway, of course. dab 22:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: carbon dating. I see. those hacks dated two pieces of wood, to 5000 BC, and to 7000 BC. Of course the 7000 BC makes the news rather than the 5000 BC one. I would want to see some serious confirmation of this measurement before I even consider accepting the wood is of this age, let alone the ruins. But I think it's no coincidence I have never heard of the case before :) dab 22:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this lost city news is no hoax, I mean, History Today seems to be a serious magazine (the 2nd article was feat. in HT Nov./2002). These to two pieces of wood and the two different results of C14-dating don't have to be contradictions. It's possible that the city existed from 7000 BC to 5000 BC. -- Bender235 00:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: of course. it has to be investigated. it's also possible that they dug up a piece of wood completely unrelated with the city. I wonder what has been said about that during the past two years. It doesn't seem to have made the news again. dab 08:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: here is one more scientific article (also from 2002):. apart from hinduist sites that pounced on the discovery as the obvious site of vedic civilization, I could find no followup. It seems like the whole thing was just silently buried. (or maybe there will be future publications. But at the moment the date hinges on the radiocarbon dating of a single piece of wood. Added a note to Gulf of Cambay. dab 09:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice article. I'll look for some new reports about it, too. The evidence provided by NIOT in the Gulf of Cambay has prompted the Government of India to set up a 'National Team' to probe the area further to unravel the details of these exciting marine archaeological findings. The details of the discovery are expected to change the present view of the prehistory of India and its environs. It probably takes a while until they publish some new details, but it's only a matter of time. -- Bender235 09:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "The details of the discovery are expected to change the present view" this kind of statement makes me cringe. It's about as unscientiic as you can get. They practically admit that there is a desired outcome, rather than subscribing to neutral research. dab 10:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: This is discussed on Talk:Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay. --Brunnock 22:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost city of Cambay 

message: http://micheldanino.voiceofdharma.com/frontline.html is the reply to earlier article in Frontline magazine.
Are these articles too academic (insted of wikipedia becoming an encyclopedia) ?
:Too academic? I daresay too polemic. But go ahead and link to it, people can make up their minds themselves. dab 08:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to point out that this being an encyclopedia, there shouldn't be anything too academic to have as an external link or reference. Sam Spade Arb Com election 11:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relavance of Links 

message: This article was recently defeatured. However, it was not defeatured because of lack of quality, but because it never went properly through the FAC process. So if you want to renominate this article again and are willing to work on the possible objections, feel free to do so. --Conti|✉ 13:52, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
: All right :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article 

message: I altered the wording that indicated that the Indus civilization is one of the 3 earliest civilizations to clarify that it is one of the earliest recognized civilizations.  This, in light of the recent discoveries of the ancient quite-well-planned cities several miles undersea not only under the Black Sea but also out into the Arabian Gulf, which indicate that many previous ideas about the first appearances of what modern scholarship recognizes as "Civilization" may long have preceded what were formerly unquestioned benchmark dates.  I don't intend my miniscule edits to become in and of themselves a source of debate edging on original research, but I think that to not recognize recent discoveries and the the doubts such discoveries cast upon previous ideas about the "earliest-ever civilizations date to 5000- years ago" ideas would amount to tacit approval of a definite (and not so independent of POV position) view of archaelogy.  I could (authoritatively) go into depth and argue at length about recent discoveries that suggest that Greek nautological methodoly was based on rudimentary memories of prior significantly-far-more-sophisticated knowledge of nautology, if anyone really feels like getting into fisticuffs about the idea that human civilization has progressed linearly and that we've never become "dumber" than we once were at any given time...  for a good, and grievous example, cf: THE DARK AGES...)  TShilo12 11:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the idea of counting civilizations is stupid anyway (nth civilization? which one was "the first"?) -- like everything else, civilization developed gradually. Early cities developed some 10,000 years ago. It's not like they decided one morning, let's be civilized. If you ask me, 3000 BC is not particularly early for a "civilization". It would be quite early for written documents, granted, but unfortunately nothing can be made of the "Indus script". dab (ᛏ) 11:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So what you're saying then, is that we're on the same page.  TShilo12 05:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edits in Light of Recent Discoveries 

message: do we have a reference to that? See . dab (ᛏ) 08:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ahar-Banas culture]] / [[Banas culture]]

message: we need to redraw :Image:Indus Map.jpg; it's probably a copyvio anyway. See also . I would do it, but I don't have a good gfdl'd blank map of the area. dab (ᛏ) 08:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The map

message: I'm sorry, but :Image:CiviltàValleIndoMappa.png is almost worthless. Not only because of its lack of detail, but the area marked as pertaining to the IVC covers half of the Hindukush. The only source given is "Copyright © Nataraja". We desperately need something like :Image:Indus Map.jpg GFDL'd. dab (ᛏ) 11:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the map. dab (ᛏ) 11:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the map

message: It looked as if anyone who was carrying any baggage dumped it at the first place he could find. I don't know enough about the IVC to add new information, but I can move sentences around and I think the overview now reads better. Please check out the difference  and give your comments. I suggest splitting the article into 1) Overview 2) Historical evidence and controversies. (Geographical scope will probably get covered here)  3) Chronology (Emergence, peak,  decline) 4) Achievements - Science, technology, arts, etc. --Ravikiran 18:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Overview section was horrible

message: The article doesn't seem too controversial to me.--Rob117 23:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I remove the neutrality template? 

message: Ancient Greek uncia is a unit of length, not weight or mass, which is being discussed in the article.  Perhaps you mean Roman ounce (Roman uncia)?  Pgan002 10:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek uncia 

message: what is the earliest evidence of Bronze in the IVC? Where was it found, and how is it dated? Is the introduction of Bronze consistent with 3rd millennium trade with Mesopotamia (Meluhha)? 130.60.142.65 11:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bronze

message: It appears as if someone deliberatly modified the page by making it say contemporary to the Poopy Age civilizations of of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. So I changed it.--Ojj 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: "The Indus valley was by main rivers, the Indus River. The Indus River was very important to Indus life. The river provided irrigation, and also created fertile land for farming. In the middle of India is the Deccan Plateau, which might have helped protect the Indus people from foreign invaders. The Himalayas are also located near the Indus Valley, as is the Hindu Kush mountain range."
I think that the Deccan plateau line does not belong in this section. Balochistan, Hindu Kush mountains and Thar desert were 
the main line of defense from foreign invaders. I think this line must be removed.
Siddiqui 00:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography - Deccan Plateau?? 

message: "According to the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis, Gujarat and Pakistan were the first settlements for Indo-Aryans."
The page for the hypothesis does not mention this. I would appreciate it if someone could link me to this, or remove this claim. Thanks! --Kash 00:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first settlements for Indo-Aryans 

message: Is it a good idea to use Graham Hancock's website as a reference? --Brunnock 12:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not.  Hancock is neither an archaeologist nor a historian, let alone an expert in ancient South Asia.  To say that his "theories" are far outside the mainstream would be an understatement.  This is not to say that views which challenge the mainstream should not be heard, but that they should come from qualified individuals who use appropriately rigorous research methodology and who are willing to submit their work for review by their equally qualified peers. Jlandahl 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graham Hancock? 

