Talk:Indo-Greek Kingdom/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

On the accuracy of the Article

Hallo everybody I checked Wikipedia incidentally looking for pictures on the topic, and I must admitt that I was shocked by the violent and inapropriate attacks on the article. I will restrict my remarks in the following: 1) there is lacking German literature on the subject: for instance Karl-Heinz Golzio, Kings, Khans and Other Rulers of Early Central Asia - Chronological Tables, Religionswissenschaftliches Seminar der Universitat Bonn (1984) By the way they rather agree with the published article. Franz Altheim & Ruth Stiehl (and others): Geschichte Mittelasiens im Altertum, Berlin 1970 (a really basic work, with an unfavourable critic on Narain: Quot.:"Methodische Behandlung literarischer Angaben ist ohnedies seine Stärke nicht. (page412) trans.: Methodological treatment of litterary sources is even without that not his strength.) 2)The whole attack on grounds of suspicions and accusations, that the article is influenced or whatever by imperialist lawyers such as WW Tarn or by Art historians (as not being good enough for history research!!!) are not good arguments, since these accusations practically show that the critic is rather suspicious than the criticised. Moreover I should feel personally insulted as an art historian myself reading such a critic, but I can only see the fervour of some not well instructed amateur in that so I can't really complain. 3)I would agree with the maps B and D since they include Mathura in the Indogreek dominion. On conquering Palibothra (Pataliputra) I would still recommend the interpretation of the sources not only by the "devlish" WW Tarn, but also by Franz Altheim & Ruth Stiehl (Chapt. 19.). It is realy sad for such an effort like Wikipedia to go astray because of bad behaviour and the lack of reasonable criticism. Emmanuel (manoussos@operamail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.8.77 (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Emmanuel. I do appreciate your comment. As you seem to be knowledgeable on the subject, especially from the point of view of German sources, may I suggest you take an account and start contribute to the article? Best regards. PHG (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please sign in before you comment on this article: there has been many problems with unsigned comments. There is much older literature on the Indo-Greeks - especially such literature not published globally - which merely repeats older statements of outdated scholars such as Tarn, most of whose thesis are mainly speculations. Nevertheless, I agree with you about the point of Mathura. Sponsianus (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Does the German literature support Tarn's full hypothesis, including the descent of Demetrius I from the Seleucids and Chandragupta, and his ten-year empire over most of North India? or does it merely, like Bopearchchi, react against Narain's excesses, as Narain reacted against Tarn? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of Demetrius page?

Should we regard the Demetrius I of Bactria page with the same caution as this one, as it is edited by some of the same individuals? Thx --SRWelch00 (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Another day, another troll. Sigh.--Sponsianus (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom followup

Hiya, I'm not one of the editors in this topic area, but wanted to raise awareness of a recent ArbCom case, and also to ask a question of the editors who are familiar with this topic area.

In a nutshell: There has been an Arbitration case nominally about Franco-Mongol alliance, but in actuality about the edits of PHG (talk · contribs). The decision is not 100% final yet (it should be in another 24 hours though), but PHG is going to end up banned from editing any and all medieval/ancient history-related articles on Wikipedia, for at least one year.

As we are working on cleaning up dozens of articles which have been edited in a problematic way by this editor, we are trying to build a comprehensive list of all articles which may have been the target of POV or WP:UNDUE biased editing by him. These articles will then be placed in the queue for cleanup, or deletion, as appropriate. As such, my questions for you here are:

• It looks like Indo-Greek Kingdom is already undergoing cleanup, but is anyone aware of any other related subarticles, potentially edited in a biased way by PHG, which we should also add to the list?
• PHG created Template:Hellenistic rulers. One of his tactics was often to create an article or template that looked legitimate, but was actually a coatrack for some other type of POV-pushing. Could someone familiar with the topic take a look at the template, and let me know if it may have been used for this purpose (especially as regards Indo-Greek rulers)? Or does it look legitimate?
• PHG also created Template:Hellenistic kings. I have the same question for this one, and also ask, do we really need two such similar templates?

Thanks for your time, and your patience as we work on cleaning up this very complicated situation, --Elonka 01:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Template:Hellenistic kings was used in only one article. I replaced it with Template:Hellenistic rulers. We do not need two similar templates. To me the Template:Hellenistic rulers looks OK. These rulers I believe (with the exception of Alexander - but he needs to be there too) are counted as Hellenistic- yet I am not an expert.--FocalPoint (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As usual with the accusations against PHG, I can see nothing wrong with the Template:Hellenistic rulers. Does anyone have anything more than personal slander to object against this perfectly legitimate list of rulers after Alexander the Great? Sponsianus (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to investigate PHG's contributions to any particular depth but it seems to me that every editor is entitled to their POV. If they can't see it other editors can and they counter his edits with their own edits. This article used to be an FA article. That means other editors submitted their proposals for editorial cleanup and PHG complied with their requests in a collaborative way. How then are we to reconcile this commendable behaviour on his part with the ominous sounding announcements that wholesale de-POVing of articles is taking place as if PHG were a crypto-virus of POV that just now got discovered? PHG was editing in the open, in an open wiki environment full of editors ready to pounce on PHG for every iota he put in (and many did). Why did they not do it when he was editing the articles and waited for all his edits to accumulate in order to clean them up? Something just doesn't add up. Dr.K. (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for the detailed history of the Indo-Greek Kingdom article, but I think if you look into archives and the FA Review discussion, you'll see that this has been a longrunning problem. As for the Mongol-related issues, again, it's definitely not something that's been "saved up," it's been the culmination of dozens of smaller disputes on various articles, over a period of several months. For more details, see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review. You may also find it instructive to read the information and timeline at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence#Timeline, and the other sections immediately above that. If you have other questions, I'm happy to answer them, though this particular talkpage might not be the best place to discuss things.

