Jump to content

Talk:Indus script: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
moved to chronological order and replied
m this was archived
Line 27: Line 27:
| format= %%i
| format= %%i
}}
}}

=== recent reverts ===

i dont suggest removing a properly sourced journal, Farmer's article which is also considered fringe theory is also mentioned here, the dispute of Brahmi origin is still not resolved, the article itself states that many scholars do believe the Indus origin, so i dont think that citing the journal is a fringe theory or a monumentous claim not already backed by scholarship especially Cunningham. [[Special:Contributions/60.50.173.223|60.50.173.223]] ([[User talk:60.50.173.223|talk]]) 23:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

:Context: This above coment is about [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Indus_script&diff=900476112&oldid=900448079 this] recent edit, which I had reverted. Similar edits were also made by {{user|60.50.173.223}} at [[Brahmi script]], [[Copper Hoard Culture]], and at [[Indian copper plate inscriptions ]].
:Setting aside issues of whether ''other claims'' in these articles need to be re-examined (which can be discussed separately), lets focus on whether the [https://ia802805.us.archive.org/18/items/CompositeAntrhomorphicFigureFromHaryanaPragdharaSKManjul/Composite%20Antrhomorphic%20figure%20from%20Haryana%20(Pragdhara)%20-%20SK%20Manjul.pdf Manjul and Manjul paper] from 2007, which claims to have discovered a script said to be a bridge between the [[Indus script|Indus]] and the [[Brahmi script|Brahmi]], is worth mentioning. This would indeed be a momentous discovery but, as I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIndus_script&type=revision&diff=855680298&oldid=855678697 said in the above discussion], other scholars have not taken the claim seriously. Therefore it would be [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] to include it in these wikipedia articles; see also [[WP:REDFLAG]].
: As for the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Brahmi_script&diff=prev&oldid=900478988 2015 secondary source] that the IP recently added in support of their edit (full text of the article by Joseph Manuel available [http://www.jorhsa.com/Edition_2015/Copper.pdf here]):
:* First, note that the ''[http://jorhsa.com/about.html Journal of Religious History South Asia]'' (JORHSA) is a non-peer-reviewed "bi-annual" journal with unknown publishers, which only ever produced [http://jorhsa.com/archive.html one issue] (in Fall 2015). Four of the five articles in that [http://jorhsa.com/current.html issue] were written by persons on [http://jorhsa.com/editorial.html the editorial board] of the publication. TLDR: this is closer to a group blog than an academic publication, and should not be used as a source in article-space.
:* Secondly, the Joseph Manuel paper argues ''against'' the Manjul and Manjul's interpretation of the script on the copper artefact, in part by citing {{tq|Jai Prakash, Dy. Superintending Epigraphist (Personal communication) on the basis of the script on the anthropomorph, has opined that ‘all letters have great resemblance with those of Mauryan Brahmi except partial difference in the first letter of the first line and first letter of the third line.’}} and concludes with, {{tq|In the light of the above it is clear that minor variations in script may not be construed as a hallmark for declaring the legend on the anthropomorph to be prior to Mauryan Brahmi}} (see pages 18-19). Incidentally, in the article's conclusion (pages 52-53), Manuel ridicules "Vedic Harappa proponents" and "scholars bent upon proving that the Vedic people were the authors of the Harappan Civilization", and dismisses them as "lobbyists".
:In short: while JORHSA is not a reliable source per wikipedia standards for inclusion in article-space, to the extent that we treat the Manuel paper as a [https://asi.academia.edu/DrManuelJoseph credentialed expert's] opinion to be considered in talk-page discussions, it only strengthens the argument for not including Manjul and Manjul's claims and interpretation in wikipedia articles. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 19:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

:: wikipedia does allow mentioning primary source given it should not be paraphrased [[WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD]], but you are removing the entire source, why are you doing that. As for your claim that 'since there is no secondary source, no scholar has taken the claim seriously' that is entirely your argument, no scholar has tried to prove the object as a fake or a forgery except [http://www.safarmer.com/fake.post-Indus.object.pdf steve farmer] which is also not a good source. According to WK rules, the artifact should be stated in the article since it is a genuine discovery and endorsed by the government agency as published in its journal. As for [[WP:UNDUE]], this is unjustified, the artifact is mentioned along with other discoveries of bet dwarka and i have added no other argument except the one mentioned in the source itself, your argument of [[WP:REDFLAG]] that the source is making exceptional claim of this script being a bridge between harappan and brahmi is also unjustified as i have already stated that it the paper is only stating ''similarity'' with early brahmi and harappan script so its not making a claim which you have stated, and this argument of linking harappan with brahmi has been made by other scholars as well, so there is nothing new proposed which hasn't already been done by various other scholars, so your argument here is very unjustified, As to your reference to the secondary source, the source does endorse the primary source conclusion and also another POV of an epigraphist, i am fully open to mentioning any argument which is made in the secondary source, but im not in favour you completely removing reference to a genuine discovery from this or other articles. please restore them. im fine with your assessment of not mentioning the secondary source for not being peer reviewed. In the article [[Indian copper plate inscriptions]] you have reinstated a claim made in the intro without proper citation and only added a tag there, so you are on one hand trying to remove a genuine primary source on one hand, and trying to reinstate a claim which is not backed by any source which i think is contradictory editing. you have removed this source even from copper hoard culture article despite its the only artifact of its kind based on your linguistic argument, which i really dont understand why you are doing it. I think you are trying to act as a scholar and trying to enforce your own argument which you shouldn't do, you are not the scholarship here, so in my opinion you cannot remove a primary source or reject an archaeological find because it doesnt suit your argument.[[Special:Contributions/60.50.173.223|60.50.173.223]] ([[User talk:60.50.173.223|talk]]) 22:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

