User talk:Devanampriya/Archive 1

Kushan Empire

In the beginning of the article of the Kushans I made these changes but it gets erased I dont understand why. Can you please read my edits and see if it is fare:

The Kushan Empire (c. 1st–3rd centuries) of Ancient India[2] originally formed in Bactria on either side of the middle course of the Oxus River or Syr Darya in what is now northern Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The people known as Yuezhi were nomadic people forced from their homes in the Inner Asian steppes of Mongolia, slowly took over the Scythian lands and founded their own kingdom based from Afghanistan before considerably expanding into the gangetic plains. The Kushan warriors were assimilated into Indian society as Kshatriyas.

The Kushans controlled a critical part of the legendary Silk Road and was the crucible in trade between India, Persia, China and Rome. Kanishka, who reigned for two decades starting around 78 AD, was the most noteworthy Kushan ruler. He converted to Buddhism and convened a great Buddhist council in Kashmir. The Kushanas were patrons of Gandharan art, a synthesis between Greek and Indian styles, as well as Sanskrit literature. They initiated a new era called Shaka in 78 AD, and their calendar was formally recognized by India for civil purposes starting on March 22, 1957. They lost considerable amount of lands in central Asia in conflict with the Sassanid Empire who set up the Kushanshahs, and then in the gangetic plain to the rising Gupta Empire. The remnant was then usurped by a vassal establishing the Kidarite Kingdom.

Open tasks in History of India project

Just to update you on the current status of the project, here's a list of the current open tasks. Please contribute towards completing them, and feel free to add more to this list. deeptrivia (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Open tasks for History of India

[] Top priorities	[] Missing articles	[] Expansion
Gopala (mathematician) - The mathematician (see Talk:Gopala) South India - the Dravidian rulers		Gupta Empire Chola dynasty Pandyas Pallavas Serfoji II Battle of Buxar Chera Dynasties Daulat Khan Lodi Gautamiputra Satkarni Ahilyabai Holkar Pratihara Linguistic history of India Postal history of India Bhagat Singh Chittagong Armoury Raid Hindustan Socialist Republican Association Jai Singh II Ahom Gopala 1980 in India 1981 in India and so on. Haider Ali Kohari Osmanistan
[] Merges	[] Maps
	Routes, Wars, etc. Kamboja-Dvaravati Route Anglo-Maratha wars, based on [1] Anglo-Sikh wars, based on [2] Anglo-French wars (India), based on [3] Osmanistan, based on [4]
[] Recently Updated		[] Other requests
Created Rani Mangammal - Feb 14 Created Lakshman Sen - Feb 17 Edited and expanded Anushilan Samiti -Jul-Sept 2015		Pictures Timelines Linguistic history of India Stubs Try to get the number of stubs in Category:Indian_history_stubs down to <100 by either expanding them or merging them. History of the Travancore Dynasty NPOV Issues British Raj Company rule in India Indian Rebellion of 1857 Economic History of India Hemu Sino-Indian War More Research Needed Baji Rao I Neera Arya Wikibook - History Of India There are requests for authors to expand the Wikibooks on Indian history and religion.

Regarding the Indo-Greek Page

Hello Vastu,

Thank you for raising the topic of the map of the Indo-Greek kingdom with PHG. I have also been concerned about the possible misrepresentation of it (i.e. extent, whether Demetrius of Bactria was even on that side of Hindu Kush, etc)and have previously discussed it with him. While there is a dearth of maps online, the maps that I have seen in books to-date have been more conservative in treatment (at best utilizing arrows to denote the campaigns of Menander--which were not lasting), and rightfully so. There is, after all, very little certainty that we can apply to this period, and thus, this warrants cautious treatment and not wishful thinking. The main contributor to the page appears insistent on maximizing all possible Greek conquests and contributions on the subcontinent. While they undoubtedly had possessions in parts of South Asia (Afghanistan and the Trans-Indus) and contributions (coinage and art), even the recognized scholar in this subject would not treat the extent of these holdings with such certainty, dotted line or not (last I checked, Sassanid maps don't go to right upto the outskirts of Constantinople). I noticed that your correspondence with him ended about a month ago, but I do think this issue should be raised once more, as his map has been disseminated throughout the web. After all, this map isn't even a recognized one in the academic world, but one amateur historian's take on what kingdom looked like. Moreover, you will note that there is an insistence on reducing the domains of the Sungas even when there are literary references (which this contributor selectively relies on) and archeological evidence (inscriptions in Jalandhar) to point out periodic Sunga rule upto the Indus. Let me know what you think.

Regards,

Devanampriya

I agree with you, I was not very happy with his final deicision. If an Indo-Greek state had ruled that much of north India for a notable time, and not simply held it briefly in some territorial war, we would today no doubt have hellenic ruins scattered across India and Pakistan - yet the most there is is a couple of shrines. The historical sources that he has claimed are being taken at face value by PHG, when that period of history was not exactly well recorded, even by the Greeks. I think the Indo-Greek kingdom's borders were more along the lines of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom. Most importantly, while I am no cultural chauvenist, I find it annoying that his bold-border map has now circulated the internet and influenced many people into thinking India was dominated by some Hellenic state, when the reality is they havent left much more cultural impact than would have been gathered through trade. I support whatever you wish to do about it. It would be a good argument if you could describe the more conservative maps you have seen in hsitory books, and perhaps argue that a think lined border gives totally the worng impression when such books mearly mark vague campaigns - if you could scan a map from a book, that would be ideal Vastu 00:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

SSBATC 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Like all other Indian Communist Historians, Comrade Damodar Kosambi lacks credibility to an extent where he has been exposed not just for conjectures but also for outright falsification. Their integrity is infact even lower than the racist colonial historians. Leftist Historians are either committed crusaders or jihadi out not just to discredit Hinduism (i.e. Vedic Dharma or Sanatana Dharma) but to discredit if possible otherwise undermine Indian achievements; be it contemporary or ancient. History, with it's all the challenges of being accurate or factual, shouldn't atleast be reduced to motivated fiction. Please be so kind to rely on historians with some credibility. We don't have any credible evidence of Alexander (or his Greek protege who stayed over) being strongly challenged but fact is he gave up the holy mission of conquering the World (Ok 'Known World') for none too convincing reasons. Argue about dates (as also superiority of knowledge of Wikipedia Policies, only after factoring both above.

== Mauryan dates ==

Hello,
What source is being used for the dates of the Mauryan Empire and its emperors' reigns?

Because Roger Boesche[5] gives dates shifted four or five years later than those that appear in Wikipedia, i.e. Chandragupta Maurya (c. 317–293 BCE), Bindusara (c. 293–268 BCE) and Aśoka (c. 268–232 BCE).

Regards
CiteCop 01:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Devanampriya,

Thank you for your reply. (I'm totally digging your username by the way. Who better to ask about Mauryan dating than Devanampriya?) As luck has it, you happened to reply while I was in a library which has several of Kosambi's books. Here's what he says:

“ Candragupta Maurya's accession is placed somewhere about 320 B.C....Candragupta's son Bindusāra succeeded about the year 297 B.C.
Kosambi, Damodar Dharmanand [1956] (1975). An Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Revised Second Edition, Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 186. ”

“ Asoka (Sanskrit: Aśoka, 'sorrowless'), son of Bindusāra and grandson of Candragupta Maurya, assumed the imperial throne about 270 B.C.
Kosambi, Damodar Dharmanand (1965). Ancient India, New York: Pantheon Books, 157. ”

Kulke and Rothermund concur with Kosambi's date for Candragupta Maurya's accession.

“ Chandragupta seems to have usurped the throne of Magadha in 320 BC.
Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar [1986] (1998). A History of India, Third Edition, London: Routledge, 59. ”

However, the dates Kulke and Rothermund give for the reigns of Bindusāra and Aśoka agree with Boesche's.

“ Since at the time of Ashoka's accession to the throne in 268 BC the empire extended as far as present Karnataka, we may conclude that either Chandragupta or his son and successor Bindusara (c. 293 to 268 BC) had conquered these southern parts of India.
Kulke and Rothermund 1998:62 ”

What concerns me is that the works of Boesche and Kulke & Rothermund are more recent. The third edition of Kulke & Rothermund's History of India was published in 1998 and Boesche's work on the subject was published over 2002 and 2003.

Was there any development in the scholarship of Mauryan history since Kosambi that would have pushed the dates for the reigns of Bindusāra and Aśoka forward by four or five years?

Thank you again and best wishes,

CiteCop 03:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. John Marshall, writing in 1951, dates Bindusāra's

Hello Citecop,

   Thanks for the compliment. I must admit, I am a little enamored with the username myself. Anyhow, to answer your question, I presently am not aware of any such recent development. As you may know, it is often very difficult to construct a definite chronology in the annals of Indian history. Unfortunately, I no longer have ready access to sizeable libraries to do some research at this stage.  Perhaps at a later date I could do this topic more justice.  Based up on what I've read in Thapar's, Shastri's, and Kosambi's works though, that date seems the way to go. I think the date of 317 might be more appropriate for the Indian reconquest of Taxila (which you already have on the article). Seems like you have all of that and the macedonian denouement in Taxila documented in the article as well.
   An avenue to consider however, would be to refer to the works of Klaus Karttunen. I contacted a professor of Sanskrit and Indic studies a little while back to see if he could clarify some questions I had. He referred me to Klaus Karttunen, a finnish scholar, who is considered to currently be the foremost scholar on the greeks in India. Since you have access to what appears to be a research university library (seems like you're either a student or professor--if the latter, I apologize for my temerity), you might want to refer to "India and the Hellenistic World". It's a relatively recent work having been published in 1997. This might be of more help.  