As for Template:Hellenistic rulers, it looks like a couple editors familiar with the subject matter have taken a look at it and are happy with it. If so, I am satisfied, and will cross that one off the "needs review" list.  :) Thanks for your help! --Elonka 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll follow the links provided. It would be interesting to find out how this could have happened in a transparent wiki editing environment. Dr.K. (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The best way I have of explaining it, is that it was like someone writing very rapidly on a white board. Some of what they wrote at the beginning was good, but as they kept writing, the information started becoming more and more bizarre. Other editors did move in to cleanup, and raised alerts that there was a problem, but the writer (PHG) ignored them, and either kept on writing, or actually went back and put false information back onto the board, and then proceeded with more writing. It had gotten to the point that a half-dozen editors were doing nothing but cleaning up after him, and he was ignoring all calls to slow down and discuss, he just kept charging ahead on his own path. So eventually the rest of us just got to the point where we couldn't fix errors as fast as he was introducing them, so we just had to start making lists of what was going to need to be cleaned up later. If at any point PHG would have said, "Whoops, sorry, my bad, I see the mistake now, I'll stop doing that," then the problem would have gone away. But instead he kept insisting that he was right, and that everyone else was wrong. The situation worked through the various Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms (talkpage comments, Requests for Comment, mediation), but nothing changed his attitude. So eventually it landed at ArbCom, and even during that process, PHG kept right on adding more problematic information and complaining about how other editors were "harassing" him. The only option at that point was to either ban him entirely from Wikipedia, or to do a "topic ban". The Arbs chose the latter, though if PHG continues with problematic behavior, it might turn into a full site ban. Which all could have been avoided if he would simply acknowledge the problem and promise to do better in the future. But for some reason he seems unwilling or unable to do that. I could make guesses as to what kind of off-wiki situations might be leading to PHG's behavior change over the last several months, but it's probably best not to speculate. All we can do is deal with the "on-wiki" behavior, regardless of what the off-wiki causes might be. --Elonka 00:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thank you Elonka for taking the time. This provides a very concise coverage of an unexpectedly complex topic. Very interesting. It must be that sometimes editors can be downloading so much information that it can lead to information overload for everyone involved and thus poor quality control, especially in disputed or obscure topics. As one gets to invest a lot of effort in an article they are sometimes less likely to respond to objections. That's one of the pitfalls of intense editing. Dr.K. (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note my personal opinion on the issue that Sponsianus and Dr.K. raised. I understand what Elonka wrote and I also understand that PHG is not easy-going. PHG has strong opinions and he obviously supports them rigorously but I do not feel that we are facing an "evil" editor POVing everything he touched and I feel bad in watching this treatment. I have to say that in my mind this situation looks like a witch hunt. I believe that many people have seen his contributions and many have moderated his strong opinion. Well done for the arbitration too. But please, let us all try to have a little more respect. Wikipedia is full of passionate people (like PHG) which one could call "nut-cases" (I would be happy if I could be categorized among these nut-cases, a title of honour than disrespect in this context), but do not forget that they have been among the most prolific, real contributors. I would, however, feel that I did not react properly if I did not say that in my mind this situation (scrutinizing whether a list of kings/rulers is POV) looks like a witch hunt. I think that it was fair to present my feelings about this situation. Having said that, please note that I will not continue this discussion any further. --FocalPoint (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by PHG
Thank you all for your kind comments! Some users indeed managed to impose edit restrictions on me for 1 year regarding articles on ancient history and Medieval history. This is a shame. I believe the ruling is totally unfair and based on numerous untrue accusations. It simply shows that Wikipedia is not immune from a few users banding together (engaging in huge on-Wiki and off-Wiki lobbying) to throw false accusations against someone whose (referenced) edits they dislike. Especially, articles about cultural interraction (Indo-Greeks, Franco-Mongol alliance, Arab-Norman civilization) seem to be particularly targeted these days. So much for cultural tolerance, openness and acceptation of each other's cultural influences... Indeed the "witch hunt" following it is also deplorable, with for example some users deleting all referenced information on the relations of the Mongols with European rulers during the Middle Ages [1], or others, such as Elonka, taking the opportunity to introduce non-referenced and untrue claims [2]. I am a proper user of longstanding, and I am willing to respect the ruling even if I think it is unfair. However, I do have the opportunity to edit other articles, and to react on Talk Pages, so I will do so, and try my best to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia devoted to offer "the sum of all knowledge", in a non-POV way. Best regards to all, and thank you for your support! PHG (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Such are the pitfalls of editing obscure topics. I understood the magnitude of the problem when editors started analysing the sources of the Indo-Greek Kingdom article sometime in the past. In any other topic this would have been considered WP:OR but not on this one, because the experts cited were academically vulnerable due to a variety of reasons. If the experts cited cannot get their story together then the editors who cite them are in jeopardy. Editing these obscure topics becomes more of an art than a science. More like painting. So the other artists (editors) start complaining when they don't like your colours (analysis). It's a thankless and perilous task, especially if undertaken with passion. It's all good however because it gives everyone involved time to reflect. It is a, sometimes, necessary part of the evolution of an editor and it gives everyone involved time to reflect. I'm sure Nietzsche applies here: If it doesn't kill you (as an editor) it can only make you stronger. Best of luck. Dr.K. (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the description hitherto of the dilemmas for the Indo-Greek page, Dr K! As for PHG, I think this verdict is tragic and in the long run detrimental for Wikipedia. Sponsianus (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Sponsianus. I agree with you that this is indeed a tragic outcome. But this story has not reached its finale yet. There are instances where, in capable hands, tragedy has turned to triumph. PHG seems to fit in this category. Time is normally an adversary but it can also be a vindicator. Nice talking to you, take care for now. Dr.K. (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all! I truely appreciate your support!! PHG (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Remake of history page

I have made my long-proclaimed remake of the History of the Indo-Greek Kingdom page. The changes include:

• A consequent separation of the two different phases of expansion with a possible reversal in-between. Menander is now separated from Demetrius I and not his general - as the modern chronologies agree.
• Removal of obsolete references to Bactrian kings (such as Eucratides II) ruling south of Hindu Kush, and vice versa Menander ruling in Bactria, which are remnants from Tarn and Narain, before the coins of these rulers were properly sorted.
• Zoilus I is placed during Menander's reign, as overstrikes (Senior 2004) have recently proved.
• Removal of obsolete references to a Demetrius II in India, closely after Demetrius I, also in accordance with modern chronologies.
• Removal of references to Agathokleia and Strato as Menander's queen and son from main page (still on their own pages). The most recent works do not support this, and Boperachchi's next catalogue will probably not include this thesis. The coins of Strato I may even belong to two rulers.
• Removal of Hermaeus' being mentioned in Chinese sources. These are rather obstruse speculations which are not featured in modern works. Still on Hermaeus' own page.
• Added views of both Bopearachchi and Senior on the ethnicity of the successors of Hermaeus (Yuehzi or Sakas).

In addition to this, I will remove the distinction between western and eastern kings and instead arrange the later rulers according to Senior's ONS179 supplement. If you read this PHG, I hope you won't disagree. I know that Bopearachchi is working on a new catalogue that will certainly take in mind all the advances since his last major effort in 1991 (the 1998 ANS catalogue seems to be more of a catalogue than original research). The redating of Zoilus I alone - which of course is as "certain" as it gets since it is due to overstrikes - is enough to alter his dates of several subsequent kings. And there are as you know other developments as well - Bopearachchi actually dated Artemidoros before his father Maues back in 91.

However, Senior's works concentrate on the period after Menander (and Zoilus, then). I have not included his theses on the Bactrian kings, which are rather brief and anyway beyond his special expertise which is Indo-Scythian coins. If somebody wants to include them I won't object, of course.

It's exciting with all this stuff going on in the field - if you mail me I may have some interesting reading. Keep up the good work, wherever you are!Sponsianus (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The map is back

The controversy surrounding the map is back. Any interested editors please share your thoughts regarding the present map as well as other recent changes which have been the subject of dispute among a few editors recently. I will not present the diffs of the actual edits from the history of the article for the sake of brevity, but I think the map was restored by PHG during a period of editing by Septentrionalis et al and following discussion on the talk page about the map, so I think the map's suitability was properly vetted by editors. In addition wholesale changes are made without discussion, including reversion of edits of an interwiki bot caught in the crossfire. I think this flurry of new activity needs a bit of discussion. I invite Elonka, Sponsianus, Septentrionalis, Devanampriya and others to discuss this before we proceed to implement any of these proposed changes. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the map was never thoroughly vetted by the editors. In fact, it remained a significant point of contention. Indeed, this map consists of significant original research incorporating dubious sources. PHG simply kept reverting back to it to present it as a fait accompli. Accordingly, you make no reference to the alleged sourcing of this personal map of PHG but merely take his side without presenting facts. As such, rather than initiating another round of reverts so that PHG's friends can institute his plans during his probation, perhaps the best thing would be to simply eliminate the map since the territory of the indo greeks remains in question to this day.