message: I've removed this whole section, which is mostly assertion. We can't really make deductions about race based on small sculptures.
:The facial features of a famous bronze figurine of a Dancing Girl and a bearded statuette from Mohenjo Daro are not Aryans.
:Skeletal remains from the two cities, as described by Basham, were of people who were long headed, narrow nosed and of a slender Mediterranean type, found all over the ancient Near East. This is an important element of the present population of South Asia. Proto-Australoid (Munda or Austro-Asiatic) is another race, which consists of individuals with flat noses and thick lips who can still be found within wild hill tribes (like Gond and Khasi) of modern India. The Dancing Girl from Mohenjo Daro seems to be a Proto-Australoid. At Mohenjo Daro one skull of a Mongolian and one of a short-headed Alpine type were found. The bearded figure shows both of these elements. 
:Most of the people of South India are a blend of Mediterranean and Proto-Australoid, the two chief ethnic factors of the Harappan people described above. The presence of Dravidian speakers among Iranian people in present day Balochistan is intriguing. The area where the Nal and Zhob Village Cultures developed thousands of years ago, is inhabited by the Brahui who speak a Dravidian language.
Ther comments about the people of south india being a "blend of Mediterranean and proto-Australoid" are also unsupported. The stuff about an "Alpine type" seems to draw on a strangely archaic model of race. Paul B 17:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: race

message: sorry, that was my mistake, I didn't read the article properly. dab (ᛏ) 17:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: tablet date

message: The periodization table (taken from the Tokyo museum website) has "1900-1700: Harappan/Late-Harappan transitionan", meaning the decline and collapse of the "Civilization" propoer; I put the middle date, 1800, as the end of the "Civilization", but I suppose 1700 or 1900 are just as valid end dates, since the IVC didn't collapse one morning, we are looking at a gradual decline. dab (ᛏ) 17:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: periodization

message: Considering wikipedia spelling policy, it seems to me that this article should be at Indus Valley Civilisation (South Asian/British English), and Indus Valley Civilization (American English) should be a redirect. deeptrivia (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you have a point there. dab (ᛏ) 18:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: The swastika shown in the inscription is not related to Hinduism. If you took the time to notice, it is facing the wrong way. The Hindu Swastika faces the other way and has DOTS within the squares.
Please for the love of GOD dont relate IVC to Hinduism without an evidence.
And to the person above me.
Ancient India was not a country. It was a subcontinent. It is incorrect to label IVC as Ancient Indian. Ancient Indian in modern times refers to the history of India within its own borders.
IVC is part of Pakistani history. While Pakistani did not exist prior to 1947, the people of Pakistani have always live there and the history belongs to the people of Pakistan, REGARDLESS of what they now call themselves.
IVC is not Indian or Ancient Indian. Ancient Indian (the subcontinent) is now referred to as the South Asia. Call it Ancient South Asian history but NOT Ancient Indian.
If you want to discuss, then please post here instead of changing the post.
We need to fix the use of the terms. The term "ancient India" has changed.
Yeah, you saying right ,it is not india nor history of it.
User=khalidkhoso
you mean Pakistan and the Republic of India. "India" is also the term for the subcontinent, see India (disambiguation). Regarding your claims about the swastika, please read sauwastika and swastika. dab (𒁳) 11:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PLEASE READ

message: Hello every buddy, it is good to see so much work done on our history, i never though, there r people around who care about it.thanx every buddy for efforts, thanx again.
reason of makeing this new post is that, i live in larkana,it is my home place, and I lived my 8 years of live in Moen-jo-daro that is pretty big period, I know but  because my college is at door step there,anways i have come back to topic again,Strange not even pciture is uploaded of danceing girl, i will do it for you, but i want you to make for you but please make topic and space for it, 
2nd thing ,there is also statue of King wearing Ajaruk,you have not uploaded his picture, I have it ,i will do it too, I will go and take some picture for wiki(that i love),even ajruk is still being used and it is having same pattern, when i will send that picture you will see it ,but again i need space and headline for it.
3rd, Main picture is not showing "stupa",it is on 10 Rupee Note of Pakistan currency now in 20 Rupee currency will find old picture for it because ,bad for all of that it was distroyed due to rain and now just mud was used to reconstrcut . do u knw what i am talking? well i have to be more clear, Stupa the upper part of Moen-Jo-daro though to King Sitting place, i know some of you might agree with it,beacuse i have read it in my local sindhi books.
waiting for positive and polite answer
Thanx wikipedia letting me to do some thing for my Own
User=khalidkhoso —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Khalidkhoso (talk • contribs) 09:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hello Khalidkhoso -- we will be grateful if you could upload photographs of the area. Please make sure you take the pictures yourself (or have the permission of the person who took them), and release them under the GFDL. I also suggest you upload them to http://commons.wikimedia.org/ directly (you'll need to create an account there, too). dab (𒁳) 11:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why not add these topic 

message: Deeptrivia,Please stop reverting my edits on the indus valley civilization article.I also made a small addition to the "ancient India" link with the ancient Pakistan link so readers are not confused.If there's a mention of only modern day Pakistan while a mention of only "ancient India",the reader will get the impression the entire region was India.The indus is also part of ancient Pakistan.(Almost all of it infact)
I simply placed the Pakistan tag because I saw several indian project tags on the talk page.This has allowed me to make add this article to the category of Pakistan related topics.
Regards Nadirali 00:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  please stop reverting my edits 

message: this is really funny to see here that Indian and Pakistani are having edit war (some thing they are good at).you are fighting on tags(???).i have seen no one …fighting what is happening with Historical places of Indus now? i think no buddy cares ,u just care to fight just in words do nothing practically(including me).Almost all parts of Moen-jo-daro are demolised,almost all. I been there this Eid.Every buddy claims that it is there history did any one took any step for it? NO NO
i am not being emotional(just realistic)facing truth
Khalidkhoso 13:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny to c here 

message: I found the weights and measure article in the list of articles lacking sources on doing a copyright check in google it found this page so a good part of the article comes from this page already and this page is very well written to begin with, anyone looking for the weights and measures after merger will be redirected here and it will provide other important information for their research.--Matt 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I have added focussed citations (including many by Indian archaeologists); the citations are to the people who actually did the archaeological work and not to some general textbook (esp. ones that are not widely known).  I have no idea what user Freedom skies is trying to do with his so called restoration.  Please discuss here and inform us.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes you actually DID make was delete every reference to every scholar you dislike. This is not how wikipedia should work, and I think this to be very childish - they were not even in the body of the article. And the reason for that- that he was criticized by another scholar, not even an archaeologist, is laughable. Kenoyer at least is not as prejudiced and has cited not only his 1984 book, which you would know if you were reading his works. There is no big difference between saraswati sindhu, indus-saraswati or Indus Ghaggar-Hakra, it's the same idea, but Indus-Saraswati is most often used. You have also deleted the sentence with the numbers of the Indus Valley sites discovered on the Indus and the Ghaggar-Hakra rivers, and the sentence that IVC sites were found on islands. I consider this to be important information. Please put it back. --RF 19:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you are arguing about.  Also, I don't know if you have been reading what I wrote above, but I already mentioned the S. P. Gupta's 1984 edited book in the previous sections (and Kenoyer's citation of papers from it, including papers of Meadow and Kenoyer).  I wish articles from that book had been cited on this page, but I didn't see them anywhere when I first looked at this page; what I saw cited instead were references to S. P. Gupta's later more political works.  Here is what the page looked like before I began to edit it: previous version.  Where do you see a citation to the 1984 book?  And where did I remove it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS Please see the quote from S. Guha's article in the section above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: the tired "Saraswati" debate is just a matter of taste and ideological orientation, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the IVC itself. This is an article on an archaeological culture, and we should not allow contemporary ideological bickerings being dragged into it. We don't call Sumer the "Idigna-Buranun civilization", even though the names of the rivers are undisputed, "Mesopotamia" serves well enough, and so should "Indus Valley". The rest is bloat, hype and politics. dab (𒁳) 11:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As has been said many times by many people, there was no indigenous historiography in ancient India.  The orally transmitted texts were all written down for the first time at the end of the first millennium CE.  Guessing time periods from such religious texts (or for that matter guessing what is real and what is figurative) is not an exact science.  As for the so called Saraswati river or the Ghaggar-Hakra river, the science showing that it ran parallel to the Indus, is all very sketchy; all that the remote sensing studies show is that there are dry river beds in some areas of western India and Pakistan.  They don't prove that there was one river, or that it ran parallel to the Indus all the way to the sea.  Among other tertiary sources, encyclopaedia Britannica doesn't talk about the Indus-Saraswati civilization, doesn't mention Saraswati, doesn't mention Ghaggar-Hakra, only the Indus civilization.  It does mention the possible Dravidian origin of the Indus script though.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know Gregory Possehl's general "leanings", shall we say, but find it interesting that he takes the identification of the Sarasvati and Ghaggar-Hakra as uncontroversial: "Linguistic, archaeological, and historical data show that the Sarasvati of the Vedas is the modern Ghaggar or Hakra."Possehl, G: The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective, page 8. AltaMira Press, 2002 I'm trying to stay out of any particular "camp", but also trying to understand the prevailing thoughts on identification of the Sarasvati.  I agree that references to it are out of place in discussions of the Indus Civilization, much less as a replacement term for the era and its people, as there's little to no reason for believing that there was any connection between the Indus and Vedic cultures.  (Gee, I guess that puts me in a "camp" after all.) Jlandahl 22:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes being made by [[User:Freedom skies]]