Regards,

Devanampriya

Maurya Empire

Hi Devanampriya. I appreciate your contributions and editing, but please do not delete referenced material by well-known scholarly sources. Should you wish to balance their view with other scolarly material, you are very welcome. But please do not delete them just because you have different opinions. At Wikipedia, we are not supposed to decide what the truth is, rather we should report what various studies have been done on a given subject, and then let the reader decide for himself. Regards PHG 06:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Devanampriya. Very simply: it is not for us to decide which theory is right or wrong. A published analysis by a major writer has the right to be mentionned in a Wikipedia article, whether we like it or not, or whether we doubt its historical factuality. There is a great way for you to react to something you think is biased: do not erase the quote, or the reference (because it will still exist to the end of time), but do describe alternative theories and references. Most of the time, history is about a debate of opinions and interpretations, based on slim facts and clues fading into the past. Regards PHG 07:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger, if you haven't already done it, of violating the WP:3RR. Also, remember that removing sourced material is considered vandalism. Now it's up to you to chose: respect the rules, or continue breaking them and pay the consequences (that is, getting blocked).--Aldux 16:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 Do not attempt to intimidate me. I am fully aware of wikipedia's policies and so should you: the 3RR rule does not apply to simple vandalism, i.e. sneaky vandalism. Something you are now guilty of and have participated in on account of your friend PHG. I suggest that you desist on account of you being guilty of such violations; otherwise, perhaps you should prepare to "pay the consequences (that is, getting blocked)". If there is a discussion to be had, then let us discuss. I am more than willing to continue the discussion. Apparently, you are not. 
  As for PHG's additions, they are not to be considered on the main page of an history article for the same reasons that a eugenics theorist should not be included in a modern discussion of sociology: Accepted at one time and no longer accepted. If you accept eugenics as a legitimate theory worthy of being placed on a wikipedia sociology page, well then, we understand your motivations now.
  Also, I suggest that if you want to continue to be a responsible wikipedia user and contributor, that you check your tone. Your attempts to antagonize me and other users (something you have a track record of) are uncivil, irresponsible, and are not in line with the values of wikipedia.

Devanampriya

If they were speculating they should be rephrased in according to what they said, not deleted. See WP:V. —Khoikhoi 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Maurya Empire

Your repeated deletions of referenced historical theories from published historical sources (Tarn, Marshall...) just because you dislike them is quite a shame. Why don't you balance the argument with other referenced historical theories which would enrich the discussion? The point is that the facts on this period are only few and uncertain, and historical interpretations vary accordingly. You cannot delete those you dislike, and only keep the ones that accomodate your opinions PHG 19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

PHG,

   Your repeated efforts to bias historical articles to satisfy your philhellenism are disgusting and a travesty to the historical efforts on wikipedia. Even worse, are your attempts to slander those who justifiably oppose your efforts to construct false histories as ultra-nationalists (don't think I haven't seen your comments on other articles). Also, don't accuse me of deleting something because you think I dislike it. That passage must be deleted because it is sneaky vandalism. You took an off-discussion, baseless hypothesis, extrapolated it, and sought to have the Greeks appropriate Ashoka's legacy. You're guilty of sneaky vandalism. 
  First and foremost, do not mingle Tarn with Marshall. Tarn follows the tradition of the East India Company in masquerading western triumphalism as history. Second, you took Marshall's comments out of context. He clearly notes that it was just "a hypothesis with no facts or basis to support it". And around a fantasy in the case of one, and baseless hypothesis in the case of the other, you construct an entire history, making insinuation after insinuation. Moreover, you ignore indigenous sources that clearly account for the matter, in spite of the fact that those sources are accepted as mainsteam scholarly opinion. Accordingly, you use those very same sources as a means to launch a diatribe against the Sunga dynasty to boost the savior credentials of your indo-greeks. Make up your mind, PHG. Don't flip-flop...
   You talk about balance, but in article after article, you find any excuse to boost Greek references without studying the full matter (i.e. Indian astronomy, drama, Sungas, Satavahanas etc. displayed on the discussion pages). Even worse, if you think something might have greek influence, you don't rely on references, you rely on your own authority to brand it as a product of greek thought. Frankly, I have a tremendous respect for the Greeks, and one of my favorite empires is the Byzantine empire, so don't bother accusing me of being averse to them. I am concerned about historicity. Apparently, you're more concerned about conveying a certain biased viewpoint in history rather than stating the facts.   
   Why are you so passionate about this specific out-of-context comment? Because it helps portray your latter day Indo-Greeks as saviors and heirs rather than glory-hounds and usurpers? No one's denying Greek influence in Ancient India, but let's stick to the facts. You posit these as mainstream established facts, when even the most philhellenic and neo-colonial historical commentators recognized they're far-fetched and baseless. 
    It is precisely because facts are few and uncertain that one must be extremely careful as to how an historical article is constructed, and thus, must avoid interpretation and stick to the facts. You want to discuss theories, do what was done with the Chandragupta origin debate: create an article discussing theories. Don't put it on the main page that introduces people to these figures. We had this discussion before about the Indo-Greek map, and the net result was that you recognized that you were wrong and that other contributors, such as Vastu, are more concerned about the facts rather than opinion. So you accepted the change. Your aggrandized map was inaccurate and had to be corrected. Accordingly, your unfortunate fiction was improperly sourced and inaccurate, and so, had to be deleted. 
   My concern is that these efforts of yours taint the perspective and understanding of readers about this period of history, something you seem to be keen on accomplishing. I am, as always, open to continued discussion so that we can work through the matter. I still believe we can move forward to establish this as a featured article, but only if you're willing to consider the realities of a valid argument instead of just your own conceits.

Regards,

Devanampriya

Hi Dev,

Overall, I simply have a passion for giving the Greeks in India their fair share of history. All I write is referenced and based on recognized, published material, although it is often not "general knowledge" to many people. But it is one of the great things with Wikipedia that we can go to an extreme level of detail on very narrow and obscure subjects.

Regarding the Indo-Greek map, I only made a concession to Vastu's and other's sensitivity on the subject, because all Indian or Greek sources do point to occupation of Pataliputra for several years. If you tease me into it I will gladly go back to the original map.

Now on Tarn and Mashall, could you give me your reference for his saying that it is "a hypothesis with no facts or basis to support it". Because I have his work on Taxila in 3 volumes, and he says clearly: "The Seleucid and Maurya lines were connected by the marriage of Seleucus' daughter (or niece) either to Chandragupta or his son Bindusara" (p20).

And please stop calling "vandalism" or "falsification" the simple quoting of historical sources. This does not reflect on you very favourably. Regards PHG 21:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi P,

  What's apparent is that you have a passion for exaggeration and not historical accuracy, as proven by many poorly submitted edits on your part. Also, it is not general knowledge to people, because you use extreme colonial sources such as Tarn that first constructed opinions and searched for theories to base them on. That does not make them mainstream. As for Marshall, kudos on owning 3 volumes, perhaps you should have taken care when actually referencing him since your quote on the Ashoka page clearly mentions that it was a hypothesis. Good job.
 Regarding the map, you don't need to make empty threats as you only betray your own biases. I have no problem starting that whole debate all over again. Also, stop exaggerating. All the indian and greek sources do not point to an occupation of pataliputra, in fact none of them do (so, perhaps you should actually read what you post). You took puranic prophecies (how is that history?) that only make reference to a siege and european quotes that mention that they went to Pataliputra--no mention there. So where my fantasizing friend is such a multi-year  occupation mentioned?
 Wikipedia is indeed a great tool, which sadly can be abused by individuals with an agenda, such as yourself. You can go to an extreme level of detail to take liberties on such issues as you see fit. Unfortunately, that does not make it history. 
 Lastly, stop taking primary and secondary source quotes out of context and interpreting them falsely as this does not reflect favorably upon you. If your concern is historicity, then consider my solution to this issue mentioned previously: create a separate page for origin theories along the lines of Chandragupta Maurya and include opinion to your heart's content; otherwise, your own biases remain apparent, much to wikipedia's misfortune.

Regards,

Devanampriya

I guess you want the stuff about possible links to him having Greek heritage deleted as you don't think that is the case? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Devanampriya,

So you are inventing references now. You wrote "You took Marshall's comments out of context. He clearly notes that it was just "a hypothesis with no facts or basis to support it"." Marshall never ever wrote that, you are unable to provide a source, and you actually made a paraphrase of something I wrote: "This remains an hypothesis as there are no known more detailed descriptions of the exact nature of the marital alliance" to balance the argument. I am afraid you are being dishonest: it is clear that you are inventing quotes, falsifying them, and vandalizing other's contributions. PHG 05:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

PS1: The Yuga Purana is not considered as a prophecy, but as a 3rd century account (about 5 centuries after the events described took place) written in the form of a prophecy (a traditional literary form in the Puranas). It is considered as an important historical document: "The Yuga-Purana is unique in being the only Indian text that refers in any detail to Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian incursions into Central India. It also contains what is almost certainly the earliest account of the four Yugas—the ages of man—in a form that was later adopted by both the Mahabharata and the Puranas. It is thus a key text for the study of both a period of early Indian history and the evolution of Indian ideas of time." (Jacket of the English translation, The Yuga Purana, 2002 edition). It also says the Yavanas pulled down the walls of Pataliputra and ruled there for a while ("in the city the Yavanas, the princes, will make this people acquainted with them"), instituting a new order. PHG 06:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

PS2: Why do you qualify as "Maurya Empire slander" the suggestion that they intermarried with Greeks? Could you tell me what is injurious with the notion that Greeks and Indians Dynasties could intermarry? Is it some kind of racism? PHG 06:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

PHG,

   To respond to your typical myriad of accusations, first and foremost, the "slander" was referring to your typical habit of slandering other points of view, either directly, or through your thug aldux. And given your quest to appropriate anything and everything Indian and credit them to the Greeks, you are the one who is racist. 
   Second of all, irrespective of the statement, you present Marshall's hypothesis as the the predominant perspective. If anything, the lead argument should be the mainstream perspective, not a colonial theory. Most importantly, I'm not misapplying quotes on wikipedia articles, you are,which is why you continue to take out-of-context quotes from primary sources, and interpret them not as mainstream scholars have, but in a way you see fit. Considering the liberties you've taken by appointing yourself the authority on coinage, art, and architecture without considering actual mainstream scholarship, I don't believe you're in a position to accuse me of such things. Your work on the astronomy section is yet another classic example of your blanket insinuations, i.e. sneak vandalism.
  Lastly, where are these exact statements about Ashoka's parentage? To say that the Mauryas who had descendants that were part greek either on account of minor wives and concubines is one thing, but to posit your self-sourced theory about Ashoka is another. You took the most out-of-the-way and far fetched theory and foisted it as the accepted account. The mainstream, not fringe perpective, is that his mother was a brahmin woman, and at the very list should be the first and dominant account, since these are so passionately applied by you to discredit the Sungas. As such, it appears that you are the one who is guilty of falsifying references and committing vandalism on articles.
  To conclude, you've displayed your ignorance of indian history and your predilection for greek aggrandizement repeatedly. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me. It seems you are not interested in the wikipedia aims of accuracy and community harmony, but in your own sad apotheosis in wikipedia through misapplying quotes and reinterpreting primary sources. Again, I will clearly restate a more than fair compromise along the lines of the Chandragupta Maurya ancestry debate: creation of a separate page for your laundry list of colonial theories so that users can get the most accurate account of Ashoka's life on the main page. Indian history has already been twisted and adulterated by many pseudo-historians, you don't need to make things worse.