Regards,

Devanampriya (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Devanampriya I am not sure I really like your presumptuous tone and I would like to remind you about a few policies such as WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL as well as no ad hominem attacks. If I were bent so much on helping my friend PHG as you put it and if I were such a unilateralist would I have invited so many of these distinguished editors above like Elonka, Sponsianus, Septentrionalis etc. including you? Does my invitation look like a plan to evade PHG's block? So please since we have never had the chance to talk to each other before please keep a veneer of civility at least and don't go on the offensive especially with a an editor you never met before. Editing by attempted intimidation and malignment of other editors' intentions is not a nice tactic. I have already explained my intentions why I instituted this discussion above, so I am not going to repeat them here. In fact I would have been normally more talkative but I don't think I enjoy your tone therefore I will cut the discusion earlier than I would have liked. If any other editors want to take this up fine. Otherwise you can take this article and put it for AFD as far as I am concerned. Dr.K. (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have unfortunately had it up to here with the map controversy, but of course it is a good initiative to start a discussion. Meanwhile, I have edited the pages for almost all of the rulers and updated the general chronology. As it is, all the reservations and criticisms about the quality of ancient sources has made the article overloaded. I am not saying any of this is incorrect, but Wikipedia is for laymen, and a layman wants a reconstruction, not a dissertation. Sponsianus (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sponsianus, the issue in this discussion is the map. Please stick to the point, or else start another discussion please.--FocalPoint (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The map controversy and the state of the paragraphs about the sources address the same problem, namely how much certainty there is about the nature and extent of the 'Indo-Greek kingdom'.Sponsianus (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Any layman would need a map. Any map is 1000 times better than no map. I believe that the proposal to delete the map would make the article much more obscure than it is. Maps are recommended as content in any good article.--FocalPoint (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi FocalPoint and Sponsianus. Welcome and thank you for participating. Here are a few details:

1. PHG adds the map back at the article in this edit
2. Then PHG changes the version here
3. Then Devanampriya takes the map out with this edit: diff

Between PHG's edit on 18 November 2007 and Devanampriya's edit on 2 July 2008 we have seven months of edits by many editors. This means that no other editor deemed the map offensive and the map stayed for a relatively long time undisturbed. I am concerned about Devanampriya's latest bout of edit warring with me and other editors because Devanampriya is hardly an objective and uninterested party to all this. My final remark is this: If for seven months editors like Elonka, Sponsianus, Focal Point, Septentrionalis etc. did not take the map out, this may mean that the map is good. I've been around long enough and I simply don't want to see long term edit warring to take the map out when noone is watching. If you, collectively, find the map offensive please by all means take it out. If not then the map should stay. I have no other stake in this other than to ascertain the validity of the map and ensure that a full discussion takes place. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that is a very convenient, and unfortunately, incorrect recap of what transpired. In fact we had a number of editors voice their concern with the map and repeatedly entreaty PHG and later sponsianus to search for a compromise map that is rooted in fact and not fiction. The fact that the map wasn't removed after PHG's removal is not a statement of approval. Septentrionalis and Elonka wanted the other editors to arrive at a consensus (rather than imposing one), but Sponsianus and PHG were in no mood for one, so nothing was enforced. Dr.K if you do not have an understanding of this subject matter (which you seem to indicate), then please do not edit war since you then appear only to do the bidding of PHG during his probation under the guise of edit war prevention.

With respect to focal point's statement, I agree, that it would be desireable to have a map, but a fatally flawed one based on an amateur's concoction of an assortment of questionable source does not further the aim of wikipedia. Previous editors repeatedly suggested using maps that indicate all verifiable claims. Again, it was the recalcitrance of PHG et al that prevented a verifiable and accurate map from being posted. Instead PHG posted a map that makes a mockery of history with numerous outlandish claims with no basis (i.e. Maharashtra). That is why I have removed the map.

Finally, Dr.K, there was no reason react that way to my first response. If I am suspicious of new contributors without a command of the topic toeing the PHG line, the archives will demonstrate it is with good reason. Please do not seek to needlessly comment on tone or invent ad hominem attack when there are none as this neither furthers the debate nor reflects well on the contributor. I am absolutely all for civil dialogue and AFG, but it is important that you debate the facts pertaining to the subject matter and not seek to justify the status quo based upon non sequiturs stitched together.

Devanampriya (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well now Devanampriya. I don't think you have read my statements above. You seem to keep repeating the same arguments over and over. The fact is that in Wikipedia consensus sometimes manifests itself as absence of action. That the map stayed such a long time means that it was not as offensive to people as you suggest. Elonka, for example, is even today cleaning up articles by PHG. Yet she did not edit this map out. Septentrionalis didn't do that either. You don't have to be an expert in the subject matter, which I freely admit I am not, to understand logic and the reaction of other editors as applies to consensus. So I may not be an expert but I simply want to make sure that we don't lose a potentially good map simply because you don't like it. So please do not mention PHG every time you try to rebut my arguments. I am not going to try to persuade you any longer about my motives since you are so bent on thinking that I am doing PHG's bidding as well as trying to stick this label to me. It is naive to think this way because if I wanted to do PHG's bidding I would not be inviting editors who are investigating PHG's actions as we speak. So please for the sake of civility leave this heavy handed innuendo aside and listen to what the other editors are telling you. These people are not naive. I don't think they'll buy your not so expensive accusations. I also believe that editors who use tactics to besmirch the reputation of other editors instead of addressing the topic at hand are not very secure on the academic level and try ad hominem attacks as a smoke screen to hide the poverty of their arguments. Anyway in closing I would like to state that I am not comfortable being addressed in such forward manner so again if you want me to reply to you in the future try to elevate your level of addressing me otherwise I will abandon any further effort to communicate with you and let the other editors talk with you. Dr.K. (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that we need maps that show accurate information. I also agree that (almost) any map is better than no map. I do not see how User:PHG's map is offensive or "innaccurate". Though I don't see a detailed list of sources he used for information he depicts in the map, I DO believe that his map is fairly accurate according to the sources I've been using for my East-Hem maps, especially East-Hem_100 BC.jpg.

I'd personally prefer to see at least 3 or 4 map thumbnails on this article. 1. Early Greek Conquests & Settlements in India (500-305 BC), 2. Beginning of Greek Rule (180 to 150 BC), 3. Indo-Greek Kingdoms & Neighbors (100 BC), and 4. End of Indo-Greek Kingdoms (50 BC to 10 AD).

If any maps are innaccurate or offensive, please explain exactly how they can be corrected, and allow the uploader time to make any necessary corrections. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Thomas, your Eastern hemisphere map is somewhat outdated in its representation of the Indo-Greek kingdom. The idea that there were Euthydemids and Eukratids around 100 BCE is apparently from Narain (1957), even if you might find such statements in dictionaries of later dates. Modern scholars are far less certain about Indo-Greek dynasties. The best thing to be cone is probably just to write the name Indo-Greeks over southern/eastern Afghanistan and the Punjab with no certain borders. Sponsianus (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that having a map is better than no map. The map in the current article is based on reliable sources, so I don't see anything wrong with it. Devanampriya keeps saying how the map is "inaccurate" and "offensive", but he does not elaborate, and I fail to see how a map can be "offensive". My only criticism is that the map is not dated, otherwise, this seems like an open-and-shut case. I also think the idea about the thumbnails is an excellent one, and will greatly enhance the article. --Tsourkpk (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tsourkpk. I am in complete agreement with you and Thomas above. Despite Devanampriya's claims I am not new to this discussion since I participated in other sections above from 2007 and although I am not an expert on the subject I understand enough about the importance of the sources and our old discussions on the subject to not feel comfortable with removing this map. Unfortunately the only thing I get from Devanampriya is shrapnel and innuendo regarding an attempt to associate me with PHG and thus impugn my character and my intentions. Such tactics don't belong in an academic discussion. Meanwhile as far as the facts he is not forthcoming. In addition his edit removing the map also removes a large chunk of text from the article. Maybe we can talk about that in another session, but let's keep this discussion focused on the map for the moment. A couple of interwiki bot edits were also removed during his edits. Dr.K. (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To all Discussion Participants:

Please take a look at the discussion archives for the indo greek page which user Elonka so painstakingly organized. In it, you will note that the merit of the various maps have been debated ad nauseum. Elonka also organized the maps into various Exhibits (A, B, C) etc. You will also note that users Septentrionalis and Elonka encouraged more discussion and did not simply consider the status quo as consensus. Indeed they encouraged more contributors and more debate to ensure a final version that was accurate and acceptable. I invite all serious participants to review said archives. However, in the interest of convenience, here are the chief flaws with PHG's map:

1. PHG based his map on an agglomeration of a german Atlas, W.W. Tarn's The Greeks in Bactria and India, and his own readings of various sanskrit dramas to lay out theorized battles which have not been historically verified. He mentions narain simply to give the impression that he is covering the gamut of all opinions and cites narains "Coins of the Indo Greeks" a small book with limited text that catalogues indo greek coins. However, the map used there was directly out of W.W. Tarn's book. In Narain's own book "The Indo Greeks" (2003), he had a dramatically smaller map in line with his own stated views, which look nothing like this map.

