Template talk:HistoryOfSouthAsia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

excellent template, the colour coding of overlapping eras is a good idea. dab (ᛏ) 18:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Republic of India

India's constitution came into effect on 26 January 1950. So India got the status of republic in 1950. So, I think it should be from 1950 onwards. Thanks -- Shyam (T/C) 08:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsectarian image

I have a added a nonsectarian image to the India template. The image there should be as objective and neutrally as possible, and the Emblem of India seems to fulfill this. This should be ovious for anybody with a knowledge of Indian history. (Besides the edicts of Ashoka focus on social and moral precepts rather than religious practices). But I think it would be better to have no image at all. Another good neutral image is the "History of Indonesia" template. If a sectarian images should be added, images representing all religions of India of India must be added, but then the template should be horizontal like the "IndiaFreedom" template [1]. The Taj is by most people associated with Islam, wether righly or wrongly is not the question. (One of the reasons is that that it has inscriptions of the quran on its walls.) No single image would represent the history of the whole Indian Subcontinent better than the Emblem of India or the Edicts of Ashoka. That is not to belittle the Taj, it is a great building, but it is unsuitable to represent the whole history of India. (Besides the building is also associated with Shah Jahan, a man of doubtful moral character). --Combes 10:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As Deeptrivia said in his edit summary, the template is for the whole subcontinent and not just India. The Emblem of India is hardly a neutral image as it is used politically to represent India. Quite likely you will find someone then suggesting that the national emblems of all the South Asian countries be used. The obvious solution is to use a neutral map of the region as this would not carry any religious or political links. Green Giant 01:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
or use no image at all. this template is clutter as it is. maybe split into several specialized templates. dab (ᛏ) 10:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thats a much better idea actually, use no image at all. Green Giant 01:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cemetery H

Why does the template link to Cemetery H? The Localization Era has 3 cultural phases (Punjab, Jhukar, Rangpur). Cemetery H represents only one of these 3 phases (Punjab Phase). Would it not be better to link to Indus_Valley_Tradition#Localization_Era? --Rayfield 00:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Answering my own question, yes we could this once we have a full article and not a stub. At the moment we better link to Cemetery H, which is a full article. And once Paleolithic in South Asia and Mesolithic in South Asia are full articles, we could perhaps link to them. --Rayfield 18:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date format

It seems Garwig (who may be pro-Christian) has been attempting to change the date format to a BC/AD format. If anyone disagrees with the original BCE/CE date format, please give valid reasons here for why it should be changed. Jagged 85 19:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The original format was BC, with one instance of CE to denote the change from 1 BC to 1. The conversion to BCE/CE was made without discussion and goes against the Wiki policy of adhereing to the format used in the first major (non-stub) edit. Actually CE and AD are redundant. I'll change this template back to the BC usage, and for years from 1 onwards neither AD nor CE need be used. This is an article about history, not religion. Arcturus 23:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed elsewhere, hasn't it. We prefer the NPOV versions (BCE and CE) on India related articles. deeptrivia (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The original format was not BC/AD as you claim, it was a BC/CE format, which doesn't fit with either of the BCE/CE or BC/AD conventions. Since the original format was not correct to begin with, it would not have made a difference if we used BC/AD or BCE/CE. I also prefer BCE/CE because its more NPOV. However, I don't mind leaving the article as it is (without AD or CE). Jagged 02:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the edits and so far as I can see the original was BC, I'm fairly certain of it. BCE/CE is certainly not NPOV! Nor for that matter is BC/AD - POV/NPOV simply doesn't enter into it - and who are "we"? I think a good compromise is not to use AD at all, but use BC. After all, BC only relates to a person who just about everyone accepts did exist, and whose birthdate (erroneous I know) forms the basis of the calendar we are using in this, and every other, article. Arguably AD does make a statement that some people might not like - but BC doesn't, so lets's go with that - no AD, but BC for years prior to 1. I noticed that similar revisions to remove AD/BC have been made throughtout this series of articles. This doesn't conform with Wikipedia policy. Does anyone else have a view on ditching AD (and CE) but keeping BC?Arcturus 16:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
What's the problem with BCE, which the template has been using for a long time. Even if long time ago it used BC (I haven't verified it), what's the rationale behind changing a stable consistent format now? deeptrivia (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The original format was not just BC, it was BC/CE. I know because I was the one that added that format under the misunderstanding that BC and BCE can mean the same thing. It was later rectified when we changed it to the BCE/CE format. However, like I've already said, I don't mind leaving the date format as just BC (without CE or AD). It's only the AD ("In the Year of the Lord") that I don't find NPOV, but I don't see anything wrong with just BC. Jagged 20:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, maybe this is what we stick with, unless anyone has got any major objections. In fact, I think the policy of "use BC but not AD/CE" is a good one that could be applied throughout Wikipedia. It removes the contentious AD, but leaves BC, which really only relates to a confirmed historical event. Arcturus 11:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed some extra dashes from the date list, and also converted all instances of BC to BCE. I did this conversion before noticing this discussion. My apologies! In any event, I think the BCE notation is strongly preferable to BC in every case, but I am willing to bow to the consensus. — Aetheling 17:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghaznevid Empire

I included it in the timeline because for the following reasons:

1) The Article is History of South Asia. The Ghaznavids administered land in a significant portion of Pakistan (Balochistan/NWFP/Northern Punjab/Makran etc.) in addition to Iran/Afghanistan and other Central Asian regions.

2) Most of the area under the Indus valley civilization fell under his administration.

3) Various Rajas sent tribute and provided right of way when he traversed on his raids and he did have a significant realm of influence even if he did not administer the area. See Kalinjars attack on Kannauj as an example, or reasons for one of the wars with Anandapala.

4) To make the timeline given more reasonable. The initial entry Islamic Sultanates and their date was absolute bunk the only real precense during the early 200 years of that timeslot given was infact the Ghaznavids. There was just the Ismailis at Multan and another bunch of muslims at Makran/Sindh coast which eventually came under Mahmud. The Slave dynasty and the other sultanates preceding the Delhi Sultanate such as the Lodhis et al came after the Ghurid advance which is around 1160 onwards.

5) While Ghazni was the initial capital early on, later on the capital shifted to Lahore.

[edit] Middle Kingdoms

Too many kingdoms have been added to the Middle Kingdoms section by Tigeroo. As a result, the template has become a bit too bloated. We will need to remove many of those Middle Kingdoms and only keep the significant ones. Jagged 19:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine I realised that after I put them in. Instead I propose to redo the Middle kingdoms of India and add links to various kingdoms in here, more in line with the History of India style and prune it of all the Aryan and Indus valley information already covered and more relevant in the History of India article. Also note that in the History of India the Middle Kingdoms are divided into two distinct ages the Golden Age and the Classical Age (Early and Late) which mark two distinct political timeframs, with the early being marked by the influx of northwestern kingdoms into the north of india and the resistance of the north under the larger gupta and satavahana slowly giving way to the late period of lots of small states and the consolidation of the smaller southern kingdoms in the early period into larger groupings in the later. I suggest we reflect the color coding of the Template to do the same, and split the Middle Kingdoms article into two as well.
I also suggest you reinstate the Rastrhrakuta as they are a significant kingdom and play a role in seeding a few of the later northern rajput dynasties.--Tigeroo 06:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, after the next set of prunings I don't think this template is working. Harsha was minor in comparison to the Kushans, and they were only half the story that shaped the entire history of the string of invasions of Northwest for over 600 years. There are still no Rashtrakuta who are likely as important as the Chola, and why lose the Satavahan they are THE kingdom from the Mauryans until the other Southerns Rise. No mention of the Rajputs Kingdoms who form the history of the northern India for almost 700 years. Why Maratha and not the Sikhs, there is no mention of anything in the West after Magadha. The template leaves more holes in Indian history than it fills. I cannot see why it cannot hold a lot more information like the Template:history of Iran can. Why do we require sections like General Histories, Regional Histories, Specialized Histories? If we have too much information to fit then let's just rethink the template and what it is supposed to achieve. The timeline totally ignores huge and important sections of history and provides no information on what the selected links are supposed to represent. At this rate it may just be a good idea to branch out seperate templates for the history of the south, east and western parts of India because they are totally ignored and a timeline profferred that is too simplistic. There are a lot of flags at the top of the template whose history is absolutely not represented by the contents of the box below--Tigeroo 12:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of this template is for navigation to various articles related to South Asian history. It's important that the template doesn't become too big or else it would be difficult to navigate. The reason I've removed many Middle Kingdoms is because there is already a Middle kingdoms of India article that includes all of those kingdoms and empires, so it's unnecessary to repeat them here on the template. Only the larger empires should be mentioned in the Middle Kingdoms section of this template (such as the Gupta and Chola empires) although the link to Ancient Tamil country is also worth keeping. Jagged 23:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is obviously I do not agree with you on what is important and what is not to help the navigation across the timeline of Indian history, and others editors also come along and add to it. The Sikhs are important, thats the whole history of a community of people not worth a mention, especially since it also did affect the Mughals significantly. I beleive the entire period of the Rajputs, and the Northwestern invasions periods are significantly more important than the Guptas. You are thinking in terms of empires/ kingdoms and I in historical periods. Personally I would redo the template to feature time periods and leave the internal links to specific kingdom on the time period pages such as the Middle Kingdoms.
Vedic Civilzation and Vedic Kingdoms is a duplication similar to Sangam Era and Ancient Tamil Kingdoms yet Sangam era is not important. How can we format this template so that we can come to an agreement rather than just arbitary changes. A policy decision so that we can be consistent.--Tigeroo 08:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone claiming the whole shebang for India

I noticed this template (which is way too big, BTW) at the Partition of India article. It had been relabeled as "History of the Indian subcontinent" and "History of India" had been turned into "History of greater India". What is this? India is going to reconquer everything? India uber alles? Lebensraum? Arrant Indian nationalism is offensive to the other nations that share the sub-continent and should not be countenanced in an international endeavour. Zora 03:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone cant keep their fantasies of Nazism to themself. Do "South Asians" look around and cry "nazi" anytime they are offended? Though the "greater India" thing was wrong, editors dont appreciate useless off-topic rants and allusions to Nazism. A simple unexplained revert would have done the job. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
the problem is that "India" can really refer to both the subcontinent and the republic. If you ask me, for the purposes of WP, India should be a disambiguation page to forestall this eternal confusion. If you ask me, generally (which you don't), it was a mistake to call your Republic after a river which lies almost entirely within your neighbouring country with which you are on very unstable terms. I know this is a problem of English, though. Bharat is unambiguous, and the English should just have referred to the republic as Bharat from the beginning. But it's too late to change that now, so we need to be very clear about disambiguation. dab (ᛏ) 08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Template_talk%7EHistoryOfSouthAsia_c048.html"