Devanampriya

PS1: The Yuga Purana, like the other Puranas (including the Kali Yuga Puranas of which it is a part of), have not all been properly dated. Much like the Natyashastra of Bharata and the Arthashastra of Kautilya (which vary by several hundred years, if not more), dates for ancient texts such as the Mahabharata, Puranas, and Vedas have run the gamut. As such, do not assert yourself as the authority on this account when discrepancies are far too great, and that it's "classic puranic style" as if you have translated all of these yourself. Also, way to interpret things in your own fashion again "instituting a new order". State the quote and leave at that, or quote the author's statement. This is exactly what I've been talking about. It's called sneaky vandalism--something of which you've been repeatedly guilty.

Response to PS2: Already responded to your ridiculous statement above. Perhaps you should sign on with David Duke and other pseudo-historians bent on appropriating other cultures to suit your own conceits.

Devanampriya,

I am through with this. You are dishonest (your fabrication of the Marshall quote above), and biased (your refusal of referenced historical theories you dislike). Both are simply against the Wikipedia code of conduct. PHG 19:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

PHG,

Fine by me. Ironically, it is you who is dishonest (interpreting quotes as you like and making false statements on ARTICLES i.e. Indian Astronomy) and biased (noting your own desire to discuss Greeks everywhere, as noted by your own philhellenism. See Devanampriya Talk Page--don't worry, it's properly sourced). I may have misread your citation on Marshall and noted it during our debate on a DISCUSSION PAGE, but I definitely did not post it on an ARTICLE, that is something that you did, repeatedly, on many, many articles. Unlike you, I prize accuracy in the actual work. Your sneaky vandalism and inability to present history factually make you a detriment to Wikipedia's aims of accuracy and community harmony.

You keep citing my bias, where is it? Demonstrate it? I have always sought accuracy in article statements and representation. You by your own words "simply have a passion for giving the Greeks in India their fair share of history", not accuracy. So can the attitude and correct yourself first.

Many times a solution was suggested(in spite of your extreme accusations), and many times you ignored it. The wikipedia community will be the judge.

Devanampriya

WP:NPA

Pleas mind NPA. I noticed that in a post on Talk:Maurya Empire, you referred to aldux as a thug. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ashoka and Maurya

Hi Devanampriya. Just take it easy. It was rather unfortunately worded, but from my passing experience of Aldux in the past he is interested in finding out more about history of the information. I don't support the excising of the information, but I feel we should get more info from Buddhist oriented sources or Jain sources to make it bigger. Because it does seem as though there is not much detail about Ashoka and Buddhism and Ashoka the conqueror, and the same in the Maurya Empire - at the moment there is lots of information about the Greek connection, which inherently there is nothing wrong, but it may give the impression that Ashoka was a Greek reprentative or something - it just feels a bit too oriented on his bloodline and not what he nor the Mauryans achieved. In any case it was interesting that I got Mahinda (his son, who brought Buddhism to Sri Lanka) and Moggaliputta-Tissa (his spiritual adviser) to DYK in the week leading up to the locking - could we put more stuff about Buddhism into the articles to balance it out as well as his stuff about the Kalinga conquest etc. The Greek stuff is still interesting of course and I don't see a reason to cull it unless there is POV or weaselly stuff compromising it. Anything this old, of course cannot be certain, so as long as we give both a fair hearing then it should work out OK. This could be an interesting case as I am interested in learning more about Asoka. Perhaps I can find more about his Indian activity (religion and miltary) to balance it out. Tell me what you think. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

gupta empire

which changes are you talking about. Can you be specific. Or better, provide the concerned differences. Thanks.nids(♂) 09:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Because with your change, the colour of the link changed to red as there was no existing page for those names. You can check by going to the previous version.nids(♂) 14:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi Devanampriya, Welcome back. I have reincorporated some of your edits into the Indo-Greek article, but please be careful not to detroy pre-existing material when you edit (numerous images, previous modifcations etc... had disapeared). Let's also remember that Wikipedia is not about one view prevailing over another, but rather about balancing views. Regards PHG 08:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Devanampriya, I would be interested to known more about the theory according to which Kharavela would be connected with Vima Kadphises in the Hathigumpta inscription. This seems impossible to me as Vima is clearly established in the 1st-2nd centuries CE, within the Kushan lineage, and on the contrary Kharavela is associated to Satakarni, also a 2nd century BCE rulers. Would you have some sources and quotes? Regards PHG 07:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Maurya Empire

I am not taking issue with the fact that you are removing a language from the page and replacing the "languages" blurb with an "administrative languages" blurb. What constitutes vandalism is the repeated removal of large sections of text- multiple paragraphs at a time- from sections such as "Background". Furthermore, it would be more appropriate to move the two languages you continue to cite to an "Administrative Languages" blurb, and include the rest of the languages beneath that in a blurb called, "Other Languages", or something to that effect.

Your version of the page removes the following sections from the article in their entirety:

• Background
• Chanakya and Chandragupta Maurya
• Conquest of Magadha
• Emperor Chandragupta

That's why we keep on reverting it. Blanket removal of information from a Wikipedia article constitutes vandalism. You make it sound as though all you are doing is removing Aramaic from the article; this is not the case. If you continue to remove major portions of the article, I will be forced to report you to WP:AIV, which is something I very much do not want to do. Please make the article a collaborative work and stop misleading other editors with your edit summaries. --Moralis 05:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Indo-Greek Kingdom

Look Devanampriya, you are doing the same thing with Indo-Greek Kingdom, that is while you say in the edit summaries that you just want to put the old map back, while you have deleted tons of info, including many images. Please understand that such behaviour is unacceptable, and goes under WP:VAND (absolutely no menace meant). If you don't like the map, than just remove that one and put the previous map in its place (I, for one, don't have any problem with either).--Aldux 16:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock-puppetting

Hi Devanampriya. It seems you are playing with long-on/log-off edits (with the DNS adress 70.162.50.66), as in here. This is called sock pupetting, it is an unfair behaviour, which, besides, can lead to account suspension. PHG 21:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

PHG,

What the heck are you talking about? Before you bandy about such charges, why don't you do some real research on the actual article content. It's not even the same IP address. If some other fellow makes a change, what does it have to do with me? Why don't you spend less time on conspiracy theories, which you seem more interested in focusing on, and more time on doing real research. Indeed, your behavior is becoming increasingly unseemly. Put a sock in it. (Source)

Regards,

Devanampriya

Really? So what is this edit today, where you mixed up your login, and edited under 70.162.50.66 but signed "Devanampriya"? (here). The editorial content and mis-formatting are also characteristically yours, and furthermore this edit is synchronous by a few minutes with your other single edit of the day, this time under your account name Devanampriya (here). PHG 18:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm yeah, but I have no control over family members who were irritated by the map, aren't regular contributors, and made changes on their own with my internet connection. If that was my plan, PHG, sock puppeting would be going on as we speak and with greater frequency and impact. But it's not, and as you very well know, I've been using the same account for over a year, arguing the same old points, all while respecting the 3RR rule. So why don't you focus back on the issues, especially since you violate some of the very rules you argue for. i.e making changes on the article page instead of posting it on discussion first, which is what set this edit-war off in the first place.

You chided windy city dude for uploading his map directly, but did not consult other indo greek article editors when you put up your revised menander map directly onto the page.

So correct yourself instead of accusing others, and let's focus on the issues...

Devanampriya

Devanampriya. What do you mean? You now have familly members who sign with your name and argue on the same lines as you, with the same editing blunders, without your knowing? This is nonsense. Not only do you sock-pupet, you are also a blatant liar and edit in bad faith (reactions above). This is quite dishonest, this is akin to vandalism, and I don't think anybody can respect your edits when you behave like that.

Regarding the map, it is normal to continue making edits to improve it. When I agreed, against my best opinion, on Vastu's map, I wrote "Let's put it in the article and see for a while how it feels.". It stayed there for 3 months, and I further modified indeed to fit with the article content. But why should I argue with a dishonest editor? PHG 06:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Devanampriya, please listen, because this will be the last warning you will receive. You have a long pattern of uncivility towards other editors, and the only reason I don't block you after your last post is because also PHG has violated WP:CIV. Again, remember: at the next violation, you will be blocked without any previous warning. And BTW, I don't know of the last IPs in question, but you certainly have edited previously, some of which bear your signature; and a tip from a user who regularly deals with sockpuppetry cases: the "family member" argument has never brought much luck to those who advanced it.--Aldux 15:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sindhi Rulers

Hi there ,it would be great if u can contribute on that page.Looking forward

Khalidkhoso 17:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Calm down!