2. It consists of original research. PHG has taken choice pickings from various maps, stiched them all together (claiming narain's version, german version, etc) when in essence, it simply looks like one big map. Our request for a simple recreation of individual versions was rejected without cause or explanation.

3. The German map presented is flawed. There is absolutely no evidence (numismatic or otherwise) indicating indo greek expansion into maharashtra and modern day goa. There is no reference provided to account for this, but PHG proceeded to included it simply because it maximized indo greek territory in spite of it's glaring inaccuracy. There is absolutely nothing in the historical record to indicate and expansion into bharhut and vidisha, or even ujjain for that matter (all of which were very clearly under Shunga rule and later Satavahana).

4. W.W. Tarn has himself proclaimed his hellenistic bias, and indeed wrote during the colonial height of the British period. He actively attempted to draw parallels between the two periods in his own writing and was an unabashed devotee of Alexander of Macedon. While there is nothing wrong in an individual harboring various opinions, it does matter in a subject like history where objectivity is of the essence, and opinion is often used in place of fact. Nevertheless, the creator of this map stubbornly insisted on any means of continuing the colonial narrative of Tarn's day.

5. Many of these sources, whether primary or secondary, involve the term Yavana, and reference the semi-mythological texts known as the Puranas. But anyone with an understanding of the term and the texts knows the nebulous nature of them. According to these same puranas, the Ayodhyan King Sagara, a progenitor of the God King Rama (an incarnation of Vishnu), utterly defeated the "Yavanas" and shaved their heads. Are we then to assume this to be true? Should we then not reference this in the "background" section and proclaim Indian victories over the greeks? The fact remains that the word Yavana was used for an array of foreigners at various times including greeks, arabs, turks, romans, persians, and even assyrians. Given the nature of these texts, which involve god kings and demons, should we then not take them with a grain of salt? That has been the chief contention from day one.

In sum, the fact remains that there is no scholarly consensus around the full extent of the domains of the indo greeks, which is why myself and users vastu, pavs and windy city dude repeatedly requested PHG to permit a map demonstrating verifiable and confirmed territories on the map. Nevertheless, he insisted on his map, never permitted any other version, and sought to create a rather biased and unobjective portrayal of the indo greeks. That was the reason for his removal from these pages and the reason why his images throughout wikipedia have been removed from time to time given the inherent bias in them.

To Dr. K: Please kindly point out where I said "offensive" on this thread? ...

Obviously in this, your latest, reply, you have presented the facts as you perceive them and you have achieved a level which is academic and which I can respect. I am glad to see this difference. Gone are the allusions to PHG and any bidding on his behalf. Therefore I am not going to revert you any longer since you presented arguments, which, in my opinion, are coherent and require an expert for further discussion. Since I am not an expert and your arguments and your improved tone seem convincing to me, I will not disagree with your points further. Too bad you did not assume this tone and scholarship before since you obviously are capable of it. Having said that I hold no ill will toward you and I consider the matter resolved. Dr.K. (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To Mr. Lessman. I just wanted to say I appreciate your attempts to catalogue the political history of the world in spite of the gargantuan nature of the undertaking. Moreover, your attempt to verify (without prior request) the accuracy of indo greek maps is an example to all wiki map makers. In light of this, I invite you to please review our discussion archives. You will note many of the points discussed here in greater detail. The sad truth is, ancient Indian political history (and in this case indo greek history) is very difficult to record and portray. Please let me know on my discussion page if you have any specific questions. I wish you well in this effort.

Devanampriya (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Indo-Greek territory, with known campaigns and battles (Sources for the map: "Historical Atlas of Peninsular India" Oxford University Press (dark blue, continuous line), A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings" (dark blue, dotted line), Westermans "Atlas zur Weltgeschichte" (light blue, dotted line, see Image:WestermannVerlagIndoGreeks.jpg for reference).)

Dear all. I am currently on holidays and have only limited (hotel) Internet access but I will be glad to give again some background regarding the Indo-Greek map. The map is based on three major reputable sources:

• The map in the "Historical Atlas of Peninsular India" Oxford University Press (dark blue, continuous line) for the core of the Indo-Greek territories (mainly centered around Pakistan)
• The map in A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings" (dark blue, dotted line), for Indo-Greek territories including the expansion of the Indo-Greek East to Pataliputra and to the south as far as Barigaza.
• The map in Westermann "Atlas zur Weltgeschichte" (light blue, dotted line, Image:WestermannVerlagIndoGreeks.jpg), which specially highlights the posessions of the Indo-Greeks to Mathura as well as their advances to Pataliputra and to the South-East.

I don't say any of these three sources is better than the other, and I think they are all highly reputable and relevant. They do illustrate quite nicely a lot of the knowledge on the Indo-Greeks, and my objective has been to take them all into account. I am aware that these maps may hurt some sensitivities, but it is absolutely not a reason to try to erase them. I also doubt that the claims of an individual Wiki editor regarding his understanding of Indo-Greek history should stand against published reputable sources. Personal views just constitute original research. What counts is what has been published by reputable sources and that only. Cheers PHG (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you be so kind

And despite the fact I have mentioned this before, your indiscriminate reversion has eliminated two interwiki links as follows:

1. simple:Indo-Greek Kingdom and
2. ko:인도-그리스 왕국

Could you please be so kind as to at least restore these edits?

Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

New Map: Indo-Greeks_100bc.jpg

Indo-Greek Kingdoms in 100 BC.

The previous map I uploaded to the page (Asia_100bc.jpg) was based on an older version of (East-Hem_100bc.jpg). I updated the original map a few months ago. The new map (Indo-Greeks_100bc.jpg) is based on the updated version of the map.

Also for Sponsianus: I appreciate your concerns. My sources are listed here or here. That list is incomplete; primarily I used The DK Atlas of World History (2000 edition), and The Historical Atlas of South Asia. If I get more information, I can make corrections and upload them as time permits.

Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. 'A Historical Atlas of South Asia is from 1978 and apparently quoting (on the Euthydemids and Eukratids) Narain from 1957. Please take my word for it: this is outdated since decades, probably even when that atlas was made. The territories are acceptable, but the entire chronology of the later rulers (those names appear to dynasties) has been completely overturned since. I can start quoting references, but you'll find them in the article and under each king.

As for the World History from 2000, I am sorry to repeat myself, but modern general works often rely on outdated original research when it comes to Indo-Greek matters. Modern scholars avoid maps from that period - because they are highly uncertain of where the borders were. The previous maps showed the apogee of the Indo-Greek kingdom, and there we do at least have some ancient sources to back it up. You won't find any professional who would claim that the weak and divided Indo-Greek kings of 100 BCE held all of Pakistan. There are even scholars who say that the Scythian invasions were already well ahead at that time.

