Talk:Indian copper plate inscriptions: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:14, 6 June 2019

India: History Start‑class Mid‑importance

	India portal 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as High-importance).

A fact from Indian copper plate inscriptions appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 March 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Indian copper plate inscriptions play an important role in the reconstruction of India's elusive history?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/March.

Wikipedia

The other 3 w's

When were the plates discovered? Where exactly? By whom? These would shed a lot of light on the situation. Please help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.229.194.109 (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Over the last century and a half, as interest in Indian archaeological has increased, more ruins of temples and other remains have been recovered and explored. As the newspaper article referenced describes, these plates are being recovered bit by bit over time, and are still being unearthed today. There was no one huge finding. It's like any archeology, it is pieced together by working hard in the field and building up evidence. There are catalogues of the many hundreds or thousands that have been found and collected by museums and archives. These can be easily found online using Google. Sincerely, Mattisse 13:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say that the Ganga inscription as a bilingual Sanskrit-Kannada is misleading. It is a Sanskrit inscription but some Kannada words are used - not that the inscription is written in two languages versions. The Hindu report says "The inscriptions also contain Kannada words in describing the boundaries of a village".--Aadal 21:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How were these plates made?

In the article it says these plates were "etched" but it also says they were "engraved", which are different processes. There is a link to intaglio printing, but were these plates actually printed? If so, how? And when was the process of print making invented in India? 100.1.111.232 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC) R.E.D.[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indian copper plate inscriptions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian copper plate inscriptions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030216164212/http://www.tirumala.org/sapthagiri/122002/epic.htm to http://www.tirumala.org/sapthagiri/122002/epic.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of recent revert

I have partially reverted some recent edits to this page for the following reasons:

The text in the lede needs to be sourced and perhaps modified (depending upon what the sources say), but for now it is IMO better to tag it than to delete it outright. Pinging @Utcursch, Fowler&fowler, and Doug Weller: to see if they can help with editing/sourcing this bit.
The plates discussed in the Shinde & Willis paper were already mentioned in the article (I have improved the formatting of the citation based upon the recent edits I reverted).
The two copper plate inscriptions are known from pre historic period of India part of the addition is incorrect, given that the Shinde & Willis paper itself discusses nine copper plates with Indus characters. Additionally, the Manjul & Manjul paper has some problematic claims (see discussion at Talk:Indus script) and citing that may be undue.

Abecedare (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shinde and Willis source fails WP:UNDUE

The claim that these might be the earliest printing devices is an extraordinary one and needs sources that have been discussed in the academic literature. At the moment this is a primary source that doesn't seem to have been even cited in the relevant literature. This is made worse by the fact it was published about 5 years ago. I really do not think we can use this. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I haven't personally checked but if secondary sources have not picked up upon the discovery and/or the claim (early/earliest copper plate printing), we should not be including them. For the discovery alone, mere mention in secondary sources may suffice but we'll need an even higher standard of sourcing to include the "used for" claim. If you've already searched and not found such support, feel free to remove the sentence and reference from the article. Abecedare (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the paper has been atleast sited by atleast three other papers, so your argument that the info should be removed is unjustified here. On one hand there is a big tolerance for the steve farmer's paper which has not been supported by any secondary scholarship and has been dedicated two massive paragraphs and its own main section for it which i think is WP:UNDUE. 60.50.173.223 (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 The claim that these might be the earliest printing devices is an extraordinary one and needs sources that have been discussed in the academic literature. At the moment this is a primary source that doesn't seem to have been even cited in the relevant literature. This is made worse by the fact it was published about 5 years ago. I really do not think we can use this. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 :{{reply|Doug Weller}} I haven't personally checked but if secondary sources have not picked up upon the discovery and/or the claim (early/earliest copper plate printing), we should not be including them. For the discovery alone, mere mention in secondary sources may suffice but we'll need an even higher standard of sourcing to include the "used for" claim. If you've already searched and not found such support, feel free to remove the sentence and reference from the article. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 19:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
-:: the paper has been atleast sited by atleast three other papers, so your argument that the info should be removed is unjustified here. On one hand there is a big tolerance for the steve farmer's paper which has not been backed by any secondary scholarship and has been dedicated two massive paragraphs and its own main section for it which i think is [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[Special:Contributions/60.50.173.223|60.50.173.223]] ([[User talk:60.50.173.223|talk]]) 23:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
+:: the paper has been atleast sited by atleast three other papers, so your argument that the info should be removed is unjustified here. On one hand there is a big tolerance for the steve farmer's paper which has not been supported by any secondary scholarship and has been dedicated two massive paragraphs and its own main section for it which i think is [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[Special:Contributions/60.50.173.223|60.50.173.223]] ([[User talk:60.50.173.223|talk]]) 23:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)