Hi Devan no need to get volatile on me and this isn't the first time:

(RV - Umm, not using opinion. Using "Age of the Nandas and Mauryas" by Nilakantha Shastri. Greek and Aramaic were not the predominant languages of the Northwest, let's not imply that they were.)

Perhaps if you were more diplomatic, more people may value your opinion. I hope you need not be so confrontational in future.

Regards ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 16:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

Hello Giani G,

Umm, I don't know why you think there was anything confrontational or volatile about my post, but rest assured that it is not. It is unfortunate that you saw it in such terms. For future reference, it would be diplomatic to clarify a post first before attempting an escalation.

If you would like to be party to a constructive dialogue, I am more than happy to oblige; however, please avoid the usage of ad hominem attacks so that we avoid lowering the debate and focus on the issues. Have care.

Hi Devan,

I only said that as your tone seems provocative at times especially when you use phrases such as "ummm yeh" or just blatantly deride someone elses edit as convoluted or ridiculous. I hope you understand and help contribute to the articles here. Regards, ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 13:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Hello Giani G,

I am glad we understand each other now. I assure you, it is not my intention to sound like Lumberg from office space. The "umm" is on account of confusion with some of the curious charges that are often levelled by yourself or your counterpart. Regardless, I am confident that we can move forward productively to improve these articles. If you have any questions regarding the subject matter, feel free to bring them up on my discussion page.

Regards,

Devanampriya

Deletion of sources

Please refrain from deleting sources you dislike, as in here. Rather, bring alternative sources to balance the argument. I also suggest you source your own edits, something you almost never do. PHG 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

PHG,

Considering your long track record of "weasel words" and pov issues, you're not really in a position to preach. Provide reputable sources and insert recognized and verifiable facts--not crackpot theories--and deletions will cease. Your cooperation would be appreciated.

Regards,

Devanampriya 05:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Indo-Greek map

Hello Devanampriya!

Thanks for your kind words. Regarding the map: as I mentioned in a previous post, historical maps are seldom objective: they are tendentious. One tendency is to show a development at its apogee. For instance, when depicting the conquests of the early Caliphate, I have seen maps with an arrow pointing at Rome (Arab pirates raided Ostia). So the map tells us: at its maximum, the Arab tide reached even Rome.

However: at all other times, it didn't. Modern scholars seem more aware of such imbalanced statements and tend to give vaguer maps - much to the frustration of amateurs like myself who like these spectacular questions: "What was the maximum extent of this and that empire?" "How far east did the Greeks really reach?" Wikipedia is filled with such detailed and usually old maps, mostly because there is no copyright on them.

The aforementioned Caliphate map was found in the same work "Atlas der Welt Geschichte", as the Indo-Greek map that I have sent PHG a scan of. He said he will rework a non-copyright version. But this map does in fact support your criticism to some extent: the Indo-Greek kingdom is restricted to Mathura and the attack on Pataliputra is marked as a mere arrow.

I agree that the obsolete interpretations to this attack (which clearly took place under Menander, not Demetrios I) should be removed. But since there is uncertainty, the arrows ought to remain. And the embassies: why object to them? Maps often give such curiousities and these journeys were definitely fascinating.

While the "Geschichte" map might also be subjective, it is based on the ancient sources and much better than some of the nonsensical suggestions which emerged: for instance one version where the capital Sagala was placed at the very eastern border.

Even though PHG might have broken a consensus, I can understand if he is frustrated with some of the contributors. Windy City Dude revamped the map completely, and when PHG asked him if his version had taken in account Strabon and Polybios WCD answered that he had not "heard of them..so much". Really!

As for the Hathigumpa inscription, the king was explicitly described as a Yavana. To read in Vima or Vimaka, who were not Yavanas, seems rather forced when Amyntas (A-mi-ta) is such a suitable candidate, in time as well as place. The coins of Amyntas - and several other later kings - have been found in substantial amounts in eastern Punjab, even in the Sonipat hoard outside New Delhi, which is even further east than Punjab. The Indo-Greeks very likely held Mathura to after 100 BCE. Coins of Apollodotos II, an even later king, and his son (?) Dionysios, have been found in Sindh, indicating an even later presence there. There are generally few coins found in Sindh due to the flow of the Indus which eventually rinses everything into the sea.

The "threat" to the longevity of the Indo-Greek kingdom in these days does IMHO not come from lack of evidence of what territories they held, but from questions of the ethnicity of the kings. Artemidoros was a Saka, Hermaios quite possibly as well, and the finding of the coin of Nastenes show that also Iranian could adhere to Greek coin standards. Best regards Sponsianus 11:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Devanampriya!

Thanks for this detailed post, which included some valuable information that was quite new to me.

Hello Sponsianus, Great to hear back from you! I definitely appreciate your words and insights. Perhaps they can help us resolve this issue for good. Very quickly, a few responses to your points above: 1. Regarding maps in general-I agree, mapmaking can be a tendentious issue. I cannot justify a caliphate map, esp one which I have not seen; however, since issue was taken with this, and it comes from the same German Atlas, perhaps we could use another source for our Indo-Greek Map. 2. Regarding Pataliputra- I do believe the consensus map did just that--showed an arrow leading to Pataliputra. However, PHG unilaterally elected to change that and imposed his original research and interpretation on that map by enveloping the entire Gangetic plain. I am fine with a simple arrow going there--given the debate--but I do wish to bring up a number of points given the application of hindu texts to this question. a. Yavanas, as Indian scriptures and records both attest, was applied not just to the greeks, but many different foreigners ranging from the greeks to the arabs and the turks.

Sponsianus: I am not very familiar with Indian sources, and have to take your word for this. However, the Wikipedia page provides several examples when Indians during antiquity used the term in a manner which can certainly only mean the Greeks. The Arabs inherited the Greek trade routes from Egypt to India – it is quite possible that the term Yavana posthumously came to refer to sea-farers from the west, just as “Rus” was the name of the viking travellers in the east and then was transferred to a Slavic people (Russians).

As such, we must be cautious in our interpretation. Moreover, the Gautamiputra ( a second century ce figure) is noted as being a destroyer of Shakas, Yavanas, and Pahlavas. There is no mention of the Kushanas, who dominated North India during this period. This of course would lead to the logical supposition that he was referring to the Kushans--who employed greeks as both artisans and soldiers, and not to mention, took on aspects of Greek culture themselves. This would leave open the possibility of Hathigumpha referring to a Kushana. I am not saying this is an absolute truth. I'm just saying that the potential exists. The Kushans, of course, having actual historical evidence (rabatak, etc) indicating their rule and reach extended that far into eastern India.

Sponsianus: This is true, but neither are the Kushanas mentioned in Chinese sources under that name – IIRC they call the Tochars as well as the Kushanas the Yüeh-chi. Nomad entities are often known under several names, and the quote above mentions Sakas (Scythians) which is a term for nomad people that certainly includes the Kushans in its wider sense.

The “proper” Sakas (i.e. the Indo-Scythian tribes such as those of Maues, Azes etc, who at this period were probably long absorbed by the Kushanas) were in fact more hellenised than the Kushanas, so it seems odd that these should not be included in the term Yavanas if the Kushanas were.

In this inscription, Shakas probably refers to tribes of nomad ancestry and Yavanas to a (certainly very Indianised) remnant of Indo-Greek settlers in Indian cities. This dichotomy between nomad warriors and urban citizens is well known from other naturalised nomad kingdoms, such as the Liao and Jin states in China. The Pahlavi were the (Indo-)Parthians, I assume?

b. The King Sagara-an ancestor of the God King Rama--is credited with defeating the usual host of tribes mentioned (including the Yavanas). Now, liberal Hindu calendar estimates aside, even if we interpret this under the framework of the AIT, we are at the very least looking at the epic age for such a figure( so roughly 800s BCE), and of course, much further back according to some Indian historians. Given this, are we to interpret that the Greeks were in that part of the world that far back? After all, the exile of Ionians by the Achaemenids would at the very earliest have taken place in the 6th century BCE. This is the reason why I have been advising caution in the interpretations of hindu texts, be it the Mahabharata, Ramayana, or the Yuga Purana.

Sponsianus: Most interesting and all new to me, but are these sources credibly dated to before the Hellenistic period? Mythological kings are often credited with purging the country of various foreign invaders, no matter the historical accuracy.

3. Regarding the current map-I don't necessarily see the point of highlighting embassies; after all, the pandyas and the kushans also sent embassies to Rome (I don't recall any map showing that). Nevertheless, this is not a priority in my book given the use of circles. Previously, PHG was using arrows to demonstrate that--which could be misunderstood for military campaigns. That is why the matter was brought up.

4. Regarding the current map proposal-It takes far too many liberties with the writings of strabo and polybios. Narain himself raised this points, and this map has the Indo Greeks reaching into Madhya Pradesh and the Konkan--something which cannot be justified. Narain raised questions about how Tarn interpreted Ozene to be Ujjain and the reason for its listing as a conquered city was because of spelling (see Narain Indo Greeks). The same point applied to Gujarat. And, we should note , Saurashtra refers to the peninsular region of Gujarat, and not the border regions of maharashtra. What proof is there that they captured Ujjain and Bharhut?

Sponsianus: I agree that the south-eastern parts of the Indo-Greek conquests seem less motivated than those in the north (Mathura). Also, the “Atlas der Welt Geschichte” map was actually striped for Indo-Greek territory, full colour only for the original Bactrian kingdom. It was however based on the outdated model that all conquests took place under the long reign of Demetrios I, supported by Menander as a sub-king.

That map is indeed not perfect, but I have not seen any better original work. I could mail it to you so you can see for yourself.