However, if you could please remove the names of the dynasty I think the map is as good a work as possible under the circumstances, though I would much prefer "late 2nd century BCE". Sponsianus (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet, despite a consensus that a map is needed, the map is gone [3], without a replacement. What a pity. What a way to treat a consensus.--FocalPoint (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The new map is now uploaded and saved onto the article's homepage. FocalPoint, you are referring to a different map, not the same one I'm referring to. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty to put it in the infobox. Thank you Thomas. Dr.K. (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful looking map BTW. Dr.K. (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice map. I did not refer to a particular map. I believe that a map should be in the beginning of the article. Now it is there. Good. Thanks.--FocalPoint (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi FocalPoint. My feelings exactly. I do like the colours of this new map. It's great. See you around. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

All, Please note that Mr. Lessman very graciously asked for feedback on the map. As by his request, his sources are being reviewed and discussed with him, please do not unilaterally anoint this map as the finished product. There is no consensus around the territory being represented here (as there isn't one in the concerned scholarly circles as well). Let our discussion reach a more complete stage before we elect upon any final course of action. Thank you. Best,Devanampriya (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK everyone, it looks like we've got a good project that we can work on! And it can be a great chance for us to gain mutual respect for each other and help all of us in the long run!

I have a lot of information to digest before I can make any changes to the map. I've got other committments during the next few hours, but will be working on the map late tonight after my daughter goes to bed. I'll post any questions here while working on the map.

In the meantime, PLEASE post any concerns ALONG WITH source information on the East-Hem_100bc.jpg Discussion Page (that makes it easier for me to keep track of errors and corrections).

Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your great effort. Please take your time. No rush. All the best. Dr.K. (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Thomas for your great contribution! This map is rather reductionist in that it does not show many of the important campaigns or cities, but it is of course MUCH better than having no map at all. Maybe I will work on something like a "campaign" map in the near future. Cheers to all. PHG (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi PHG. Even though we are alleged friends, to my recollection, this is the first time I address you directly. I guess our friendship is in the eyes of the beholder. Anyway I agree completely with you. Any map is better than no map. By the way let me express my sympathy for the loss of your laptop. Despite that, you are eager to communicate under such adverse conditions. Kudos. All the best and keep the spirits up. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You sure about that? Devanampriya (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Postings from March on this Discussion Page (scroll up):

Comment by PHG

Thank you all for your kind comments! Some users indeed managed to impose edit restrictions on me for 1 year regarding articles on ancient history and Medieval history. This is a shame. I believe the ruling is totally unfair and based on numerous untrue accusations. It simply shows that Wikipedia is not immune from a few users banding together (engaging in huge on-Wiki and off-Wiki lobbying) to throw false accusations against someone whose (referenced) edits they dislike. Especially, articles about cultural interraction (Indo-Greeks, Franco-Mongol alliance, Arab-Norman civilization) seem to be particularly targeted these days. So much for cultural tolerance, openness and acceptation of each other's cultural influences... Indeed the "witch hunt" following it is also deplorable, with for example some users deleting all referenced information on the relations of the Mongols with European rulers during the Middle Ages [31], or others, such as Elonka, taking the opportunity to introduce non-referenced and untrue claims [32]. I am a proper user of longstanding, and I am willing to respect the ruling even if I think it is unfair. However, I do have the opportunity to edit other articles, and to react on Talk Pages, so I will do so, and try my best to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia devoted to offer "the sum of all knowledge", in a non-POV way. Best regards to all, and thank you for your support! PHG (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Such are the pitfalls of editing obscure topics. I understood the magnitude of the problem when editors started analysing the sources of the Indo-Greek Kingdom article sometime in the past. In any other topic this would have been considered WP:OR but not on this one, because the experts cited were academically vulnerable due to a variety of reasons. If the experts cited cannot get their story together then the editors who cite them are in jeopardy. Editing these obscure topics becomes more of an art than a science. More like painting. So the other artists (editors) start complaining when they don't like your colours (analysis). It's a thankless and perilous task, especially if undertaken with passion. It's all good however because it gives everyone involved time to reflect. It is a, sometimes, necessary part of the evolution of an editor and it gives everyone involved time to reflect. I'm sure Nietzsche applies here: If it doesn't kill you (as an editor) it can only make you stronger. Best of luck. Dr.K. (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the description hitherto of the dilemmas for the Indo-Greek page, Dr K! As for PHG, I think this verdict is tragic and in the long run detrimental for Wikipedia. Sponsianus (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Sponsianus. I agree with you that this is indeed a tragic outcome. But this story has not reached its finale yet. There are instances where, in capable hands, tragedy has turned to triumph. PHG seems to fit in this category. Time is normally an adversary but it can also be a vindicator. Nice talking to you, take care for now. Dr.K. (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all! I truely appreciate your support!! PHG (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Again Devanampriya I'm afraid you misunderstood my comments. You didn't have to copy the whole section to prove you doubtful point that I communicated with PHG directly. You could have provided a wikilink instead. But anyway. Have you noticed that in my previous message to PHG I don't open my comments by addressing him directly? Did you notice that I started the message "Such are the pitfalls of editing....." etc. and not like: "Hi PHG" or similar? The reason is I wanted to make a general observation about the predicament of editing this article. My Nietzsche quote doesn't count as a comment directed at PHG but as a general comment. The only comment that you may construe as directed at PHG is the "Best of luck" comment right at the end of the message. So If in all the years that I've been here this minor comment "Best of luck" and my greeting to PHG today is the only evidence you can find of direct communication with PHG you have to admit this is pretty scant evidence of a friendship. My forgetting this puny direct message "Best of luck" to PHG only proves the point that we never really communicated directly prior to today. And I even qualified my message today to PHG "to my recollection" that means to my best recollection and as you understand it is a clear indication that it was not meant as an absolute statement. When was the last time you had a friend you never, or hardly ever spoke to? Our alleged friendship must be seriously suffering from lack of direct communication all these years despite your valiant copying and pasting efforts to prove otherwise. So could you please resume some measure of unassuming behaviour instead of pulling stunts like copying and pasting whole sections so that we can resume some serious discussion around here? Dr.K. (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha. I'm not sure a long, stilted, discursive paragraph is necessarily the best way to exemplify unassuming behavior or to foster serious discussion. For the love of God can we please dispense with the faux outrage and lame political posturing? Being passive aggressive might help you adhere to the letter of WP:Civil but it sure doesn't abide by the spirit.

Now getting back on topic. I noticed the issues with the mapmaking and decided to post a map I made up and didn't bother uploading. I think Dr. Lessman's map is good, but putting it up in the info-box without actually arriving at consensus might be getting a bit ahead of ourselves.

The extension down to Barygaza is not really supported by any archaeological evidence. I still stand by the old oxford map I found. I made another revision of the old map I had. I still tried to be as true to the Oxford map as I could. I would like to hear any feedback anyone has regarding the look, color choice, or layout.

Here is the citation on that again: An Historical Atlas of the Indian Peninsula, C. Collin Davis, Oxford University Press.

Since this is the only map I was able to find that is based on actual archeological evidence and the only map online that we can all freely access, I think it makes sense that we base our consensus on this. There are still some design tweaks I need to make (the legend, for one) before I think it's ready to "go live," but I figured I would get some feedback before I tried editing it again.

We all do seem to be in agreement, however, that drawing clear borders may not be the most accurate historical representation. So I propose we could, alternatively just dispense with the border completely and just stick with the color coded cities and label to provide a rough idea of where the kingdoms were. That would be more representative of how governing authority worked back then anyway. What do you all think?

--Windy City Dude (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. Your version of civilised behaviour is to start with sarcastic laughter and dubious pop psychology followed by even more dubious syntactical analysis. I don't have to suffer toxic comments like yours. I am not going to reply to such drivel coming from you or any other malcontent bent on making drive by comments like yours. Dr.K. (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Impressive attempt to sidestep the discussion. Remember what I said about faux-outrage and posturing? Yea, that's what I was talking about.

