This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Indus Valley Civilisation is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 22, 2004.
We cover "Harappan", now rather an old term. I'd be doubtful of "Indus-Sarasvati Civilization", which is pretty new, and Hindutva-related. You are not quoting an WP:RS (I note he mis-spells "Harappan" here, though he gets it right below). Johnbod (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
worldhistory.org is full of mistakes, and not WP:RS;
firstpost: pleads for "Vedic Saraswati Civilisation," and states "The term Harappa does not suggest any continuity in India’s history since the ancient period or give the Vedas any place in it." - no, of course not;
indiatoday: "originating as it did in the heart of the Ghaggar-Hakra basin, regarded by many as the place where the Saraswati once flowed," says Vasant Shinde" - ah yes, Vasant Shinde, the man who authored an article which says that the Indo-Aryans brought Indo-European language to India (pardon, South Asia), and then held a press-conference in which he contradicted his own research-findings.
Yeah, these newspaper-articles say it all indeed: mis-informed, lacking a critical attitude, and outdated (Nrasimhan et al.(2019)). And if we are to take the Gaghhar-Hakra into account, it should be Indus-Gagghar-Hakra Civilisation. Indus-Sarasvati is informed by religious fantasies. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!20:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
World history.org is full of mistakes? You don't know but Wikipedia is the most inaccurate site on internet. You're a geezer, you can't see there is also a proof of excavations by ASI. You're neither a historians nor an author. So, you're the least to say anything about this, if you have source to claim your statement then show it otherwise don't give nonsense statement. 2402:8100:2700:9D99:5A46:758D:44E2:C91E (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? Here you go:[1]. Not every term that exists has to be thrown into the faces of our readers, especially if it rests on a speculative idenfication of a river mentioned in ancient texts, and when the idenfication itself rests on a in ideological reading of those texts. "Harappan Civilization" fares much better[2], so we have it at least mentioned in the second paragraph. Personally, I'd prefer "Harappan Civilization" in the opening sentence, but I don't use brute force to have "my" version of the article against the general consensus among the main contributors to this page. –Austronesier (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do I recall that F&F also personally prefers "Harappan", but accepts that "IVC" is much more usual in scholarly sources from the last few decades? If you only mean that "Harappan Civilization" should also be in the first sentence, or at least para, I agree, if we can work it in without congestion. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IP: yes, world history.org is full of mistakes; your rant is notgoing to change that.
Regarding Harappan: as far as I recall, F&f opposed the mention of Harappan in the opening sentence. But, per policies, I think it should be added there; it's not used as much as IVC, but still a fairly common name.
Regarding Indus-Sarasvati civlization, it's a notable alternative name, but with a caveat: it's an ideologically loaded name, based on misinterpretations and the fringe ideas of Indigenous Aryanism. I think it could be mentioned, if the Hindutva-connections are explained in the body of the article, and mentioned in the lead. Ashish Avikunthak (2022), Bureaucratic Archaeology: State, Science, and Past in Postcolonial India, Cambridge University Press, p.51 ff, has a good overview. And maybe this too.Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!11:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, @Fowler&fowler opposed the addition of Harappan Civilization to the opening sentence, observing that this term is mostly linked to publications from India. But unlike the "Indus-Sarasvati" label, it is not ideology-laden and pretty common; even Western scholars (including Witzel) flip between IVC and Harappan Civilization in their publications to some degree. "Indus-Saras[v/w]ati Civilization" can be added further down in the lead if we also mention its Hindutva-connections, as suggested by @Joshua Jonathan. –Austronesier (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I wasn't sure (about F&F). I think "or Harappan Civilization" should be added to the opening sentence, but "Indus-Sarasvati" somewhere lower down, with health warning. It certainly hasn't caught on in international scholarship. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are only talking about the. Excavated ruins of Mohenjo-daro, Sindh province, Pakistan, showing the Great Bath in the foreground. But are you blind cant you see the Buddhists stupa in behind Mohit atulkar (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot remove content regarding genetic research which was conducted and results are published in hard medical school papers and nature as well. It is a peer reviewed paper. You cannot remove it without proper talk. There was research conducted in 2019 by david reich from Harvard medical school along with others form CCMB,Hyderabad. Check the citation and examine it carefully. Don't remove it without any discussion. Let the people know what are the genetic contribution of Harappans in modern populations. DivineWave (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot remove the gentic data which is official and being taught in universities. David reich is a well know geneticist who co tributed in this research. Without proper discussion you cannot remove the content. If you have any issue regarding the citation, we can discuss and sort it out. But without it removing the reliable data from a peer published papers loke nature ,you cannot justify this. Definitely vandalism. Please discuss further and we can sort it out sir. Thanks. DivineWave (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already sited additional sources as well.you cannot revert without giving proper explanation. How did you conclude what I said is wrong without giving your reasons or arguments regarding present genetic data of india. Do you have genetic data of south Asians? If yes then post it here on talk page.no vandalism. Kindly read this source too amd it clearly mentions. DivineWave (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already sited additional sources as well. Now its on you to bring forth arguments and not the other way around.you cannot revert without giving proper explanation. How did you conclude that it is wrong without giving your reasons or arguments regarding present genetic data of india. Do you have genetic data of south Asians? If yes then post it here on talk page.no vandalism. Kindly read these sources too amd it clearly mentions. Don't create toxic environment here. Thanks. DivineWave (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. No one who has done field work in the major Indus sites, which unfortunately for the Government of India are mostly in Pakistan, calls it Sindhu anything, unless they write "Sindhu," the Sindhi language name of the Indus river, in the Perso-Arabic script. Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