5. Regarding coin hoards and Mathura-While large hoards of indo greek coins have been found in various parts of Northern and Western India, given the commercial nature of this civilization, we must again be careful with how we interpret this. After all, Menander's coins were found as far as Britain and hoards of Roman coins were found in the Deccan, and we cannot seriously say that both kingdoms extended that far. I believe this applies to mathura as well. I am not denying that the Indo Greeks could have captured Mathura. However, I am saying that we cannot ascertain this beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, there definitely is a chance that Mathura, as with Panchala, was an independent vassal kingdom of the Sungas.

Sponsianus: The nature of the hoard finds in eastern Punjab seems to me to support that the Indo-Greeks indeed held this territory as their own for a long time. Single coins is one thing – but this evidence is far more numerous.

Take the Ambala hoard from just north of New Delhi: it contains only Indo-Greek coins of Antimachus II, Menander I, Strato I, Artemidoros, Hermaios, Apollodotos II and Hippostratos. Those rulers span more than a century! Why didn’t whoever buried that hoard include any coins of the actual rulers of Ambala if these were not Indo-Greeks?

As a contrast, a hoard found in Mathura contains only coins of Strato I. Surely this indicates that the owner was on the payroll of Strato, probably as a soldier. A merchant would have gathered a more mixed hoard.

The majority of Indo-Greek coins found in Punjab were smaller denominations – mostly Indian drachms, which were lighter than the Attic standard. This indicates that we are not dealing with tribute, which would not have been paid in petty cash. Several later Indo-Greek kings issued magnificent Attic tetradrachms without Kharoshti inscriptions. These coins are invariably found in Bactria and were no doubt used exclusively for dealings with the nomads there.

Menander's British coin is indeed a story worthy of its own Wikipedia page. But perhaps not sufficient proof of an Indo-Greek invasion, especially since it was found in Tenby in Wales.

6. Regarding your point about ethnicity-I 100% agree! That was one of the questions raised by Narain. These were not pureblooded greeks who were in a bactrian bubble before rolling into India. They of course intermarried with the local population and took on aspects of bactrian/persian culture as well. However, that does not mean that the "threat" to the longevity and extent was on that count. There are very valid questions about the nature of and extent of Indo Greek rule in India. As you yourself noted, the certitude of Tarn has diminished into uncertainty.

Sponsianus: Strange enough, Rawlinson, who wrote the first Bactrian history around 1910, seems to think that even kings as early as Agathocles were more or less Indians posing as Greeks. He writes of Menander: “His features are coarse, and do not appear to be those of a man of pure Hellenic descents.” This is of course nonsense as well, but it is fascinating that the development has gone full circle.

7. Regarding other factors-Narain points out that there is too often a heuristic engrained in approaches to this period that this was a zero sum game between the Indo Greeks and the Sungas. We do not appropriately account for other polities and tribes. The panchalas and mathuras (mentioned in the yuga purana) were seeminly independent according to this interpretation. Moreover, we have the Yaudheyas in western India and the Satavahanas in the Deccan and Central India. These were all trading peoples who would have exchanged goods and gold with their Greek neighbors. I noticed that the Satavahanas were not provided with the same benefit extended to the Greeks, as we have confirmation of Andhra rule in Gujarat and Central India, and they successfully invaded Magadha.

Sponsianus: Nevertheless, Menander I is singled out in both eastern and western sources as a great conqueror. The modern chronology places Menander as a considerably later king than Demetrios I, and most likely Menander’s conquests did not begin until after 150 BCE, when the menace of Eucratides I had disappeared. And by this period, there existed already a substantial Indo-Greek kingdom, as the numerous coins of Apollodotos I indicate. This provides us with an additional indication of the Greek expansion into India.

Because while the outdated chronology allowed us to look at Menander’s conquests in the same context as the initial invasion of Pushkalavati, Arachosia and Gandhara, we now must assume that his territorial gains begun from a base in Punjab. Hence, Menander’s expansion – if it was historical at all – must have cut deep into the Indian heartland.

My personal view is that the fact that Menander was remembered at all, along with his immense output of coins, could indicate that the Indo-Greek kingdom was briefly the vast empire that Strabon describes. But as said, I agree that the southern extensions of the map are possibly exagerrated.

8. Regarding the German map-Since subjectivities are again an issue, that is why I recommend the map that Windy City Dude brought up (Oxford map). His lack of depth in the topic aside, the Dude provided us with a published work with the most accurate presentation of the Indo Greek Kingdom—free from debate. On the point of Sialkot, as Narain (who I must again reference on account of his original critique of the existing framework) points out, we have no clear evidence that Sakala was in fact the capital city of Menander. After all, the Divyavadana credits Pushyamitra's rule extending as far as that city.

Sponsianus: The Milindapanha begins by stating that “Milinda was the king in the city of Sagala”. Why should it claim that, if Menander for instance had Taxila as his capital? And the chronological shift works here as well: if Menander’s rule began in 155 BCE, Pushyamitra might well have ruled the city during the earlier part of his reign.

Anyway, the map Windy City Dude suggested is an overview of various powers in northern India for about half a millenium. However well respected the source, a map of that type does not focus on details. The map equalled the Indo-Greek and the Graeco-Bactrian kingdoms – that alone should disqualify it for use here. And it was earlier (1949) than Atlas der Welt Geschichte.

I am not saying that I necessarily subscribe to Narain's point, but that the versions proposed by previous wiki contributors may not be so ridiculous after all. While I know that PHG's complaint was that Windy City Dude has not read polybios or strabo, PHG was also mischaracterizing Narain's work--a seminal work which he had not read! Nevertheless, this is minutiae. My point here is that we can address these various scenarios in the article; however, the map itself, because of its proliferation on the web, should be representative of modern scholarship in the interest of accuracy. We should have a map that we call agree represents Indo greek holdings beyond a reasonable doubt. All subsequent scenarios, theories, and possibilities should be addressed on the actual article. While I think we appeared to have solved one issue (namely with the campaign arrow to Pataliputra), I believe we have exacerbated another. The extension into the northern deccan and central India cannot be supported with current evidence. After all, the Satavahanas lost those regions not to the Indo Greeks but to the Shakas. If you believe otherwise, could you please refer me to the evidence that proves it is so? On the question of Mathura. My responses above raised some concerns about its inclusion; in the interests of resolution, and since this was, by PHG's admission, a shorter term expansion if it did happen (back in Indian hands by 100BCE and taken by Menander ca 130s), perhaps you could suggest some sort of compromise here.

Sponsianus: No, the thirty years are based on a misdating of Straton I, who was certainly not the son of Menander I (another one of Tarn’s assumptions, unfortunately repeated by Bopearachchi) and as mentioned had his coins found in Mathura. Straton I (who may in fact be two kings) ruled perhaps until the 80s BCE, and there are as mentioned coins of other late kings found even further east.

That is why the interpretation that Amyntas was the king of the Hathigumpa inscription makes so much sense. Amyntas was the last ruler whose coins are found both in Bactria and Punjab. Mathura might well have been in Greek hands until Apollodotos II (c. 80-60 BC), who in fact was one of the most important kings, even though his rule was exclusively east of the Indus.

The later chronology is indeed in need of some serious re-arranging: PHG has worked according to Bopearachchi, for lack of better comprehensive works on the topic, but Straton has to be altered sooner or later for he is distorting the entire later history. Some of my own earlier speculations based on this must be removed as well. Perhaps a newer revision could be based on Robert Senior's "End of the Indo-Greeks".

Best regards Sponsianus 01:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

PS If you haven't already, you should check out the Yahoo Hellenistica group where there are very interesting discussions on the Indo-Greeks. I am egil4870. DS

Indo-Greeks: summary

Hello again Devanampriya!

First of all a technical question: Some of your posts, at least on my browser, tend to come out as boxes with an elongated single line. Do you know why this is the case?

A. The map I hope you received the map from Atlas der Welt Geschichte. As you can see, it uses striped purple lines for the Indo-Greek kingdom, whole colour for the Bactrian kingdom. Arachosia is marked as belonging to the latter, which probably was true in 174 BC, the date the map is centered around.

However, this Atlas frequently uses the striped lines to represent disputed territory. Perhaps I should have told PHG this, for the representation is perhaps somewhat ambiguous. The southern parts are certainly meant to represent the kingdoms of Saraostus, and Sigerdis.

The part which I think you may be correct to doubt is the territory around Udschein (Ujjain). However,Ozene should be the same city like Tarn says, since Periplus states that Ozene lies "inland and east" of Barygaza just like Ujjain does.

Nevertheless, the Periplus does not mention Greek influence there, only in Barygaza where coins with symbols of Menander and Apollodotus (or rather the Apollotodi, I & II) were abundant. I do not even recall Tarn mentioning Ozene as a Greek city, but there seems to be few indications that this was ever the case.

But in any case, this leaves us with a relatively small fraction of the map being dubious – the part northeast of Barygaza. The dates on the map are of course also outdated – but please note that these are based on Tarn’s speculations about the intrinsic relations between different Indo-Greek kings. They have nothing to do with the foundations for the extension of the Indo-Greek kingdom which is based on interpretations of ancient sources. Tarn then “distributed” the conquests among Demetrius, Menander and Eucratides, according to how he believed they were related. Hence while the dates are obsolete, the overall picture not necessarily so. PHG did of course remove the dates when he modified the map.

I have stated before what is wrong with the Oxford map and I stand by this.

B. On the term Yavana. You are certainly correct that Yavana/Yonaka has a Sanskrit root – as many Indoeuropean words indeed have.

Nevertheless, Yonaka was a version of a name the (Jonian) Greeks gave themselves, and an example of a word that has left the ancient Sanskrit, only to come back meaning just "Greek" or "foreigner". Just as today, I assume that Indians use a variation of the same Greek word (ion) meaning "electrically charged particle", without thinking much about its original Sanskrit root.

The Persians also used a version of the term Yonaka for Greeks, and for sources from the Hellenistic era, I still maintain this is its general meaning.