And it's a bit telling that you think that comment was directed only at you. Methinks someone doth protest too much? Can we start, you know, talking about the map now? --Windy City Dude (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you find it impressive you can't be that bad. Anyway I'll study your proposal and will reply tomorrow. Your proposal looks reasonable overall but I think Thomas' approach merits further consideration as well. But I'll close shop for today. Let's continue this tomorrow. Dr.K. (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: My previous reply regarding "toxic comments" etc was not attempt at posturing or to sidestep the discussion and there was nothing faux about my reaction. Dr.K. (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, so again it's one version of the Indo-Greek map against another version. This is starting to be a long, long, and actually never ending story. Some will say that only the most minimalist maps (or even no map) can stand, owing to the limited character of archaeological evidence. Others will say that maps showing the actual extent of the Indo-Greek conquests should be on display, based on archaeological and litterary evidence. For what I know, there are plenty of Indo-Greek coin hoards as far as Ujjain, and Mathura is generally thought to have been part of the Indo-Greek kingdom for quite a while (half a century). Most scholars agree that the Indo-Greeks went as far as Pataliputra. In the long run, I think individual opinions do not count as sources on Wikipedia, only reputable published material does. Minimalist maps (prefered by Devanampriya and WindyCityDude) have been published, but many maps showing much larger territory have also been published, and by very good sources (the sources given by Lessman, Westermann "Atlas zur Weltgeschichte" Image:WestermannVerlagIndoGreeks.jpg, A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings"). I think in the end, the only solution is to have a compromise: either we show a compromise map such as the one by Lessman, or a map which actually shows the various sources such as the one I have made (). Thank you Dr.K. for your comments. Cheers PHG (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never said that only the most minimalist maps can stand. My position has always been that the headlining map for an article ought to focus on those territories which are not in contention among the experts in the field. It is meant to provide an overview for the casual reader. Not burden them with unnecessary minutiae and detail. Divergent theories that deviate from the settled consensus should be in the article, but in a place where you can discuss the sources and put them in their proper context. To do otherwise serves both to misrepresent the academic consensus on the matter and to mischaracterize the nature of the sources themselves. --Windy City Dude (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention it PHG. Thank you for your comments. I tend to agree with you. I think that if the sources are reliable they should get exposure. That's clearly in the spirit of WP:RS. We are not here to exclude reliable sources. A compromise should be possible especially given Thomas' proposals. I think in the spirit of compromise and WP:RS it would be possible to add a few cities here and there especially if the sources are clearly indicated on the map along with possible notes and clarifications. This way the borders shown on the map would be qualified as to their sources. Dr.K. (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional technical comment: I think that Thomas' maps have a better layout because they show the Indo-Greeks in context to other empires. They also have nicer colours and more professional looking fonts. The one proposed by the Windy City Dude only shows the Indian peninsula and the colours and legends are simply not up to par. Dr.K. (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Lessman specifically requested feedback on his map and his sources. To put up something that is admitted by its creator as a work in progress before we actually arrive at a consensus on what it should look like would be foolhardy. I already said that it was a rough sketch and the colors and layout were going to be changed before I post it up. What is at issue here is the historical accuracy of the map. In the end the most historically accurate edition is the one that should see the light of day no?

As for "excluding reliable sources" that comes down to your definition of "reliable." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not supposed to be some index with summaries of any and every writing on the topic that managed to see print. The point is to give readers a general layout of where the academic consensus is. Note that means the academic consensus, not the consensus of Wikipedians. We don't put up the story of Genesis in the article on evolutionary biology do we? The only city on the map that can really be considered "in contention" among academics is Mathura. The protrusion down into Bharukaccha isn't supported by any archeological evidence aside from a map in an atlas that wasn't even focused on the Indo-Greeks as its primary subject (i.e. the claim is of questionable veracity and doesn't come from an expert in the field.) I mean, just look at the map man. It has a protrusion going into modern-day Goa. How does that make sense? There is no textual or archeological evidence for that whatsoever.

If you want to talk about the maps drawn from more fringe theories you can put a subheading in the article about uncertainty in the actual territorial extent of the Indo-Greeks and put up renditions of each individual account so that they can be discussed in detail and put in context. Putting fringe theories as the main map, however, simply inflates the veracity of those theories beyond their merit. Providing context before delving into fringe theories is key. The headlining map for an article appears in the "Overview" section which means it ought to provide a general overview of the subject for a casual reader. It should not immediately start delving into the heavy detail.

And no word on my alternative proposal to only list the cities and not bother with the borders which are causing so much contention? --Windy City Dude (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I find no problem with a map made up from published maps. If PHG chose sources with bigger territory, make another one with maps from sources with smallest territory and show them both in the text, at a relevant place. A compromise should go in the infobox map, showing clearly the territory accepted by all (or most sources) and very faintly the extend claimed by those who think it was actually bigger.
• Cities only, I think it is not a good idea since there are already sources showing territory.
• However, there is a point in this idea: The existing map Indo-Greeks_100bc.jpg has borders in touch with one another for all empires and kingdoms, something like today's states. This is an simplification good enough for a general locator map, while here a more flexible approach is called for, for a specialized subject.

--FocalPoint (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with FocalPoint's position that we need a flexible approach here as we must be wary of oversimplification. Part of the rationale behind just showing key cities, as I understand it, is that it allows for the reality that independent indian polities in Punjab such as the arjuneyas and trigartas periodically asserted their sovereignty (from either the sungas or indo greeks) as evidenced by the archaeological record all within that key span of roughly 50-80 years of indo greek expansion.
• I also agree that the infobox should consist of territory agreed upon by all. I don't know about faint claim lines to show maximum extent here though, since that really is against the grain of the purpose of the compromise map to begin with.
• We must be wary of unreliable sources. As repeatedly mentioned the german Atlas zur Weltgeschichte (westermanns) contains an extension deep into the tropical region of Goa--something which no scholar has heretofore posited. To use such a map as the basis for one on wikipedia is of grave concern. Accordingly, it has been requested by administration that english-based sources be utlized for these pages.

• Proposals:

1. Post 2 maps on the article. One for Oxford, One for Tarn's position (Use his map out of Coin Types of the Indo Greeks or his original. the Westermanns Atlas zur Weltgeschichte is unfortunately neither english language nor rooted in fact. For that matter Tarn isn't really rooted in fact either, but since his position has been espoused by a school of though we can portray in the body of the article (he at least cobbles together some nebulous mythological literary sources for his construct, unlike Westermanns). Oxford should go in the infobox since that territory is agreed upon by all as consisting of all the verified indo greek territory--there is no significant disagreement on any of those regions.

2. Utilize Narain's map from "Indo Greeks" (not "Coin Types" since that map is from Tarn) since it just shows the words "Indo Greeks" over the Indus and Kabul Valley. This would be in line with Sponsianus' suggestion since borders are near impossible to draw accurately for the period

In sum, I do think we are on the right track with the possibility of multiple maps. This was the position we've urged for quite some time. I am glad to see it has gained currency amongst FocalPoint, et al.

Best Regards, Devanampriya (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Beware Devanampriya: Putting in "territory agreed upon by all" will certainly result in too small a territory, being strictly equivalent to using the source which gives a map with the smallest possible area. This is not what I suggested. My suggestion has also the second part embedded: "the faint claim lines to show maximum extent" (claimed by sources). This would be a real compromise map. --FocalPoint (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Map Draft: Indo-Greeks_100bc.jpg

Draft: Indo-Greek Kingdoms in 100 BC.

OK, here is the rough draft of the new Indo-Greek map for 100 BC. As you can see, major differences in the two versions. This draft doesn't show the Indo-Greeks at their height, but it does show them at a crucial point in their history (along with neighboring powers). It also shows borders I think we may all be able to agree on.

Sources for the new draft are primarily a combination of: The Schwartzberg Historical Atlas, and John Nelson's Interactive Historical Atlas of the World since 500 BCE.

Again, this is only a draft. I can still make changes if necessary, add more information, etc. I would like to finalize this map by the end of this weekend, if possible, so I can get back to updating the 700 AD map. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Thomas for your effort. But this map just got reverted. Let's work on a map that can be put at the infobox of the article, not only in the body of the article. Is this possible? Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I will need some time to think this one over. I do like that it shows the nature of independent kingdoms and tribes throughout the Punjab and South India, something which all previous maps have failed to do.

It might be a bit much to ask, but it would be amazing if one could render a .gif animation of the borders over time with a little counter ticking on the bottom corner to show the year.

--Windy City Dude (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Windy City Dude, unfortunately I don't know how to make animated GIFs. You are right, that in the Infobox an animated GIF would be great. I use Adobe PhotoShop, does anyone know how to make animated GIFs in PhotoShop? Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Thomas. If you provide me with the frames I may be able to help. I'm not sure if it'll work out but I'm willing to try. Dr.K. (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that Windy City Dude has removed the existing map from the infobox. I have seen a clear consensus that a map needs to be in the infobox. I will not participate in this putting and taking out the map, but I have to note that Windy City Dude acts against a clear and discussed consensus.--FocalPoint (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Photoshop should come with another program called "Image Ready" which you can use to create animations with multiple frames. It is quite a pain to work with though. --98.218.240.205 (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Lessman,

Thank you once more for your time and efforts. I think this is a splendid effort given the numerous issues facing this subject. What I appreciate it about it is that it endeavors to represent the complex political realities of the post-mauryan period, instead of the cookie cutter, indo greeks-sungas-satavahanas formula. Although my understanding is that the sungas held sway through Avanti in central india and at least through Kosala, I am willing to compromise and support this map in the greater interest of having a map here that we can all support as representative of confirmed indo greek territory.

Also, a point of order to some of the other contributors, Mr. Lessman's map is still in the article body (as per his edit). I think Windy City Dude was just trying to indicate that Mr. Lessman's map is still in draft and we should not jump the gun and make it fait accompli by unilaterally inserting in the infobox (something which Mr. Lessman himself did not do). In any event, although I appreciate the Dude's efforts, it appears that Mr. Lessman's current map (aug 2, 2008) is in line with the historical and indeed archaelogical consensus. As far as I am concerned, it is the lead candidate for the infobox at this time.

In sum, unless the Dude has another map he would like to submit, the bulk of my concerns appear to be addressed by this current draft of Mr. Lessman's. Kudos to him for potentially brokering successfully one of the most intractable disputes on wikipedia.

Best Regards,

Devanampriya (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Calling the map a "Draft" probably isn't the best way for me to describe it. Is ANY map really anything more than a "draft" until more information can be found? There is a lot of information that is simply not available, and while no history map of this scale can be 100% accurate, I do rely on available information. This particular (Indo-Greeks_100bc.jpg) could work for now, until I get the map of 150 BC finished. (I believe that was around the height of the Indo-Greeks, under Menander). Thomas Lessman (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. I think we have a deal. It may have been unnecessarily rough sailing at times but the Shakespearean "All's well that ends well." may well apply here. Kudos to all participants and especially to Thomas for his great looking and well referenced maps. Dr.K. (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK all, I've finished my revisions to the East-Hem_100bc.jpg map, and have uploaded the new version of the Indo-Greeks_100bc.jpg map. No major changes since the last draft I put up, mainly changes in tribal names and locations. I will be happy to create a map of Indo-Greek lands in 150 BC eventually (along with a full East-Hem_150bc map). However that may take a while before I can get to it. Right now I need to get back to working on the 700 AD map updates. If anyone has any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask me! Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Thomas. Great job. The number legend is very clear. Can we also have a colour legend? Something like "blue=Indo-Greek Kingdom areas" "pink=unkown or whatever"? Also when you finish the other map let me know so I can create an animated gif map. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

New map proposal

Note:This proposal has nothing to do with the previous discussions for disputed maps

Since coins are our only secure data, I propose to create a map of findings of coins (not for use as a main map, as a complimentary map at the coins section). I understand that today data on location of findings of coins are probably not available, but I am leaving this proposal for the future. Maybe sometime, not so far from now, archaeologists and collectors might provide and publish coordinates or city names or other spatial data along with the presentation of their findings.--FocalPoint (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed. You'd find most hoards of Indo-Greek coins assembled by Senior (2004). If you wish to convert his hoard overview into an interactive map, I will be more than glad to assist you. Just drop a note on my user page. One problem is that there are stray finds elsewhere - one of Menander's coins popped up in Wales.Sponsianus (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Perfect then. We can write a new article under the title: "Indo-Greek-United Kingdom". Dr.K. (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom? Kingdoms?

Shouldn't the title of this article be "Indo-Greek Kingdoms"? There are more than one entity covered here. o (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good question, and it has been discussed earlier. Hellenistic kingship was principally largely personal (or at least dynastical) to its nature. A look at the earliest kings after Alexander, such as Demetrius Poliorcetes, confirms that kings could rule very disparate territories at different times, while having a continuous base only in their army/navy and their recognition from other kings. Eventually this was superceded by a more "national" view where a king ruled certain countries, but not fully. When it comes to the Indo-Greek kings, we know nothing of how they regarded their own state(s). Menander is mentioned by Plutarch as king of the Bactrians, which could mean that he saw himself as a Bactrian king in exile, or as king over the Bactrians in India, so that he did not see himself as an Indo-Greek king at all. Later Indo-Greek kings - after the fall of the proper Bactrian kingdom - issued coins for circulation in Bactria, which probably meant that they intended to be recognised as kings of Bactria.

It has become a custom that we regard the many kings outside the Hindu Kush as rulers of one Indo-Greek kingdom, just as we talk about one Seleucid Empire even though it was constantly divided during its last century. It seems likely that the more important Indo-Greek kings (as well as Eucratides I, who was king of Bactria) regarded themselves as overlords of the entire territory. Either way, there will be clashes between ancient and modern outlooks on kingship. Sponsianus (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your very insightful response. But for the purpose of the article, I think that it should be made clear whether the title "Indo-Greek Kingdom" refer to this quasi continuous state or it is used descriptively (or according to the "modern outlook" as you put it). The article seems to cover both, and as such I thought the plural kingdoms would be more appropriate. But perhaps your explanation here should go into the article as well. o (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I think it might be a good idea to keep the title but to clearly state in the introduction that in reality the kingdom was often split between different kings. It is after all possible to separate a line of major kings from Apollodotos I to Philoxenos, which is c. 180-110 BCE, in a relatively straight progression. The period c. 110-50 BCE was completely chaotic with a number of Indo-Greek and Scythian kings vying for power, and then there was again one small state in eastern Punjab until around the shift BCE/CE. If we accept for the sake of the argument that this last state was the successor of the 2nd century major kingdom, then the idea of one Indo-Greek kingdom, though temporarily divided, could stand.

Please don't make any such explanation too long, though. The article is already heavy with references to methodology. Sponsianus (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would still advocate Indo-Greeks, ducking the issue. We don't know what the relationship was between the various kings who appear to have reigned at the same time; in most cases, we know them only from coin finds, which convey hardly any constitutional information, and that by the most slender of inferences. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please change it if you wish, Septentrionalis. I would not object. After all, the article also covers the 3rd century BCE and earlier, when there was no Indo-Greek kingdom but perhaps a Greek presence outside the Hindu Kush. Sponsianus (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've entered a formal move request, since the target has been edited. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Two editors agree to the proposal, and another is uncomfortable with the present name, in the discussion immediately above.

• Indo-Greeks sounds like a reasonable title, given the problems with the present title of "Indo-Greek Kingdom". --Akhilleus (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Major Revisions?

Without pointing any fingers or blaming anyone, I admit that I find this article confusing and very inaccurate, at least according to the sources I've been using while researching for my world history maps. Also a lot of information is missing from this article (but is available in other sources) that can clear up a lot of this confusion.

For example, there were two main Indo-Greek dynasties, the Euthydemids and the Eucratidians - both of whom were Greco-Bactrian dynasties who lost their Bactrian homelands and were restricted to lands they had conquered in India. The Greco-Bactrian article now actually shows a decent section on the dynasties. is there any way we can emulate that in this article?

Another example: very little information is shown about the role played by the Parthians in the ends of both the Greco-Bactrian and the Indo-Greek kingdoms. It seems probable that the Parthians were in fact major players in the end of Greco-Bactria, and Mithridates I's eastern campaign in the 160s BC may well have led to the death of Eucratides I in battle (as opposed to his murder by a son).

I'll try to gather up some of the new sources I've been using and present them here for review by this article's editors. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do. (One problem, quite clearly, is that there have only been a handful of authors writing directly on this history, and a lot of tertiary sources citing them vaguely, without due indication of where the secondary author is speculating, and with a timelag. Please be careful.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Thomas Lessman,

I really appreciated the good work you did with the maps, but with all due respect, the sources you refer to are very probably outdated. We must realise that there are no literary sources at all for the Indo-Greek kings after Menander I, nor a single source that mentions the relationships between any of the Indo-Greek kings.

No current scholars do to my knowledge speak of Euthydemid and Eucratidian dynasties in the Indo-Greek kingdoms or have done so for a long time. Such speculative reconstructions were unfortunately created by serious scholars like Professor Tarn, whose main work on the subject dates back to the 1930s. Some of these speculations were challenged by AK Narain in the 1950s, but many of them were simply phased out without much debate when the forthgoing numismatic research revealed that many of the earlier datings of kings were incorrect. To take a single example: the idea that the Eucratidians were exiled from Bactria and remained in India is based on the assumption that the Bactrian king Heliokles (I) Dikaios and the Indian king Heliokles (II) Dikaios are the same. And despite their use of the same epithet and patron deity (Zeus), scholars are now certain that the Indian king was a later ruler.

Despite being now outdated, Tarn's and Narain's works have largely lacked successors, perhaps because the study is now focused on numismatics, which is not a major branch in historical studies. Many numismatists are indeed coin dealers by profession rather than academic historians. (Still, prof Bopearachchi whose work from 1991 is the last complete survey, is a professor at the Sorbonne.) Many editors of encyclopaedias, including of course historical atlases, have turned to Tarn and Narain who were respected historians published by major publishers. This is why these old references pop up now and again - as Septentrionalis so correctly points out!

Sometimes these editors repeat material that is unlikely, sometimes it is completely refuted by overstrikes, the only tool that can prove that one king was not later than (or contemporary with) an other ruler. I can sadly testify to the fact that even academic articles have been published which completely ignore such evidence.

When it comes to the Parthians, you are right that their role in the downfall of the Bactrian kingdom was probably important, and many sources mention their suzerainty there. But they probably had little to do with the collapse of the Indo-Greeks. A number of Scythian (Saka) kings gained influence over the western Indo-Greek realms after 100 BCE; this is very well attested from their coins with a number of overlapping monograms and coin types, and even known marriage alliances. In fact, several of the last Indo-Greek rulers may have been partly of Saka origin. The last Indo-Greeks ruled in eastern Punjab, which is far east of the Parhian sphere of interest, unless you refer to the so-called Indo-Parthians, but their heyday probably postdates the fall of the Indo-Greeks. There is a decent reference list on this article page, but if you want more specific reading tips I am welcome to give you such.

Kindly, Sponsianus (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Images for Deletion related to this article?

There are three Images for Deletion that may be related to this article, they are images uploaded by User:PHG, who has announced his possible retirement from editing, so he may not defend against the deletions. These are monograms from ancient coins, and such monograms are mentioned in this article. The deletion debates are at:

• Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_January_31#IGM15.jpg
• Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_January_31#IGM34.jpg
• Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_January_31#IGM67.jpg

If these images are considered possibly useful by any editor of this article, I may defend them against deletion, if I have time. Any editor, of course, may comment in the deletion debate. --Abd (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Now consolidated to Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_January_31#IGM15.jpg and related. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Map of Greco-Bactria in 150 BC

I've recently finished a draft map of "Greco-Bactria & the Indo-Greeks in 150 BC", which can be viewed (for now) at www.WorldHistoryMaps.info. It shows Greco-Bactria near the end of Eucratides' reign, and shows the Indo-Greeks in the early years of Menander's reign.

I think the only real "down-side" of the map is that it doesn't quite show either Empire at its actual greatest extent. For example, this was about 17 years after Mithridates I of Parthia took Herat and Merv from Greco-Bactria. Also, Menander was only a few years into his reign and hadn't yet begun his campaigns against the Sungas. Nevertheless, I believe the map will serve this article well because it depicts both the Greco-Bactrians and the Indo Greeks at a key point in their existence - shortly before Bactria was overrun by the Tochari (Yuezhi).

Anyway, please review the map of "Greco-Bactria & the Indo-Greeks in 150 BC", and let me know if it's acceptable for this article, etc. Thank you in advance, Thomas Lessman (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Good that you're working with the maps. Unfortunately, this one has some inaccuracies. First of all, Eukratides did never rule as far south as the Pakistan/Indian coast. His dominions south/east of Bactria were limited roughly to southern Afghanistan/the Kabul valley (which extends into Pakistan). The coast was held by the Indo-Greeks under Menander, but how much of it (and how tightly) is difficult to ascertain. Much of Pakistan west of the Indus valley (Gedrosia) was sparsely populated at that time. Second, no scholars today believe that Menander was a Euthydemid. Third, the site that you base your research on is held by an amateur mapmaker.

The perimeters of your map seem roughly correct. Why don't you simply name it "Bactrian/Indo-Greek dominions around 150 BC) and use two different hues with an overlap (preferrably SW/NE) in the Hindu Kush region, to represent the two kingdoms without giving exact borders? That would be roughly in accordance with the territories assigned to respective king in Bopearachchi's Monnaies.. (see reference list).

Kindly, Sponsianus (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Diodotus-I and Asoka

Ranajit Pal's observation that Diodotus-I was the great Ashoka has been deleted by the ignorant editor. This has been published in a widely acclaimed book (Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander, New Delhi-2002) and also in a peer-reviewed journal (Scholia, vol. 15, p. 78-101). This changes almost everything that is written about the indo-Greeks and may be the most important piece of information about them. The editor clearly does not have the background to understand its significance and gives undue importance to the work of mainstream writers who have failed to understand the indo-Greeks. See, however, the well-researched historyfiles.co.uk [4] and Historyhunters [5] which recognize Pal's work. The University of Utrecht, one of the oldest and most respected universities of Europe also recommends Pal's work [6]. The highly respected Bryn Mawr Classical Review (University of Pennsylvania) [7] also acclaims Pal's work on Ashoka and Diodotus-I. This clearly goes against the ideals of Jimmy Wales, the proud amateur who created the Wikipedia. He has always championed internet-enabled egalitarianism and has stressed the anti-credentialist approach to knowledge but editors such as the present one are stabbing him in the back. This is brigandry!

No, it isn't. First of all, the two web pages the anonymous author mentions are non-authorised. Bryn Mawr lets amateurs review history books, historyfiles is just an amateur site. Scholia is a minor journal, which is not at all specialised in this topic. It is complete and utter nonsense to claim that Diodotus I and Ashoka, two well-attested rulers of different territories, are the same. Unfortunately, there are such claims coming from Indian scholars such as Dr. Pal, perhaps an unfortunate penchant to the exaggerations of the western influence on India made by early British scholars. In both cases, an unfortunate nationalism. I can give the evidence that Pal's book is rubbish in detail, should anybody require them. Sponsianus (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Trade with China

I saw bamboo canes from Qiong and cloth (silk?) made in the province of Shu

the cloth is made from fibre of ramie, not silk.Gisbrother (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The initial map can to be criticized for one thing. Somehow they were linked with Alexandria by sea, we know from the treasures or not ?

--Andriolo (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)