message: To India Rising: The image that you added is not the "Pashupati" image in the "yogic" posture (which is already there on the page), but rather the "Priest King" image.  (See here).  I am therefore correcting the caption of that image.  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Priest King Image

message: Could we have a slightly less misleading map? The current map shows no indication of where the land mass is located, and the map seems to omit a lot of settlements in the Western part of South Asia. Either find a map which has all the settlements, or just the big cities.
Imo, there is no point to have a map with settlements considering that there are meant to be something like 2000 settlements. A map of Indus Valley, showing the cities of Harappa, Mohenjo Daro and Lothal would do fine.
Thank you 
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't pretend to understand the "land mass" comment, but you are certainly welcome to draw a nicer and better map. dab (𒁳) 11:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please keep all of the outlying settlements on the map. It gives a better idea of how widespread IVC was. Including only the major cities would be misleading. The country borders is a good idea, though. ॐ Priyanath  talk 22:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is a much better map - it just needs the country borders. If you can addinformation and detail, like that map shows, then it would be an improvement over the current map. Current country borders are far less important than detail of the IVC, which is what this article is about, after all. ॐ Priyanath  talk 00:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, it's entirely inaccurate. Keep the current one for now. ॐ Priyanath  talk 00:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading map in Geography Section 

message: IP 136.159.32.178, why are you persistently removing paragraph 2 from the lead?  Please explain.  Thanks.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Paragraph Two (Lead)

message: There is an article from an online newspaper talking about Rakhigarhi being the largest Harrrapan site. . It quotes the Director of ASI. I do not know/have not heard of this location/name before- does anyone has details related to this ? Haphar 09:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rakhigarhi

message: I was just going through this, when I tripped over another website with word to word similarities between Wikipedia and http://www.crystalinks.com/induscivilization.html. I want to know who copied whom? And why is there no reference to this page. If Wiki copied it, then they could at least have  paraphrased it. Could someone tell me? However, since there are some references present, there is a possibility that our IVC is the innocent party. Any ideas? Browsing Through 09:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References?

message: Professor Egbert Richter Ushanas, has taken parts in excavations in other ancient civilizations scuh as that of Crete and Easter Island. Concerning the IVC seals he has said, "All the seals are based on Vedas -- Rig Veda and Atharva Veda."
NEWS article
"German Indologist claims to have decoded Indus scripts"
http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=352560&sid=FTP 
http://www.sundeepbooks.com/servlet/sugetbiblio?bno=001148 
Research Book
The Indus Script and the Rgveda by Egbert Richter Ushanas  
I want to be able to post this! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.159.32.178 (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's what we are to understand, yes. similarly, the Urnfield culture also began cremating at some point. You'll need to accept that cremation was "invented" at some point no matter what else you believe. But yes, in the case of India, emergence of cremation in Cemetary H is a good indicator of the emergence of "Proto-Hinduism". We can even trace this development in the RV, in very good agreement with its Late Harappan date. dab (𒁳) 08:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Richter, who has also decoded tablets from Easter Island in Pacific Ocean and disc of Phaistos" -- lol. These people kill me, once they have solved one of mankind's great mysteries, they never know how to stop :)  dab (𒁳) 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: correction, Richter's "decipherment" isn't even new; it dates to 1997. We've had to deal with this stuff before on Rongorongo and Indus script. Textbook crank material. dab (𒁳) 10:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Richter is a nut job.  Doesn't belong here.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lol, how do these crazy guys even make it to the news websites? deeptrivia (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  by saying what the editors wanted to hear all along? I imagine he would have gotten coverage in a rather different set of publications if his amazing decipherment had turned out to be Dravidian :) dab (𒁳) 11:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPORTANT - Professor Egbert Richter Ushanas! 

message: I tried to add a picture of an Indus Valley Sculpture under Arts and Culture which is currently illustrated with a "A statuette of a female figure." The figure I tried to replace it with is the limestone seated male figure from Islamabad Museum (see http://www.harappa.com/indus/46.html and http://www.harappa.com/indus/45.html) which as far as I have found is the largest sculpture/figurine excavated from any of the Indus Valley sites (at 28 cm by 22 cm it is larger than the "Priest King", "Dancing Girl" and "Male Torso") and as refined and beautiful as any of them, though far less well known. The change I made was reverted back immediately. Can someone explain why the far cruder female statuette is preferred to the seated male? If it is a licensing issue about which I am admittedly ill-informed we can contact Harrapa.com and get explicit permission. I think this artifact deserves attention.  71.233.29.241 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that statuette picture should be replaced.  Among other things, it is a poor-quality image.  However, in my opinion, it should be replaced with a picture of the dancing girl, which in fact the accompanying text describes (I seem to remember).  Your image could be added somewhere else.  The dancing girl image is available on a University of Pennsylvania website, and may require prior permission from them.  (See image number 10 here) Perhaps someone could email them and ask.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of limestone "seated male" from Mohenjo-daro in Arts and Culture 

message: The map showing the area of Indus valley is incomplete as it doesn't include Eastern and Northern Kutch i.e the area around Dholavira one of the most important sites, also the area upto the eastern bank of Yamuna should be included where a number of sites have been discovered and Alamgirpur is the eastern most site of IVC. March 30, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.117.79.209 (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete Map 

message: user:WIN has been adding text to the "legacy" section that seems random, logically disconnected, irrelevant to the context, poorly sourced, and shabbily written.  Here is an example:  Sorry to be blunt, but this is not the kind of addition that other editors copy-edit, salvage as best they can, and somehow incorporate into the text (which they would gladly have done were user WIN a new user).  What does "explosion (300% increase)" mean when no source is provided and no mention is made of the original number of settlements?  Where does Edwin Bryant say what seems to be attributed to him? A citation and page number is needed.  Finally, what is the merit of this addition?  It is repetitive.  It has already been alluded to in an appropriate encyclopaedic tone in the Late Harappan section before it.  I have therefore reverted it.
Here is the next example:  User WIN cannot make such unsourced and poorly written additions and then expect others stand by and do nothing.  I have reverted this too.  Finally, user WIN has created a new section titled "Remarks," whose raison d'etre seems to elude me, unless it is the addition of out-of-context quotes for refurbishing a particular POV.  Thousands of quotes from countless authors can be added to article, but the gist of those quotes has already been incorporated into the text.  The last edit has been reverted as well.  This article was once a featured article and there is no reason why it can't be one again if poorly sourced and shabbily written additions can be kept out.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, you are incomprehensible.  Please express your ideas clearly.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: WIN, Fowler is not accusing you of having an OIT bias, but of poor writing with missing or inadequate references.  You said, "Do you want Edwin Bryant's university discussion webpage link ?"  That's exactly the point, but more specifically you need to quote your sources accurately and cite your references correctly.  See WP:CITE for a guide to citing sources in Wikipedia. Jlandahl 00:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Random, Irrelevant, and Poorly Written Additions by [[user:WIN|WIN]]

message: We have Wheeler's extravagant ideas to thank for the continuing notion that the Indus cities had citadels.  How much longer must we endure his flights of fancy?  Possehl (2002) lists this enduring idea as one of the "myths about the Indus Civilization that need to be set aside if we are to better understand these ancient peoples and their ways of life."  More specifically he says:  Possehl, G: The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective, page 247. AltaMira Press, 2002
Jlandahl 22:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citadels? 

message: "...IVC, was an ancient riverine civilization that flourished in the Indus and Ghaggar-Hakra river valleys in..." is a tautology, since the word 'riverine' means located on or by the banks of a river.Mtiffany71 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  Good edit.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nitpickery 

message: The Proto-Dravidian or Proto-anything arguments seem highly debateable at this point based on my reading of Bryant.  Is there any reason why these hypotheses deserve to be placed so prominently?  (i.e. the first sentence of the second paragraph as I write this).
And for that matter, the Britannica article used as support is misleading on a number of aspects, most notably in its claim that the script "has been partly and tentatively deciphered; the language has been tentatively identified as Dravidian".  There is, of course, absolutely no consensus on either of these points, and the Farmer/Sproat/Witzel work would at least need to be mentioned.  Britannica also talks about only two cities, uses the word "empire", and worst of all tells a dramatic tale of Mohenjo-daro being sacked "by raiders who swept over the city and then passed on" -- who wrote that article, Wheeler's ghost? Jlandahl 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this was added by an anonymous user here.  Any objections to moving this text (with modifications) to somewhere else in the article? Jlandahl 16:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proto-Dravidian, Proto-Munda? 

message: I do find it curious that throughout the article, certain opinions have been elaborately espoused after the tags, "controversial", "disputed", and they tend to be typically of the Witzel et al school. This can be interpreted as a strategy of retaining a particular type of idea in the reader's mind while appearing neutral and unbiased by mentioning it as "disputed". Editors seem to be particularly keen in limiting references that have claims or opinions contradicting the school of thought represented by Witzel or Guha. This brings us to the more important question of what makes Lal and Gupta "politically motivated" while Witzel and Guha are supposed to be "not politically motivated"! Both Guha and Witzel's (the latter typically does not state the highly "controversial" unilinear development/rates assumptions used in linguistic arguments and dating algorithms) articles read like the political satirist's impassioned polemics from the parliamentary podium -  simply look for all those typically non-academic expressions like "horseplay in...". There appears to be a lot of faith in linguistics - should we have a linguistic analysis of the style/expression used by Witzel or Guha? Such analyses can be done by the very same "neutral" computer programs which are used to analyze "scientifically" extant texts, so that a "revisionist" bias could be discounted for! Sometimes the paranoid dubbing of the "other" as the politically motivated one, can hide consciousness of an agenda within one's self. Please drop opinionated comments in the guise of "neutral" writing. Witzel, Guha and others like them are doing a great disservice to the viewpoints or any well-intentioned political agenda that they may have, by revealing emotional reactions to what should have been dealt with compact, clear and non-emotional arguments qualified by clearly stated underlying assumptions. I hope editors here have not taken it upon themselves to carry on the cudgels of a particular school's intentions in the very contested reconstructions of the history of the Indian subcontinent.Dikgaj 00:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please first learn how to write clearly and simply before you attempt complex arguments.   What you have written above is not only jargon ridden and verbose, but also tautological and trivial.   A "political satirist's impassioned polemics from the parliamentary podium."  Huh?    Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good strategy for establishing opinions as facts 

message: My thanks to dear Fowler&Fowler for actually supporting my views. This is the typical reaction seen :
(1) try to denigrate writing style or delegitimize, and criticize the person, rather than his/her arguments (2) assumption of superiority of one's own writing or intellectual capabilities (4) a very emotional and personal reaction to any hint of criticism - (or is it a reincarnation of the "Brahminical guru" who demands abject submission to his intellectual authority?)(3) and while doing all this, run the risk of being "verbose and tautological" oneself! If this is not arrogance, what else is? You have not argued against the specific points I have raised, which are quite clearly written - (a) is it possible that a particular school's viewpoints are being pushed through even under the guise of "neutrality"? (b) why use personal opinions, and quite ill-defined terms such as "revisionist" as declared motives for removing or pruning references? (c) what makes one group of scholars "politically motivated" and another "unbiased" - just because the latter support or do not support a certain viewpoint? I do keep track of original articles by Witzel and Guha, and can produce a simple list of expressions and unqualified adjectives used by these authors that should have caught your highly sensitive filters for "verbosity and tautologies" long ago. They do indeed sound very much like passionate election speeches. Even Prof., Romila Thapar uses much more cautious and academic language while she attempts deconstruction of what she calls "revisionism". 
To the proselytizing priest, anything that smacks of resistance to his preachings, is trivial and inferior, and the source of such assumed resistance is incapable and unworthy. It will be much better for your project if you do not reveal such characteristics! Regards.
Dikgaj 19:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You prove my point! 

message: In view of what appears to be a consensus among editors of this page, 
I have removed the
sentence about area from the lead.  It is an useful nugget of information,
but perhaps it was a bit loud in the lead. mukerjee (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Your other changes to the lead had the unfortunate effect of emphasising the Saraswati connection, which, after much hammering over the past few years, seems best left in the last line. I personally do not wish to see it anywhere in the lead, actually, but others prevailed. As such I have reverted to an original lead, but all your other edits have been preserved for the moment. Hornplease 05:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt at Consensus

message: :The Indus Valley Civilization extended from Balochistan bordering Iran, to Gujarat, with an upward reach to Punjab and Jammu east of the river Jhelum to Alamgirpur near Delhi on the east. This area is constantly being revised as new sites are discovered. Currently, Indus sites have been excavated on the Oxus river at Shortughai in northern Afghanistan[11], in the Gomal river valley[12] and Balakot[13] in Northwest Frontier Province, Pakistan, at Manda on the Beas River near Jammu[14], India, and at Alamgirpur on the Hindon River, 28 km Northeast of Delhi.[15][16].
:A long swath of coastal settlements[17] extended from Sutkagan Dor[18] in Western Baluchistan near the border with Iran, to Lothal[19] in Gujarat, to Bhagatrav below the mouth of the Narmada river[16][20], as well as offshore islands such as Dholavira[21]. Further inland, the chalcolithic site of Kayatha in Malwa, Madhya Pradesh also shows the black-and-red ware (fired from the inside) of the Late Harappan[22].
:The Indus Valley Civilization thus encompassed most of Pakistan as well as Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana and Punjab in India, with outposts in parts of Afghanistan and Jammu.
::Actually I meant to take out the stuff on the Narmada River and Malwa as well.  I don't know who added them and I agree that their addition does make the text choppy.  Best to simply remove those too.  Again this article is written in "summary-style."  We can't keep adding an endless list of sites.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: After Mukerjee edits Sept 1