The Arabs gradually took over the Greek trade routes. This begun already in late antiquity. Before the Arab language became global after the rise of the Caliphate, Arab travellers often spoke Greek. In fact, the Hellenistic impact on the early Islamic civilisation was considerable and Greek was an official language of the early Caliphate. This is perhaps forgotten today.

The Indians did as you mention also travel westwards, but it seems as though the interaction with the Graeco-Roman world ceased during late antiquity. The last Indians to visit the Byzantine empire were IIRC in the days of Anastasius (c. 500 AD), where an embassy was registered. And in those days, the line between ethnic Greeks and Greek-speaking people was certainly blurred – in fact it is very consequent that the Indian understanding of the term Yavanas was similarly widened to include the Arabs, the new rulers of those Greek territories (Egypt etc) which were in contact with India.

In fact, the double nature of Greek interaction with India, first via Bactria and then, after the discovery of the monsoon, via the Mediterranean, also gives the word Yavana two distinct meanings. Apart from the language, Syrian/Egyptian and Bactrian Yavanas may have been very different people indeed.

C. Menander’s conquests.

I heartily disagree with your suggestion that Menander’s conquests were limited to Punjab. There are several indications converging, which all emphasise Menander’s eastern expansion.

1. Sources. Menander is explicitly – despite the general lack of info on Indo-Greek kings - mentioned by Strabon, who is generally thought to be a most reliable source, and probably had first hand contact with Greek and Indian merchants a mere century after Menander. And as you know, he explicitly mentions Pataliputra, as well as the Indian coastland “the rest of the coast”. This is not a description of petty conquests in Jammu.

2.Then there is the reference to Sagala in Milindapahna which indicates – though not certainly as you point out – that Menander was based in eastern Punjab. That such was the case is supported by the fact that Eucratides, whom we know was a contemporary of Menander, ruled in the western part of the Indo-Greek kingdom. Another king who was a contemporary of Menander was Zoilus I (Menander overstruck Zoilus I, so perhaps he reigned 135-130 BCE); he was also a “western” king whose coins are rarely found in Punjab. Finally there is Justin’s “Demetrius, king of Indians”, possibly another king who ruled west of Menander, since it was he who fought with the Bactrian Eucratides.

So Menander’s strongholds were clearly in eastern Punjab, for Pushkalavati and Gandhara were overtaken by other kings at least twice in his reign.

3.The Yuga Purana source may be obscure as you point out, but nevertheless its description of the Yavanas supports exactly what we have from Strabo – a Greek attack on Pataliputra. The civil war which forced the Greeks to leave is also well supported by authors like Justin. And the mention of siege engines – which were a specialty of the Greeks – is a third concrete, verifiable detail.

What more could we ask from historical sources, than a consensus of writers from different continents? Menander certainly attacked Pataliputra – though how long he held it is another story.

4. The importance of coins I know of at least four major hoards found in eastern Punjab which are exclusively Indo-Greek (of course there are many more coins):

Ambala and Sonipat north of Delhi. Both contain a different mix of exclusively Greek kings spanning from ca 180-60 BCE. Then there is the Mathura hoard with only pieces of Straton I, and a similar hoard close to Mathura mentioned by Tarn, consisting only of drachms of Menander. A fifth hoard of Akhnoor in eastern Punjab contains late kings from Apollodotos II - Straton III, as well as some Kshatrapa coins.

Note that all these five hoards end with different rulers, i.e. they were likely buried during different periods. Of course there is the possibility that a single hoard was buried by a refugee or a merchant who travelled abroad, but the overall impact cannot be dismissed that easily.

While abundance of Indo-Greek coins is not in itself sufficient to prove they ruled a specific territory, in a more general sense it testifies to their importance. Striking many coins means controlling vast resources, which in its turn indicates the importance of the Indo-Greek kings.

Finally there are Indo-Greek kings whose coins are not found in eastern Punjab at all: for instance Zoilus I, Nicias, Theophilus, Artemidorus and Archebius, who was nevertheless a rather important king. Obviously there were eastern and western states within the Indo-Greek territory. So if you suggest that the Punjab coins of for instance Straton I were found east of his actual dominion, you have to consider the opposite opinion as well: that coins found in Gandhara or Pushkalavati could in fact have been exported to the west by a king ruling in eastern Punjab!

Much of your criticism voices concerns the validity of single pieces of evidence. While such criticism is certainly not unfounded the overall picture IMHO supports a consistent Greek rule in eastern Punjab.

D. Suggestion I am willing to accept that the territory of Ujjain is a bit too speculative. If there is no problem with “original research” I suppose that PHG could modify this on the Welt Geschichte map. That will however lead us to a map that is rather similar to the current one which you objected against – only with the Pataliputra expedition marked only as an arrow.

The Mathura territory should however remain. I have presented a few more modern arguments which I hope are convincing enough to support this view.Sponsianus 13:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Sunga map

Why delete the Sunga Empire map now (this edit)? You may have noticed it is referenced from the Metropolitan Museum of Art (here), to which I have added the city of Sagala based on literary evidence (Ashokavadana). PHG 21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Alexander

Hi. Thanks for your kind words. I try my best to be balanced in writing my articles. Regarding the issue you mentioned, I will take a look at it, though I must confess I am much more on firm ground when it comes to South Indian History, than North Indian history.Hope I can contribute.Dineshkannambadi 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yamuna

"No it's not. No historian makes the ridiculous claim as you do that Seleucus campaigned as far as the Yamuna. Your actions are not in line with wikipedia standards. Weasel word Be mindful of civility."

I made no such claim, no one is saying that Seleucus campaigned that far, his knowledge of the Yamuna among many other territories beyond the Indus were largely due to embassies. The source itself which is a primary one at that doesn't indicate Seleucus made a campaign that far. Please read it again before making accusations. Another thing they can not be weasel words when they belong to Pliny in which he is only stating the location of geographic features. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

Yeah it does. Read the quote. "The Yamuna was known after the campaigns of Seleucus". That absolutely does give the impression that he did campaign that far. Moreover, that little tidbit is of no relevance to this article. It is out of place. Hence, it is fanwank.

Devanampriya 01:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Original research"

Why do you claim original research to delete referenced material from the Satavahana article? What you are trying to delete is coming directly from Rapson "Catalogue of the Indian coins in the British Museum. Andhras etc...". If you have issues with it, do your research, buy the book. Do you actually understand the definition of original research? Deletion of referenced sources is vandalism. PHG 06:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

PHG,

It is original research because you are providing spin on an author's interpretations. When you discuss the successors to the Satavahanas, it is one thing to cite the author's quote and another to discuss what you believe the case to be--which is why I deleted it. Moreover, you have engaged in original research throughout your time on wikipedia from the indo greeks to the domains of the Indo Scythians (where is the published map or author whom you base this on) to the influence of names (Sikandar did gain circulation on the subcontinent because of Alexander's influence on India but because of Persianized Turks who conquered Northern India). Your errors and poor scholarship, ie the Huns and Pataliputra do not reflect well on the Encyclopedia.

Look, I have no desire to antagonize you nor to continue acrimonious debates, so please don't assume I am writing with a confrontational tone. As always, I have been seeking discussion and understanding in the aim of creating the most accurate entries possible. I have compromised before, i.e. the Mauryas and Seleucus' daughter. I would only hope you would do the same at some point. My edits are not designed to further some nationalist agenda (take a look at my edits: I have corrected claims of indian victories when they were defeats, I have cleaned up vandalism on Augustus' page, and have diluted baseless claims "satavahanas were the greatest power in Asia" etc,etc). However, Europeans classicists, as Frank W. Holt himself notes, have a habit of having it both ways and misrepresenting Indian history in a way that is overly favorable to foreigners, especially the greeks. Bear in mind that British Imperialists justified their rule of India by referencing previous invaders i.e. Indo Aryans, Greeks, etc. Many of your sources have been recognized to continue that tradition, hence the challenges. David Duke and Pim Fortyn can all by cited as verifiable sources, but that does not make them accurate or reliable. Hence, this is not vandalism.

However, weasel words do count as vandalism, and when you craft a one-sided narrative (i.e. greeks invading to protect buddhism rather than gain territory and wealth, the western satraps defending against the "rampaging" Satavahanas, etc) I am compelled to clean it up. Try to look at things from someone else's perspective; I seek to do that all the time. Perhaps you should do the same.

Devanampriya 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am afraid you are wrong on the "spin" claim.
• Regarding the account of the Puranas on the successors of the Satavahan, EVERY comment is actually taken from Rapson. You can double-check should you wish to, but it is fully referenced, and you have no justification to delete it.
• The Indo-Scythian map is based on the textual references in the article. I see you have no issues on the Satavahana and Sunga maps though, which suggests your one-sidedness.
• Please elaborate on your mention of "Huns and Pataliputra".
• Please refrain from judging other's scholarship, because I am afraid you really do not qualify as a reference here. You could start by contributing material to Wikipedia, refrain from deleting other's material, and put precise references behind your claims. PHG 18:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There you go again, PHG. Instead of absorbing the feedback and perspectives of others, you go on the attack. Neither you nor anyone above wikipedia is above the law:

• The Indo Scythian map is not referenced. You are conducting original research in the application of Primary sources. No historian has ever advanced the claim of Scythian conquest of the entire Gangetic plain.
• I didn't comment yet on your Sunga map because it is erroneous to begin with. Instead of trying to develop a competing map, which knowing your recalcitrance you would have deleted without explanation, I've been looking around to find a professional, referenced map that we can use with permission
• Same with the Satavahana map (which you very recently posted, btw). I deleted lines stating that "the satavahanas were the most powerful force in asia", if the map is inaccurate and not properly reference, the same corollary applies. It seems to me that you are aware of your poor scholarship here and are merely seeking to counter-accuse.
• You have applied original research on the Chandragupta Maurya page where you use quotes from a play to mention the "powerful composite army". Original research and weasel words. Where are the recognized historians who state those words and back up those claims. Just for the record, you don't count as one.
• You routinely clog up articles with primary quotes, which negatively impact the readability of the article. I am not the only one who has noticed this. See the "Constantine" page. You then take these primary quotes and spin them to suit your preferred interpretation of events.
• This links up with the rapson quote. That quote is clearly unnecessary as there was already a section discussing the break up of the Satavahana empire. You only relished this quote because of the possibility of an Indo-Greek mention. There is no need for that section let alone Rapson's interpretation of what the Matsya purana could imply. Morevoer, no historian posits the claim that indo greeks formed some sort of successor state to the satavahanas. As I've told you repeatedly, the term Yavana is often synonymous with foreigner in general. As for irrelevant quotes, my policy doesn't just target your hellenocentric edits. I have requested users to remove the section on Vikramaditya's conquests in the Hunas section.
• This leads me again to the Yamuna article. Your drawn out sophistry on why Seleucus needs to be mentioned on the Yamuna page is an example of why I've been forced to delete your edits. Your very example "if someone reading about Alexander's campaigns reads that he didn't conquer the Yamuna, they will look it up and realize that the greek discovered it after Seleucus' campaigns" is eurocentric. These articles are to assume beginners of every background, nationality, and interest group, not just those who daydream about greek expansion. According to your logic, we should have a greek section for the China article due to the mention of the "seres" in western classical accounts. Moreover, that phrase is worded in such a way that users will think that Seleucus campaigned as far as the Yamuna, which is bunk.
• You used poor/biased sources to defend a claim that no historian has advanced, which is that the huns sacked Guptan Pataliputra. Your source was replete with spelling mistakes and contentious claims.
• You committed original research with your "Yavanajataka was the first indian treatise on astronomy" claim, your Greek influence on Indian coinage can be seen with the "Sikander Sani" claim on Delhi Sultanate coins. You are guilty of weasel words when you poison the narrative with such words as "rampaging Satavahanas".
• If you make erroneous claims, poorly sourced entries, and one-sided narratives, I have every right, and indeed it is my duty, to delete them.

I truly hope that you will consider mending your ways and taking the advice of a fellow contributor. Sadly, your track record does not reflect well in that department.

Devanampriya 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Your criticisms are again totally misplaced:

• Among others read Mitchener and his analysis of the Yuga Purana for the analysis of the Indo-Scythian conquest of Pataliputra. The map is merely illustrating this point, therefore nothing to do with original research.
• The Sunga map is a copy of the map of the Metropolitan Museum of Art (click the map for reference).
• The Satavahana map is based on the textual references in the text. Should you have a better, published, map, please discuss it or send to me as we did for the Indo-Greeks. I did not write "the satavahanas were the most powerful force in asia": check Edit History before making accusations.
• The composite nature of Chandragupta is directly mentionned in the sources, and often mentionned by historians. "Kusumapura was besieged from every direction by the forces of Parvata and Chandragupta: Shakas, Yavanas, Kiratas, Kambojas, Parasikas, Bahlikas and others, assembled on the advice of Canakya" Mudrarakshasa
• The Rapson quote on the deletion of the Satavahana realm is highly relevant and informative, and also based on primary sources. You have no right to delete, even if you dislike what it says (Yavanas?).
• Yamuna: point explained. You are again deleting relevant information because it mentions the Greeks in India. Actually the Seres are discussed in Names of China.
• I did not write "Rampaging Satavahanas", check Edit History. For "Yavanajataka was the first indian treatise on astronomy", I have a reference and will put it in.

Thank you to stop pushing your point with false accusations and deletions of sources. PHG 06:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

PHG,

Thanks for proving my points for me.

1. Your sunga map is not based on the original Metropolitan map, so stop trying to prevaricate. Take a look at it yourself.

2. You cited a primary source and interpreted it in a fashion that suited yourself. You are not a respected authority. Only a respected authority can look at primary references written in classical languages and determine whether or not the reference is valid. Here is Nilakantha Shastri on the "Composite Army" that you use the Mudrarakshasa to defend:

"In the play the battle of intrigue proves more efficacious than the arbitrament of the sword. None of the Mlechchha chieftains haven names which can be regarded as standing for genuine Greek or Persian originals and the appearance of the Hunas in connection with the Magadhan conflict of the fourth century B.c. exposes the true character of several incidents narrated in the play." (Page 147, "Age of the Nandas and Mauryas")

So stop conducting original research.

3. The purana block is clearly misplaced as there already is a block discussion the breaking up of the Satavahana empire. You decided to take that one intepretation, which is clearly questionable as Yavanas (in the multiple scholarly citations I've sent to you) refers to foreigners in general. So you took something that clearly whetted your europhilic appetite and wrongly placed it in an article.

4. You've already been warned on the Constantine page by another contributor about posting unrelated and irrelevant lines in an article; the same applies to the Yamuna page.

5. The yavanajataka was not, you've been provided sources before and you will be provided again. Stop pushing your europhilic perspectives.

6. I wasn't accusing you of inserting "rampaging" or "most powerful in asia", I was making the point that I clean up weasel words irrespective of whom they favor. It is unfortunate that you do not do the same.

I really hope that you will use your seemingly boundless time, interest, and access to scholarly resources both maturely and productively. I know you spend your time drawing Indo Greek warriors and wistfully day dreaming of Menander, but performances like yours have led to the creation of Citizendium. Try and restore wikipedia's reputation by restraining some of your philhellenic urges. You do realize that you've become the Fox News of the Post Mauryan period.

Devanampriya 22:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Greek legends in Gupta coinage

Why keep on deleting the mention of corrupted Greek legends on the Gupta coins, when this is referenced material? (Rapson's "Indian coins of the British Museum"). Deletion of referenced material is vandalism. PHG 06:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You are manipulating original captions and conducting original research in the process since the author was not discussing this exact coin. Moreover, you are manipulating the narrative to suit your conceits. That is vandalism.

Devanampriya 21:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Please visit the Inde française discussion page

Hello friend, how r u. I would request you to visit the Discussion page of Inde française. Infact I have written many articles regarding it. You can refer them and acquire more info abt it. Have a nice time bye. Take care. 06:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Please Help

I was looking at the Indo-Greek article recently, and was indeed dismayed by the state of the map - I saw the jibes that some of the contributors took at my credibility while I was away, citing my original map as proof I dont know the topic - and frankly, I dont know whether I can be bothered contributing anything - after seeing some great articles slowly ruined over the past year (some of which were featured status), I have started to doubt wikipedia's system. Thats why I didnt sign on for so long (only recently to create some articles for Indian comics).

There was no doubt a Hellenic kingdom and influence in the northern subcontinent, but some of the people working on that article, seem to think that the accounts of historians who never visited India are trustworthy, and that a few scattered coins indicates a political presence (last time I checked, the Roman Empire never conquered India, yet there are Roman coins in South India). Vastu 12:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Yamuna. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nathanww 20:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

3rd revert

Hello Devanampriya. I can see the breaking of an edit war between you and PHG on the article Patna, and I thought I'd let you know that you just broke WP:3RR; regardless of who's right or wrong, if this continues I'll report you to WP:AN/3RR, so please calm down and talk this out with the other editors. Thank you. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 20:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Assistance with Sneaky Vandalism, Original research, and NPOV violations

Hi! I am sorry I hardly have any time now to go over the articles and the histories of the articles. I shall try to look into them in case I can manage some time. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Just read your message. Sorry, I am not knowledegeable enough about the subject to get deep into it. Regards. - P.K.Niyogi 23:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Just got your message. Unfortunately, my knowledge on the subject is very patchy. Not sure if I can help. Best wishes, anyway. --Chandrachoodan Gopalakrishnan 05:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

also note Wikipedia:Canvassing. Doldrums 02:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Attempt at Mediation

Hello. I'm here in the name of Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, where User:Iustinus has posted an entry regarding a dispute you've been having on Talk:Kushan_Empire#Regarding_Map. I have posted a comment at the bottom of the talk page, and I think you should read it. In general, what I wanted to say with the whole comment is that you have behaved with incivility, the map is not original research, and that if you think the map is incorrect, then you two should try and achieve consensus by asking experts in the area to evaluate the map and see if it should be included. Please refrain from continuing this dispute and please accept my suggestions. Thank you. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 01:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Boricuaeddie,

Welcome to the debate. Although I am more than happy to accept objective mediation, no reasons were provided by you as to how the kushan map was indicative of original research. If you would like to mediate, please provide rational provisions for accepting phg's map. His map stands in stark contrast to those composed by authorities here: [[6]].

That link came from the metropolitan museum of art. How do you reconcile that with phg's usage of an amateur website as evidence? That is like citing wikipedia for a serious research paper.

Also, original research means interpreting primary resources or abusing an interpretation. That is what phg did by referencing the rabatak inscripton (a primary source). Moreover, no clear boundaries were provided by that inscription. That is why PHG's map is inaccurate and tantamount to original research.

You attacked me for incivility, but did not take into account user phg's tactics in the past of insulting user vastu and user windy city dude's knowledge of topics. I do believe that amounts to incivility as well.

Please take these points into consideration if you wish to continue the mediation.