:::The Shindea and Willis source has had no citations by relevant academics in the 5 years it's been available. That makes it [[WP:UNDUE]]. The IP has claimed elsewhere it has had "almost 3" citations, which is I guess 2, but evidently hasn't put in the effort to find out that they are the same paper which is in a marketing journal. They don't count. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 09:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
:::: mate you can do what ever you want, and you are evidently doing that, tbh. [[Special:Contributions/60.50.173.223|60.50.173.223]] ([[User talk:60.50.173.223|talk]]) 13:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


== Indus writing tablet terracotta models from mohenjo daro, indus style mesopotamian seals ==
== Indus writing tablet terracotta models from mohenjo daro, indus style mesopotamian seals ==

Revision as of 16:57, 24 September 2022

Template:Vital article


Indus writing tablet terracotta models from mohenjo daro, indus style mesopotamian seals

vasant shindhe in one of his presentation available online has shown two terracotta model tablets used for writing discovered from mohenjo daro. i think its a very big discovery and dont know why scholars have not covered this discovery which nullifies the argument that indus script was traffic signals/smileys etc. Any one, who find any scholarly source please add it to the article. There are two mesopotamian seals which are shaped, carved and inscribed in form of indus seals according to Dr. Mark Kenoyer which might represent translation of an indus seal. This argument should also be added to the indus script being a writing system. 60.54.13.118 (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

longest examples

I am puzzled by the statement

[Mahadevan] found ... that the longest inscription contained only 14 symbols in a single line

when File:Longest Indus script inscription (colour).jpg shows about thirty symbols in five lines. Perhaps that example was not available to Mahadevan; okay, why quote an obsolete observation, near the top of the article? —Tamfang (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the source was misquoted- the source says 26, which probably refers to unique characters. I fixed the reference in the article- it may have been misquoted or just changed by a vandal. --Spasemunki (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Spasemunki: WikiBlame brings up this edit. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Aryan Hypothesis argument

In the Indus_script#Miscellaneous_hypotheses section the possibility of a (non-Sanskrit) Indo-Aryan language is introduced. The current texts objects to the thesis saying:

"However, there are many problems with this hypothesis. A major one includes: Since the people belonging to the Indo-European cultures were always on the move, horses played a very important role in their lives or as Parpola put it, "There is no escape from the fact that the horse played a central role in the Vedic and Iranian cultures..." (Parpola, 1986)."

but does not relate this fact to anything else- why is the centrality of the horse something that makes an Indo-Aryan language unlikely? Was text deleted, or is part of the argument missing? I also can't locate the reference given- there is a 1987 Parpola publication in the reference list, but no 1986. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Keezhadi

The finds at Keezhadi are so trivial. Only Tamil nationalists promotes this theory. The evidence is weak for any connection with Keezhadi. ChandlerMinh (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison with Turkish Runes

Undeciphered Indus script and Turkish runes

Turkish Orhun runes seem to be the simplified/stylized versions of Indus signs. Very interesting, isn't it? Look at the link below! I compared them to each other.

Where is the junction?

Comparison Indus Script vs Turkish Runes

Source for Indus Script signs:

Indus Script signs

UzunbacakAdem (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Writing direction

This talk by Rajesh Rao claims the writing was right to left, discussing both the compression and the pottery evidence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF_nJ4vfG-A&t=1030s T039mwftulnm0l (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest discovered script

It there nothing more recent than 2006? Doug Weller talk 16:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The link referenced under https://www.harappa.com/blog/free-complete-indus-font-package-available "Go to font packages at the National Fund for Mohenjodaro" http://www.mohenjodaroonline.net/index.php/indus-script/corpus-by-asko-parpola is broken, trying to make visitors install malware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.224.214.87 (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malware? Doesn't seem to be trying to install anything on my end at all, it's just a dead end that goes to a blank page. You can access the original page at the archive referenced in the section, and the download button there just gives you a zip folder with the font.
Regardless, I've added an archive link to the Harappa.com link, so that clicking through any links there should automatically take you to an archived copy of the Mohenjodaroonline.net link. – Scyrme (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indus_script&oldid=1112095172"