message: :The Indus Valley Civilization extended from Balochistan to Gujarat, with an upward reach to Punjab from east of the river Jhelum to Rupar on the upper Sutlej; Recently, Indus sites have been discovered in Pakistan's NW Frontier Province as well. Coastal settlements extended from Sutkagan Dor[11] in Western Baluchistan to Lothal[12] in Gujarat. The Indus Valley Civilization encompassed most of Pakistan as well as the western states of India. An Indus Valley site has been found on the Oxus river at Shortughai in northern Afghanistan,[13] in the Gomal river valley in north-west Pakistan,[14] at Manda on the Beas River near Jammu,[15] India, and at Alamgirpur on the Hindon River, only 28 km from Delhi.[16] Indus Valley sites have been found most often on rivers, but also on the ancient sea-coast,[17] for example Balakot,[18] and on islands, for example, Dholavira.[19]
This one paragraph text is haphazard and scatters sites like marbles spilt across the map. The organization I had edited was clearer in organizing the riverine
(inland) sites and then the coastal sites.  Of course, also the additional sites I had mentioned (and 3 refs) are deleted.  
Secondly, the sites below the Narmada, and especially Kayatha, need to be mentioned because these are quite far from the traditional region associated with IVC. 
I had also given a citation for Kayatha from the original excavating archaeologists, and mentioned why it was thought to be harappan.
::Oh, OK, I should have replied here, not above.  BTW, there is nothing underhanded about my revert.  It was a revert—fair and square—based on your using controversial and unreliable sources.  The IVC field has a tradition now of at least 60 years of rigorous scholarship.  It has a community of scholars, many of whom I mentioned in my post in the previous section above.  Charles Maisels is not in that list.  I have nothing against IVC being the most extensive, but I am against using dubious sources to back that up.  The Britannica article you mention is a better source overall than Maisels, but it is not the main Britannica article on IVC, but rather one written by their editorial staff and used for spin-offs in the Concise Briannica and the Student Britannica.  The main Britannica article on IVC consists of pages 97 to 116 of the India history page, a signed article written by Romila Thapar.  That, according to Wikipedia policies, would constitute a reliable source; however, that article is silent on comparison with Mesopotamia and Egypt.  It just gives the extent of the civilization to be approximately 500,000 square miles.  
::As for the  Madhya Pradesh site, there is much information that can be added to the article and backed up with citations.  The question is also one of notability and weight.  Please create a separate page for the Madhya Pradesh site if you'd like, but it does not belong here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: After underhanded revert by Fowler 

message: The reason Maisels is important is not because he is an expert on IVC, but precisely because his area of expertise is broader.  He has worked primarily in Mesopotamian archaeology.  Comparing civilizations, area is one of the first things that stare you in the face - Kenoyer also compares areas - most broader views of civilizations that compare them, would look at area first because that's what you have. 
E.g. the Britannia Encycl article , which is far shorter, uses the second sentence of the lead to establish a SW-NE  diagonal extent, and the third sentence roughly a NE-SW extent, and then the fourth sentence of the lead says:
:It is thus decidedly the most extensive of the world's three earliest civilizations;     the other two are those of Mesopotamia and Egypt, both of which began somewhat before it.
thus placing IVC in the spatial and temporal context of these other civilizations.  Thus they use three of the opening statements to establish the area comparison. Clearly the world has other idiots who think like me. 
Comparisons across civilizations surely are relevant.  They underline differences on the surface, but more importantly, they point towards differences in structure, which was what I had discussed in that subsection that you have chosen to completely delete. It is a theory that Maisels, following Ratnagar, is proposing based on his cross-civilizational study, and it makes a scholarly argument for a kind of governmental structure that would have differed from Mesopotamia. 
But I don't want to keep fighting with rude reverters for every change.  Maybe I'll just do my other stuff.   mukerjee (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maisels and Area