Devanampriya 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Chalukya

Hi. Thanks for the note. Perhaps we can have a joint discussion on this topic. I do agree that vast majority of sources point to a India Origin of Chalukyas and majority of that majority claim a local Badami/Karnataka origin. In fact the history of Chalukyas prior to 5th century is quite unclear with many local families ruling in the Deccan. Lets form a forum to address this Greek issue if it is really WP:UNDUE and put this to rest. The Karnataka work group (of which I am a part of) is largely responsible for this FA along with user:Venu62 who also made significant contributions. The Chalukya page has recently come through a lot of revert warring, with one India wikipedian trying to establish that the Chalukyas were Telugu based on information he found in a web site created by an "Engineering student" from Canada. This wikipedian simply could not understand the meaning of WP:RS. So when we Indian's ourselves are prone to such politicking, I am not surprised that others like to establish every great Kingdom that has ruled in India as one of foreign origin.Dineshkannambadi 11:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dinesh's comments and probably this discussion needs to be continued at the aritlce talk page. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 23:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG

Thank you very much for your note. I agree, the story sounds quite familiar! And if there's one thing we need to concentrate on at Wikipedia, it's to ensure that our articles, especially our FA-class articles, are accurate and neutral. Accordingly, could you please provide a list of which articles that you believe have been manipulated with false or biased data, and also point out one or two specific items that are still problematic on those articles? That will assist with cleanup. It would also be helpful if you could provide a couple specific diffs which you believe show someone adding false information, or at least give me an approximate date range that the problems occurred. I'm collecting quite the set of diffs at Franco-Mongol alliance, which will be useful if it's necessary to further escalate this matter. Thanks, Elonka 18:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your very detailed post at ANI.  :) I'm a bit concerned that it may be too long for most people to digest. Most administrators are not interested in wading into detailed content disputes, but are more interested in, "Did somebody break a policy? Which one? Got proof? You've got my attention for 60 seconds, then I'm gone." ;)

Accordingly, I have some very specific questions if you don't mind?

• Is there still incorrect information in the articles?
• If so, can you give one specific example of information being added which was egregiously incorrect?
• Can you also provide a specific example of a reliable source (preferably online), which proves that the information is false?
• Do you have diffs of any personal attacks?
• Did you ever file an RfC on the article?
• Was mediation ever offered?

Thanks, Elonka 00:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip off. Hopefully eventually we'll get to a point where Wikipedia's ancient India articles are actually germane. Getting other people's opinions in there might be nice too.

I'm impressed you've managed to hold out with his crap for as long as you have.

Windy City Dude 04:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Devanampriya, thanks for the new ANI post, but I'm afraid that it's not a lot better. I think the main problem is that you are assuming that those who are reading, have a basic familiarity with the subject matter. But I doubt that anyone does. I've even tried reading up a bit on the subject, and I have to admit that I'm not understanding your main points either.  :/ I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that the communication is not being effective. I think it would help if you tried to really drill down to very very specific points, and ensure that you include diffs whenever you're talking about something that someone else did. For example, you said something about the "earliest Indian writing", but the diff you included, didn't say anything about PHG adding such phrasing.[7] However, if you could point out a specific diff that says, "Here is information that PHG added," and then another link that shows, "Here is proof that the information is wrong," then that would be effective. Or, you mentioned about adding a "disputed" tag to the article, which PHG then removed. Can you provide the exact diffs of him removing it? I looked, but I didn't see it (but I may have missed something). Also, when such a tag is added, there normally needs to be an associated section on the talkpage that says, "I have added a disputed tag because (list of reasons)". Did you do this? If not, you may wish to try again. In any case, edit-warring on the article itself is generally not effective. The best way to implement a change (usually) is to start a discussion on the talkpage about a change, and get the opinions of other editors. If the consensus at talk is to implement the change, then you can move forward. If there's not consensus at talk, then you should file an RFC to get more editors' opinions into the mix. If that doesn't work, then there are other steps that can be taken, but they really need to be followed in order. See WP:DR. Hope that helps, Elonka 07:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(more advice) I am still coming up to speed on your dispute, but I have two specific things I wanted to advise, which I think will help with communication: (1) Keep your posts short. I know that you want to be precise and thorough, but it's actually not helping matters. The longer that your message is, the less likely that anyone is going to read it.  :/ I recommend that you concentrate on short posts for awhile. Maximum of one or two paragraphs (preferably less). (2) Very important. You must must must be polite. Even when you are dealing with someone who is not. Especially when you are dealing with someone who is not. I don't care what kind of names you are called, please do your best to respond with courtesy and civility. As soon as you resort to name-calling (even if it's deserved), many people will simply stop reading what you say. I know that in some places on the internet, a certain amount of forceful language helps to get a point across. But on Wikipedia, extreme courtesy will serve you much better. FYI, Elonka 08:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Indo Greek FA review

Indo-Greek Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.Hi there. Perhaps this can help straighten things out since there are also language issues. It may be good to have a conclusive debate once and for all. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in the voting phase atm, if you want to "vote". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Communication

Devanampriya, hi, I wanted to send you an email, but I see it's not enabled. Do you by any chance use IMs, or participate on IRC? Thanks, Elonka 01:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I saw your recent post,[8] and applaud you for a calm and well-written reply. Your communication style has improved dramatically, well done!  :) --Elonka 02:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Indo-Greek Maps

Hello Devanampriya, thank you for the note. I agree that ancient India is very difficult to portray accurately, due to missing, conflicting, or confusing source info. Actually, the map currently in the article (Asia_100bc.jpg) is an outdated version of the (East-Hem_100bc.jpg) map, which I updated over a month ago. I'm making a version (specifically for the article) localized to south asia and highlighting the Indo-Greek Kingdoms.

My sources are listed here ([9]), though I need to update that list again. 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.

Thank you again for the note, Devanampriya. I hope we can work together to give everyone a better understanding of the history of Greater India. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
---...---...---

Hello again, Devanampriya. I was curious what your take on the new Indo-Greeks_100bc.jpg map is, and if you have any further questions. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
---...---...---

Hi Devanampriya. I got your message on my talk page and will address your concerns as soon as possible. Right now I'm late for a meeting and have to go. It may take a few more days before the map is complete, so please do send ALL questions, comments, concerns, or ideas before I'm finished! Thank you in advance, Thomas Lessman (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
---...---...---

East-Hem_100bc.jpg (Your questions re: India in 100 BC)

Hi Devanampriya. You asked me some questions a few days ago about my borders for India in 100 BC.

1. Sungas. I got Sunga's borders mostly from John Nelson's Historical Atlas of the World, map of 100 BC. Other information was derived from Joseph Schwartzberg's Historical Atlas of South Asia. Schwartzberg's atlas describes several of the kingdoms that broke away from the Sunga Empire as it collapsed (including Avanti, Kosala, etc).

2. Satavahanas and Andhras. They were shown seperately in Schwartzberg's atlas, but I understand your concerns. Unfortunately I don't have any way (yet) to detail the Satavahana borders for this era. What I have done for now is combine the two names, so they read as Satavahanas (Andhras).

3. Udyana is depicted on John Nelsons map of "Countries of the World, 100 BCE" from www.WorldHistoryMaps.com. I believe it was also known as the Saka kingdom of Maues.

It will actually take a while before I can create the East-Hem_150bc.jpg map. Currently I'm updating several maps I've already created, adding new information, etc. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask! Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

--- --- ---

Hi. I'm not sure how I'm going to do the 150 BC map, and I haven't started it yet. It will be difficult to draw an accurate map of the Indo-Greeks at their height. Thank you for the Sunga information, I believe one of my main sources, the www.WorldHistoryMaps.com series, does indeed show Avanti under Sunga control in 150 BC. Thomas Lessman (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Map

Thanks for the compliments i'll answer your doubts :

You show virtually the entire kathiawar peninsula of gujarat.

• No, i didn't , if you look closely not all of the peninsula is shaded.

...as well as the entire western coast under portuguese rule, which was not the case.

• Well if you look at the map of the portuguese emnpire most of the indian west coast and significantly big parts of the eastern coast is colored.

Here is a source from the Ministry of Education of Spain [[10]] , they even show a bigger swathe of western india being portuguese.

In that time it was hard to define between trading (private most of the time) posts and crown lands.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

About Narain's later editions of "The Indo-Greeks"

Hi again, Devanampriya!

I have now at long last bought an updated edition of Narain's "The Indo-Greeks" (from 2003), the dating and relevance of which we discussed on the Indo-Greek page. It seems as though Narain (who was 80 years old at the time!) has indeed made some updates to the text, but mostly small ones, that refer to newer discoveries in a few lines. He has however not updated his major theses. To take a single example: the main text still maintains Narain's central (and incorrect) thesis that there was just one king named Apollodotos. However, Narain has added as an appendix a much later essay written for the Cambridge University, where he admits that the appearance of Attic coins struck by Apollodotos I proves that there were two kings! There are other, similar examples.

So Narain has only made partial updates, leaving passages in the main text that are contradicted in the appendices of the same book! I hope that this helps you understand my frustration with much of the Indo-Greek literature. Wikipedia, with its demands not to present original research, has difficulties evaluating such inconsistencies.

I have btw sent Narain a few of my own articles on Indo-Greek chronology. He is still alive, and Bopearachchi has told me that he was quite well when the two met a year ago.

Kindly, Sponsianus (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Battle of Jamrud".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 23:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Dispute resolution Please see here. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Hello; I have decided to oversee the resolution of the aforementioned dispute on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a volunteer at the DRN, and I have reopened the case. However, as I note in my comment thereon, I can do very little without any opening statements by the parties. Should you wish that the dispute be marked as closed, please inform me as soon as possible. Please be aware that in order to close the dispute, I require consensus on this matter from all parties. I hope this helps you. --The Historian (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Re: Battle of Jamrud Hi, Devanampriya The page is not Protected. I think probably admin Nick-D forgot to protect the page. If IP continue to revert against the rule then i will report the IP then it should be blocked. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC) I informed the admin about it and the page is now protected for one month. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Please do not refactor your comments when they have been replied to This is the original version where I replied to your comments: Possible fellow nationalist pov pusher to or alias of Athenean seeking to keep his version.. Then you, after my reply you edited your comments and you removed the phrase: to or alias of Athenean seeking to keep his version even though I had already replied to it. Please just add any new comments after my reply but do not change previously replied-to comments because that makes my replies look out of context. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC) The diffs clearly shows you deleted an entire response by me here. (scroll all the way down). Please stop deleting my comments and disrupting a required page request. I edited my comments without seeing that you responded because I was rereading and made some changes. The version history shows it was within minutes of the first version of that comment. You however are blanket reverting everything I wrote and removing it as well as deleting new comments by me. