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
→recent reverts: Shinde and Willis people has had no citations in the relevant academic literature, we can't use it as it clearly doesn't show any significance
Line 148: Line 148:
:* 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".
:* 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)
: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)
:: 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)


== 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 09:48, 7 June 2019

Template:Vital article

The Deciphered IVC Script by Ms. Suzanne Marie Sullivan

Here is the link to the ground breaking work:-

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6jR88LVnUUEODA2bzVZc2JyRDA&usp=sharing3

IVC has been clearly shown to have Sanskrit, Prakrit & Proto-Tamil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.97.36.254 (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That needs to be peer-reviewed before it can be taken seriously. utcursch | talk 17:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Indus script which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://ebooks.abc-clio.com/print.aspx?isbn=9781851099344&id=A1725C-7729
    Triggered by \bebooks\.abc-clio\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Indus Script clans and religious concepts?

The Indus Script was used for trade with Mesopotamia and clearly would not have symbolized clans and religious concepts. By promoting such theories, you are making a fool of yourself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.206.184.113 (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that anyone has any idea what it was used for.Mcswell (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decipherability question

The concluding sentence in this section reads: "The June 2014 issue of Language carries a paper by Sproat that provides further evidence that the methodology of Rao et al. is flawed." - meaning Rao's methodology is in fact flawed, and Sproat provides further evidence of it. Is that the writer's intent? If so, on what basis? Sooku (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No bilingual texts (like a Rosetta Stone) have been found.

I suggest a need to update this statement reflecting the article "Little man with huge potential". 5.28.168.211 (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pottery with Harappan and Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions

Ref 20 (Mahadevan) is not peer reviewed yet. I suggest softening the language ("it has been claimed that") or just stating that it has not yet been peer reviewed. Helenuh (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2010 article in 'The Hindu' (https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/Tamil-Brahmi-potsherds-found-at-urn-burial-site/article15996829.ece) states the:

"Of the three potsherds, one can be nearly fully assembled, and it has five Tamil Brahmi letters reading ‘a-ti-y(a)-ka-n.' This could probably be read as ‘Atiykan.' As the front portion of the potsherd is broken, the preceding word, if any, is not known. The second potsherd has four letters, of which two are Tamil Brahmi, reading ‘a-m.' The remaining two are graffiti marks, resembling the Indus script, says Dr. Rajan. The front portion of the potsherd is missing."

Which makes the claims of the Indus Script being used alongside the Tamil Brahmi script seem intentionally disingenuous. IMO, it should be removed from the article. 174.3.228.242 (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. If someone wants to add it back with a better reference. --regentspark (comment) 02:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Script or Indus Symbols?

Are Indus Symbols widely accepted as scripts?--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seals are merely the medium where these inscriptions are found so the correct question would be 'script or symbols'. I believe that there is general acceptance, but no certainty, that the inscriptions are from a script (and the view that the inscriptions are not a script is detailed in the article). --regentspark (comment) 17:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you're doing is equating scripts with written language, in contrast to symbols, which could be anything (stop signs, for instance). If that's what you mean, then no, there is not general acceptance that the inscriptions represent a language; it's a contentious issue, with no resolution in sight. Mcswell (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:RegentsPark I changed the sub-topic.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Chinese scholar xuanzang says, 1. Referring to the most ancient times letters were numerous. 2. Then Brahma deva and sakra modified the script and letters were 47. Then the different rishis modified and made up different scripts. After a long time people forgot about the script. 3. Then rishi panini modified and made up a new script (new brahmi). Xuanzang is clearly talking about pre indus script, indus script, and panini,s brahmi script for the same language sanskrit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbaz (talk • contribs) 16:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to xuanzang indus script is sanskrit script.At panini,s time people had forgotten about writing and reading. Panini revived writing and reading. Panini,s sanskrit grammar ashatadhyae has survived 3000 years. This is a great achievement. Indus script should be called brahmi script or aryan script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbaz (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This paper reads more like an advertisement for Steve Farmer than a proper article

This paper reads more like an advertisement for Steve Farmer than a proper article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.224.128.252 (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

of course it's a logo syllabic script

of course it's a logo syllabic script — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.111.139.82 (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indus script. 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) 15:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indus script. 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) 04:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Defuncted"

Even if we ignore the fact that it is uncertain that the Indus script was a writing system, what purpose does the word "defuncted" serve here? Did someone or something come along and defunct it? Meaningless. I'm removing it again and per WP:BRD, please discuss your category here and get consensus for its inclusion before re-adding it. Best. --regentspark (comment) 05:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't this new discovery be covered in the article?

i recently made some additions on the discovery of an anthropomorh which is being said to contain both brahmi an indus symbols which was reverted, why this earth shaking discovery which can practically lead to validating brahmi origins from indus script and in turn give much credibility to scholarship which claims to decipher indus script based on brahmi?. There is no question about the artifact being a fact as two such have been discovered and also displayed in international exhibitions. Rameezraja001 (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because the leap from the exhibition detail to the deciphering of the script was uncited (that's the OR part). Generally, when you make a claim that a discovery is going to lead to something big, you need a reliable scholarly source that says just that. If you have such a source, then no worries, add it and cite the source. --regentspark (comment) 01:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the article clearly quotes the art curator who definitely is a representative of indian government and not a representative of a private art collector that the script is a mix of indus symbol and brahmi, i didn't claim anything, this just what is cited in the report, even if you argue about nature of the script, but it still coincides with late harappan script period and very much related to indus script. This is a massive discovery and i think it definitely needs to have some place in the article. it may lead to many breakthroughs in the future. Rameezraja001 (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You need to source the massive discovery and the breakthroughs in the future part. These are conclusions that you are drawing, but we need scholarly sources to attest that the discovery (not sure if that is appropriately sourced either) is significant. The entire text following "This could lead to possible breakthrough in deciphering indus script ....." is what is OR unless it is sourced to reliable scholarly secondary sources. --regentspark (comment) 02:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I remember looking into this sometime back and will add that:
  • Manjul and Manjul's original paper in Pragdhara dates back to 2007
  • Even the news report relating to the art exhibition is 5 years old.
However, when I last looked, in the last 10+ years there has been no solid follow up in any scholarly literature about the artifact (Manjul et al had a 2011 conference paper saying that the boar figure bore resemblance to Varaha form of Vishnu; again, nobody seems to have picked that up. Subhash Kak recently penned a Medium post on the topic but that, um, hardly improves the credibility of the claims). Given that history, I too would recommend against including any of such thinly sourced redflag claims in the article. Abecedare (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
there are lots of artifacts which have not been picked up and clearly reflects more like, a bias you can call it, or reluctance to give any importance to this very crucial piece of evidence connecting indus valley to vedic civilization. the 34 symbol copper inscribed tablet has also been ignored but it doesnt matter since the artifact has been proven as authentic, my question is, there are two such artifacts of anthropomorhpic figures not just one, if it is falsified why they are being exhibited in the international exhibition by the indian govt an ASI has archived it and why scholars who backed brahmi indus connection only talking about it? why not others? and secondly if they do contain an inscription, why is it not being picked up by the scholars, because it proves the presence of literacy if not anything else in vedic period of india while indus scripts are thought to not go beyond 1900 BC? the figures themselves are stated to be evidence of vedic period, and what is the redflag you are talking about, maybe redflag is for people who are rival supporters of other theories or people who are hell bent on disproving indus script as representing any language system at all. Rameezraja001 (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have forgotten your one week block in June for personal attacks. So far as the Indian government goes, governments by their very nature are political and not reliable sources for history or archaeology. Let's wait for peer reviewed publications. Doug Weller talk 13:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC) @Rameezraja001: I completely agree with Abecedare by the way. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark and Abecedare: speaking of discoveries, I'm not happy with this series of edits[1] at the List of inventions and discoveries of the Indus Valley Civilisation. Ignoring the spelling change to "civilization" which needs reverting, some of these are just things found with no claim for discovery/invention. I suspect some of this is copied from other places, perhaps our articles. I've posted to the talk page there. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commented at the IVC inventions talkpage. Also removed claim of discovery of Indus/Brahmi scripts' Rosetta stone from Brahmi script article (it's weird/revealing that everyone seems to cite the same " The Art Newspaper" and an irrelevant youtube video, instead of making an effort to dig up the underlying Pragdhara article!). Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. 60.50.173.223 (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Context: This above coment is about this recent edit, which I had reverted. Similar edits were also made by 60.50.173.223 (talk · contribs) 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 Manjul and Manjul paper from 2007, which claims to have discovered a script said to be a bridge between the Indus and the Brahmi, is worth mentioning. This would indeed be a momentous discovery but, as I said in the above discussion, other scholars have not taken the claim seriously. Therefore it would be undue to include it in these wikipedia articles; see also WP:REDFLAG.
As for the 2015 secondary source that the IP recently added in support of their edit (full text of the article by Joseph Manuel available here):
  • First, note that the Journal of Religious History South Asia (JORHSA) is a non-peer-reviewed "bi-annual" journal with unknown publishers, which only ever produced one issue (in Fall 2015). Four of the five articles in that issue were written by persons on 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 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, 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 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. Abecedare (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.60.50.173.223 (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indus_script&oldid=900739208"