message: in recent weeks, this article has been vandalized almost every day.
my request for semi-protection has been declined.
should we just stop reverting the vandalism?
— Haim Berman 13:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I have a problem with the second sentence of the third paragra
ph. The sentence reads "Alternatively, Proto-Munda, Proto-Indo-Iranian or a "lost phylum" are sometimes suggested for the language of the IVC (see Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit). I find this sentence misleading. I can not verify this in the book since i dont have access to the book. But what i can verify is the description about the book in http://www.amazon.com/Deciphering-Indus-Script-Asko-Parpola/dp/0521430798. The description clearly states that His (Asko Parpola) fascinating study confirms that the Indus script was logo-syllabic, and that the Indus language belonged to the Dravidian family. According to the description,relation to the Dravidian family seems to be the final conclusion of the book. In this context, to cite the book and then describe ony about proto-munda, proto-Indo-aryan or a lost phylus is totally misleading. In this circcumstances, either deleting the second sentence or adding a sentence which explains the conclusion of the book which is that Indus valley language belongs to Dravidian family is essential to maintain neutrality. Rudrasharman has deleted the sentence I have added to make this correction. i would like his explanation. vcpk (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two separate issues here, and I confess I missed one.  You are correct that the paragraph is misleading.  That's because the footnote reference to Parpola is misplaced.  It belongs after the first sentence, alongside the other reference.  We can correct that easily.  However, an Amazon blurb as an adequate description of the book simply will not pass muster.  Editorial hyperbole like this usually makes academics (like Parpola) cringe.    Parpola makes a case, but the issue is far from settled, as a word like "confirm" would suggest.  In fact, not only has the Dravidian Hypothesis met increasing skepticism, even the logo-syllabicity of the symbols has been challenged (a good case can be made for logo-syllabicity if one assumes a rebus principle, but that only moves the problems a level deeper.)  rudra (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, Firstly, Kuiper (1991) (according to Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit), bases his claims on his proposed finding that earlier forms of Rigveda shows para-Munda influence and dravidian influence comes only later. So he argues that the speakers of Punjab are para-Munda and not dravidian.
Following are the reasons why I think Kuiper's theories can be wrong.
First of all, it is totally unacceptable to determine the race or ethnicity of people living in Punjab based on the pattern of linguistical influence in Rigveda. It is solely because, 
1) we still do not how Aryans have migrated into India. It is possible that they came in contact with Munda speaking people first acquiring their influence first before they came in contact with Indus valley people acquiring dravidian influence later on. 
2) Indus valley civilisation was quite sophisticated. It may just be that the Aryans could not integrate with the Harappans during the early part of migration.
We simply dont know how the migration pattern happened and with which people Aryans first integrated to acquire their influence in their language.  Under these circumstances, using the pattern of Proto-mundan and dravidian influence to determine the ethnicity of people living in Punjab is pretty premature. Fanciful theories which has certainly gotten attention of some people. There is a lot of researchers who always like to propose  contradictory opinions to gain popular attention and of course to gain the much needed funding for their research. 
Going back to the article Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit again, I see that linguist Krishnamurti's great concern which goes like "The main flaw in Witzel's argument is his inability to show a large number of complete, unanalyzed words from Munda borrowed into the first phase of the Ṛgveda. Such an extensive lexical borrowing must precede any effort on the part of the borrowers proceeding to the next stage of isolating prefixes and using them creatively with native stems. It would have been better if he said we did not know the true source of 300 or so early borrowings into the Ṛgveda."  If you decide to cite Witzel (1999), I think we need to cite  Krishnamurthy's concern as well along to maintain Wikipedia's quality standars.
It is important that I talk about Journals and credibility. Scientific journals are assesed for their quality by a system called impact factor. Journal "Nature" has an impact factor of 26.6, "Science" has an impact factor of 30. Scientific career of a researcher is based on the number of publications they publish and their impact factor. Excellent quality works and scientific breakthroughs get their ways in journals with impact factor above 15. For a person to stay in scientific career, one would need to publish in journals with impact factor at least more than 10. Most of the Indian journals are not great quality journals having their impact factor in fractions less than 1. I dont know how great the journal Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com_/ where Witzel has published his article which you are using as a reference for such an important article as this one. When one thinks about using an article for reference, it is important to make sure that the publisher of the Journal or book is noteworthy as well.
Finally, I am just curious to know if you are the one who included this sentence in this article. If it was you, the burden rests upon you to convince the editorial community about the validity and reliability. 
While I wouldnt mind trying to understand stuffs on my own, I think it is sensible to explain what one person is talking about if the other person does not understand. That is the way the publishing world works. We just can not talk about what we dont know. You have to know what you are talking about and you need to have the patience and time to explain your ideas to others to get its way in Wikipedia. vcpk (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Krishnamurti's criticism is completely off the mark.  Kuiper's list, emended more than once, amounts to some 300 odd words, only some of which are hypothesized to be derived from Proto-Munda (or Para-Munda, as Witzel prefers.)  Asking for a "large number" was, quite safely, asking for the moon as a precondition for any progress in the area.  It also seems that Krishnamurti was not familiar with Witzel(2000) (also referenced in Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit, the intricate detail of which I would recommend that you go through at least once), but this may not be surprising, as for some strange reason books on conferences often take a long time to publication.  We could thrown in a reference to Masica(1979) too, but seriously, we aren't writing an academic paper here where every sentence has to bristle with footnotes.  We're writing an encyclopedia.  The problem is erstwhile contributors coming around with axes to grind. rudra (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Some links on logosyllabic systems: Logosyllabary can get you started.  This Encarta article might be useful too.  Then try this, also from EJVS(11-2).  If you have a subscription to AAAS, you can read a writeup of this here.  rudra (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks rudra for your help. vcpk (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: well, Dab, you have removed the (unreliable reference tag) in Historical context. you also wouldnt also allow Krishnamurti's opinion to be included in the same page. Well, i agree it is there in the other article. But what about people who just read this artcle and dont have the time to read the other ones. Wouldnt it lead them to develop an opinion without knowing all facts. I guess it is misleading. People who read about Witzel's opinion also should know that his opinions are contested. Otherwise, i feel it is misleading the readors and I guess it is not in the interests of Wikipedia. It may just help to add a small sentence which can be framed like "Alternatively, Proto-Munda, Proto-Indo-Iranian or a "lost phylum" are sometimes suggested for the language of the IVC by Witzel and contested by Krishnamurty. vcpk (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. If we start writing encyclopedia artciles based on people's opinions from just any website, newspapers or unreliable journals and books, anybody can write about anything in here which would set a bad example. In my opinion, articles published only in reliable peer-reviewed journals and books should be included. Therefore all informations referenced to http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ in this artcle and also in other articles including Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit qualify for deletion or should be referenced to other reliable works. vcpk (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Either you haven't perused the tables of contents of the various issues, or you haven't the foggiest notion who any of the authors are and don't care two bits anyway.  It's comfortable and convenient, in fact, to operate from a position of complete ignorance and infer unreliability from your expectation that academics in Indological fields should demonstrate professional webmastering skills.  A whois search would show that laurasianacademy.com is registered to Witzel.  Never heard of him?  Then why are you in this discussion?  Placing the cursor on the links below each member of the editorial board will reveal munged email addresses in the status bar of your browser.  Maybe you could do the world a favor and inform these worthies that their names have been suborned for a "joke site".  Don't you think they would be grateful too?  rudra (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW, this cipher, Michael Witzel, whom the class of worthy Wikipedians don't need to know from Adam, had the audacity a while back to submit this vita to a Columbia Univ database, and worse, had the chutzpah to mention his joke site, can you believe that?  Never mind that the recent move from shore.net was with less than graceful results, what can you say, Mumia-w-18, about the temerity of a Harvard professor to carry a joke site for 12 years?  Aren't you outraged?  rudra (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I admit I don't have the skills to judge that content, so I'm out of the argument.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I understand Witzel is the Editor-in-Chief of Electronic Journal of vedic studies. In other words, Witzel publishes an artcle in a Journal where he also has the authority to decide which article to publish and then we use the same article to write a wikipedia article. Well, I let others to decide how reliable or authentic such an article would be?? Well, I have a question for Rudra. What is the impact factor of Electronic Journal of vedic studies and how do you compare those journals to the other well reputed journals like nature(http://www.nature.com) and Science (http://www.sciencemag.org). vcpk (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I usually don't waste time comparing apples with oranges.  I may reconsider my stance if you could tell me how likely am I to find articles on aspects of ancient Indian history in Nature or Science; or alternately, why Nature or Science should be my first ports of call were I looking for articles of that kind.  rudra (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, "nature" and "electronic journal of vedic studies" may not be publishing the same kind of articles. But it can be compared in terms of quality. I guess electronic Journal of Vedic studies can be compared to some nameless Indian journals. i have a question for you Rudra? Do you agree Witzel is the editor-in-Chief of the journal "Electronic Joural of Vedic studies"?? Well, you have to!!!! If you do, Can Witzel's article pulished in his Journal be considered self-pulished. vcpk (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you just discover WP:SPS, after this edit summary, this reference and this elaboration?  Congratulations!  And now, maybe you should try to catch up on the subject. rudra (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for finally appreciating my comments. I, however, notice that you havent answered my question. You just need to answer yes or no! Whether Witzel's article in Witzel's journal can be considered self-published or not? I would, however, understand if you choose not to answer. vcpk (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: did you even read the text? We present a list of mutually conflicting hypotheses. Of course anyone proposing one hypothesis will be critical of the others. You are not making sense. There is a main article for this question, and this discussion is patently offtopic here. dab (𒁳) 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: well, sir, we have been polite with you. It is hardly my or rudra's fault that you have presented nothing of substance. You may be interested in learning that Wikipedia is not a social networking site. If you have something to contribute, you are certainly welcome to do so. So far, you have pointed out that a reference given was slightly misplaced. We have fixed it. Thank you for drawing attention to it. Now, if you have another point to make, feel free to make it, but you cannot expect that people are willing to enter a wordy debate on nothing in particular and your personal mood. See also WP:TALK. If you're going to make further contributions to this page, do make sure they are actually pertinent to the topic of the Indus Valley Civilization. If you want to discuss Witzel, go to Talk:Michael Witzel. If you want to discuss criticism of the various identifications of the substratum language, go to Talk:Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit. In general, try to pull your own weight, and find the relevant page for your comments on your own. You will find that not everyone on Wikipedia will be prepared to take you by the hand and gently direct you to the appropriate place as I just have done after you bitch at them. Rudra and I work together in building an encyclopedia. You are free to join us. If you choose not to, at least try to avoid making our job more difficult than necessary. dab (𒁳) 14:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for one more insulting remarks Dab. Well, I have been trying to argue Witzel's article published in his own Journal "Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies" is not a suitable reference. So, anything which is related this article should be either removed or referenced to another reliale source. I have used several points to argue this over the last couple of days. Please read them again and answer to me point by point instead of just dismissing me outright.vcpk (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are raising an issue that has already been covered in WP:SPS.   A bibliography of Witzel's work is available on his personal pages at Harvard.  Do you doubt that he is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"?  Yes, Mumia-w-18's point echoing WP:SPS about other sources is valid, but we don't live in a perfect world, where up-to-date publications of that sort can always be found.  In fact, probably the best summary survey of recent work is in the Farmer-Sproat-Witzel article, but since you're of a mind to dismiss that as "unreliable" too, I don't think there's much scope for discussion here. rudra (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Dab, I agree with you. It clearly says, "suggested". I have no problem with that. I can understand that it may never happen that we will be able to prove anything conclusively what happened 1000s of years ago. My only suggestion is to add that Witzel's suggestion was also questioned by Krishnamurti. Just a few words to balance the opinion.... I Hope I make my question clear. vcpk (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Having a cancer background does not exclude me from questioning what is right or wrong.  I will do so till I have my questions answered. vcpk (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or until an agenda is served?  rudra (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we are done here, then. vcpk, I suggest you address your further questions to the good people at WP:RD, which is where questions are asked and answered on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 21:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: EJVS has an ISSN and a FRIDA rating of Scholarly.  It has published articles by experts in the field (Staal and Thompson, to name just two off the top of my head).  Its papers are cited in other scholarly work.  But, yes, the website as a website stinks.  As for Witzel's paper, even if for the sake of argument we take it as an instance of self-published work, the fact remains that Witzel is a multiply-published expert and the paper's subject is in his field of expertise.  It meets WP:SPS easily.  This whole discussion is just yet another case of POV-pushing devolving into filibustering for a WP:POINT.  (And I'll grant that WP:BITE could apply, so, for the record, Vcpkumar has my apologies.)  rudra (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when it comes to a point where you cant justify your support to a view or explain my questions, you like to start calling me names. Thanks for calling my edits "Dravidian trolling". Dab, Isnt the kind of things you were recently arbitrated for. Rudra, thanks for your apologies to make me look like a novice thus discrediting my edits here.vcpk (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have read somewhere that people living in small countries  are in constant fear of their confident and powerful neighboring countries (I decide not to give examples in view of politeness) thus developing some kind of inferiority complex over time.  I never thought these feelings would turn into so much fear so as to call everybody and every view nationalistic. vcpk (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical context

message: http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ is an unreliable source of information. The website's claims about itself might be considered suspect even if such information could be found, but that information is not available. The "About the journal" link is broken, and no credible information is provided that would let us know (1) who is behind the journal's publication, (2) what funding sources they benefit from, (3) what, if any, biases they may or may not have, (4) why the journal is being published. For all I know, it's a joke web site. The references to the website should be removed from this article as well as any statements that rely on them. If the Proto-Munda or Proto-Indo-Iranian hypotheses are noteworthy, they can be found in other, reliable sources.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If we start writing encyclopedia artciles based on people's opinions from just any website, newspapers or unreliable journals and books, anybody can write about anything in here which would set a bad example. In my opinion, articles published only in reliable peer-reviewed journals and books should be included. Therefore all informations referenced to http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ in this artcle and also in other articles including Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit qualify for deletion or should be referenced to other reliable works. vcpk (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Either you haven't perused the tables of contents of the various issues, or you haven't the foggiest notion who any of the authors are and don't care two bits anyway.  It's comfortable and convenient, in fact, to operate from a position of complete ignorance and infer unreliability from your expectation that academics in Indological fields should demonstrate professional webmastering skills.  A whois search would show that laurasianacademy.com is registered to Witzel.  Never heard of him?  Then why are you in this discussion?  Placing the cursor on the links below each member of the editorial board will reveal munged email addresses in the status bar of your browser.  Maybe you could do the world a favor and inform these worthies that their names have been suborned for a "joke site".  Don't you think they would be grateful too?  rudra (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW, this cipher, Michael Witzel, whom the class of worthy Wikipedians don't need to know from Adam, had the audacity a while back to submit this vita to a Columbia Univ database, and worse, had the chutzpah to mention his joke site, can you believe that?  Never mind that the recent move from shore.net was with less than graceful results, what can you say, Mumia-w-18, about the temerity of a Harvard professor to carry a joke site for 12 years?  Aren't you outraged?  rudra (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I admit I don't have the skills to judge that content, so I'm out of the argument.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I understand Witzel is the Editor-in-Chief of Electronic Journal of vedic studies. In other words, Witzel publishes an artcle in a Journal where he also has the authority to decide which article to publish and then we use the same article to write a wikipedia article. Well, I let others to decide how reliable or authentic such an article would be?? Well, I have a question for Rudra. What is the impact factor of Electronic Journal of vedic studies and how do you compare those journals to the other well reputed journals like nature(http://www.nature.com) and Science (http://www.sciencemag.org). vcpk (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I usually don't waste time comparing apples with oranges.  I may reconsider my stance if you could tell me how likely am I to find articles on aspects of ancient Indian history in Nature or Science; or alternately, why Nature or Science should be my first ports of call were I looking for articles of that kind.  rudra (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historic context: Reliability of Witzel's Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies

message: :Well, "nature" and "electronic journal of vedic studies" may not be publishing the same kind of articles. But it can be compared in terms of quality. I guess electronic Journal of Vedic studies can be compared to some nameless Indian journals. i have a question for you Rudra? Do you agree Witzel is the editor-in-Chief of the journal "Electronic Joural of Vedic studies"?? Well, you have to!!!! If you do, Can Witzel's article pulished in his Journal be considered self-pulished. vcpk (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you just discover WP:SPS, after this edit summary, this reference and this elaboration?  Congratulations!  And now, maybe you should try to catch up on the subject. rudra (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for finally appreciating my comments. I, however, notice that you havent answered my question. You just need to answer yes or no! Whether Witzel's article in Witzel's journal can be considered self-published or not? I would, however, understand if you choose not to answer. vcpk (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: did you even read the text? We present a list of mutually conflicting hypotheses. Of course anyone proposing one hypothesis will be critical of the others. You are not making sense. There is a main article for this question, and this discussion is patently offtopic here. dab (𒁳) 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: well, sir, we have been polite with you. It is hardly my or rudra's fault that you have presented nothing of substance. You may be interested in learning that Wikipedia is not a social networking site. If you have something to contribute, you are certainly welcome to do so. So far, you have pointed out that a reference given was slightly misplaced. We have fixed it. Thank you for drawing attention to it. Now, if you have another point to make, feel free to make it, but you cannot expect that people are willing to enter a wordy debate on nothing in particular and your personal mood. See also WP:TALK. If you're going to make further contributions to this page, do make sure they are actually pertinent to the topic of the Indus Valley Civilization. If you want to discuss Witzel, go to Talk:Michael Witzel. If you want to discuss criticism of the various identifications of the substratum language, go to Talk:Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit. In general, try to pull your own weight, and find the relevant page for your comments on your own. You will find that not everyone on Wikipedia will be prepared to take you by the hand and gently direct you to the appropriate place as I just have done after you bitch at them. Rudra and I work together in building an encyclopedia. You are free to join us. If you choose not to, at least try to avoid making our job more difficult than necessary. dab (𒁳) 14:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for one more insulting remarks Dab. Well, I have been trying to argue Witzel's article published in his own Journal "Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies" is not a suitable reference. So, anything which is related this article should be either removed or referenced to another reliale source. I have used several points to argue this over the last couple of days. Please read them again and answer to me point by point instead of just dismissing me outright.vcpk (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are raising an issue that has already been covered in WP:SPS.   A bibliography of Witzel's work is available on his personal pages at Harvard.  Do you doubt that he is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"?  Yes, Mumia-w-18's point echoing WP:SPS about other sources is valid, but we don't live in a perfect world, where up-to-date publications of that sort can always be found.  In fact, probably the best summary survey of recent work is in the Farmer-Sproat-Witzel article, but since you're of a mind to dismiss that as "unreliable" too, I don't think there's much scope for discussion here. rudra (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Dab, I agree with you. It clearly says, "suggested". I have no problem with that. I can understand that it may never happen that we will be able to prove anything conclusively what happened 1000s of years ago. My only suggestion is to add that Witzel's suggestion was also questioned by Krishnamurti. Just a few words to balance the opinion.... I Hope I make my question clear. vcpk (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Having a cancer background does not exclude me from questioning what is right or wrong.  I will do so till I have my questions answered. vcpk (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or until an agenda is served?  rudra (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we are done here, then. vcpk, I suggest you address your further questions to the good people at WP:RD, which is where questions are asked and answered on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 21:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: EJVS has an ISSN and a FRIDA rating of Scholarly.  It has published articles by experts in the field (Staal and Thompson, to name just two off the top of my head).  Its papers are cited in other scholarly work.  But, yes, the website as a website stinks.  As for Witzel's paper, even if for the sake of argument we take it as an instance of self-published work, the fact remains that Witzel is a multiply-published expert and the paper's subject is in his field of expertise.  It meets WP:SPS easily.  This whole discussion is just yet another case of POV-pushing devolving into filibustering for a WP:POINT.  (And I'll grant that WP:BITE could apply, so, for the record, Vcpkumar has my apologies.)  rudra (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when it comes to a point where you cant justify your support to a view or explain my questions, you like to start calling me names. Thanks for calling my edits "Dravidian trolling". Dab, Isnt the kind of things you were recently arbitrated for. Rudra, thanks for your apologies to make me look like a novice thus discrediting my edits here.vcpk (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have read somewhere that people living in small countries  are in constant fear of their confident and powerful neighboring countries (I decide not to give examples in view of politeness) thus developing some kind of inferiority complex over time.  I never thought these feelings would turn into so much fear so as to call everybody and every view nationalistic. vcpk (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Witzel's self-published article as a reference

message: :My edits to wikipedia stayed for more than two weeks without any problem. Why Rudra suddenly got interested in deleting it. Well, there are always reasosns. I noticed that rudra spent probably one whole day collecting (trying to) evidence in support of Dab (Do you have a job at all??) and I commented on that. In response to my comments on Dab's arbitration case |here. Well, it is one powerless user against two mighty administrators recently arbitrated.  vcpk (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Compromise. i am just trying to make it simple. There are two solutions for this issue. 1) remove proto-mundan theory of Witzel. 2) Krishnamurti's opinion added again (what rudra deleted).  I still think the 2nd solution is more favourable since it encompasses more opinions and gives the readers more thoughts on this subject. Any solution which is neither of this two would not be unanimous and would just reflect the administraor's powerful position rather than a neutral opinion. vcpk (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Dab, rudra and team mates, Dont make it sound like you have addressed any of my concerns. The truth is that you havent addressed any of the concerns i raised relating to Wikipedia guidelines. All you (both you and rudra) have done is dismissing me outright.What is your answer to this reference being disqualified due to several wikipedia guidelines such as WP:SPS, WP:REDFLAG, WP:SELFPUB and WP:Fringe. Why would you want to support a view which is not mainstream and the one which has every reason to be called a fringe theory. Why dont you and rudra (or anybody in your team) give a point to point answer to my questions in stead of outright denying or giving a vague answer. vcpk (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please answer all the concerns listed down point by point before reverting my edits.vcpk (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: According to WP:SPS, Self published articles can not be used as reference. However, this allows self published article by authors who have a record of publishing in noteworthy journals may still qualify to be published. Since Witzel has a record of publishing in other journals, this may be considered an exception.vcpk (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   WP:SELFPUB lists 7 instances when  self-published articles can not be used as a reference. Second one is "when it is contentious". Well, Witzel's Self-published article is contentious and contested by Krishnamurty for its poor research to make those claims (Rudra, please dont tell me that I cant talk about Krishnamurti because I learnt about his claim from another wikipedia article). So, the exception which this article may claim from WP:SPS becomes nullified.vcpk (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: WP:REDFLAG cites exceptional claims need exceptional sources. " # surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known; # surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography". So, a self published article which was later contested for its poor research can certainly not be considered an exceptional claim. Can it be, Dab or Rudra (any of your team members)????vcpk (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Fringe. "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3] Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth". This quote from this article titled, "Identifying Fringe theories" clearly identifies this a a fringe theory.
"Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds". quoted from the topic "Note about publication" clearly states that Fringe theories published in only one primary source can be excluded on notability grounds.vcpk (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am giving up. I know you guys (rudra, dab and team mates (may be doldrums as well)) will certainly excercise your power to dismiss me outright (Well, Is it that difficult to find one more excuse to keep this fringe theory, when you are not open to an opposing opinion and have made up your mind to keep it no matter what, especially with administrative powers?). If you do, I dont want to ask God to help Wikipedia (since I am an atheist). That was just my final attempt to let everyone who ever happens to read this talk page know, how this artcile takes shape as it is. It is in no way neutral. As of January 2008, Rudra and Dab rule this article.Things will change hopefully in the future. I, unfortunately, cant spend a lot of time here since I have a real job. I will spend my energy making small contributions. Bye Bye. (I hope you will not delete the title of the talk "Revenge on Dab's arbitration case: Rudra's deletions" at least and modify the talk page again)vcpk (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Misuse of administrative power- Rudra reverts without explaining. Well, rudra chose to use his administrative power to revert my edit without giving valid explanations to my concerns. This is cleary against the proposed principles voted to accept during the Dab arbitration case. Well, I am just bringing this up so there is a clear record of rudra's administrative power misuse. I am sure this will be useful when there is a case of arbitration against him in the future, if not, atleast straighten up his behaviour with other users. Now, I am sure he will get scared and try to explain to my points as soon as he wakes up in the morning, but i guess it doesnt count anymore. But, it truly is shame there is no one to question him. vcpk (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks Dab for your suggestions. Good to know rudra is not an administrator. Let us rephrase it then "abuse of administrative power backup". I would recommend you read WP:TALK and WP:Civil which will help you improve your language. "bitching" is a curse word not allowed in conversation among civilised people. vcpk (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revenge on Dab's arbitration case: Rudra's deletions

message: I have read quite a lot of material on the Indus valley civilisation, and from my understanding Indus Valley is mainly spread around the Indus river. And also, it was only the artefacts found in Harappa and Mohenjo daro which made the Indus Valley famous aswell as the architecture of the cities.
What exactly is the significance of the sites found near the Ganges which people claim belong to the Indus Valley? And more importantly, why is the Ghaggar-Hakra river being associated with the Indus Valley?
A similar time period doesnt relate these civilisations. What makes a site "Indus Valley" is most notably the Harappan architecture and the the artefacts found in Mohenjo daro and Harappa.
The current article assumes way too much and has many unsourced claims. Could someone please clear this up for me. Thank you. --Xinjao (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghaggar-Hakra river? 

message: Have the recent excavations of a harappan grave near hissar in the indian state of haryana made any news? i could not find any news on the net but a few news channels have been flashing this news here in india. They have also mentioned that the skeleton of an eight and a half foot tall woman has been unearthed (they have displayed photographs as well). Anybody heard of it? shouldn't it find a place on the article (if proper citations are found, of course)?Leif edling (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In Hissar itself or in the district, which has several well known sites already (Rakhigarhi, Banawali, Kunal)?  At any rate, this is not the article for factoids or curiosa.  rudra (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hissar hasn't made the news. At least google news isn't aware of it. If you point us to some report, we can discuss it, but until we have some sort of source, we have nothing to debate. dab (𒁳) 09:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Hissar" is a terrible search term, especially for archeological sites!  There's one in the Balkans, another in Tajikistan, and Tepe Hissar in Iran, to go along with the district in Haryana. rudra (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. And none of them has made the news recently. dab (𒁳) 14:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hissar excavation 2008

message: This article is a complete mess.  It makes sense up to about half way down, then the style changes and the formatting breaks.  There is lots of what appears to be speculation about the culture without any references.  What's going on?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.220.108 (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the lack of sources, this article is no longer a GA. Blnguyen  (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on with this article? 

message: There seems to be little mention of Hinduism in this article, but Hinduisms link with the IVC certainly deserves more than the one mention it gets here. KBN (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One word: anachronism. rudra (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If they are in reliable, high-quality, secondary academic sources, please do bring them here for discussion. Relata refero (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little mention of Hinduism? 

message: A couple of edits ago the article suggested that the idea that Mother Goddess worship took place has been doubted. Now it doesn't. Can someone get a recent reference on this? I'm off in a few hours, no time right now, sorry.Doug Weller (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mother Goddess

message: The caption showing the Pashupati seal under the Religion section says: "An Indus Valley seal similar to the concept of the Vedic god Rudra Pashupati, the "lord of the animals" "
This is incorrect, and there is a wikipedia article for Pashupati to prove my point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashupati
Quote: "Pashupati (Sanskrit: Paśupati), "Lord of cattle", is an epithet of the Hindu deity Shiva."
Secondly I believe using the word "concept" to describe what people believe to be a God is offensive, so I am changing it to something more appropriate for the article. 
Please discuss any changes here prior to reverting or making other changes. Thanks 
70.53.60.94 (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pashupati is a form of the Hindu God Shiva 

message: Just recently, I visited the Prince of Wales Museum in Mumbai where they had a new exhibit on the Harrapan Civilization. One of the exhibits states that "Indus valley Civilization" was the name used till recently. But,after the discovery of the Saraswati Valley civilization two names were proossed "Ghagar-Hakra" civilization and "Indus-Hakra"(or something like that). And it finally states that the commonly accepted term now is the "Harrapan Civilization" after first site where the civilization was discovered.
Can someone shed some more light on this? And if it is true that "Harrapan Civilization" is the commonly accepted term among historians; then maybe it is better to rename this article to Harrapan Civilization??--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 11:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: Could someone add the 22nd century BC drought to the article? According to Staubwasser et al. (2003), it is likely to "have initiated southeastward habitat tracking within the Harappan cultural domain." —Bender235 (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  22nd century BC drought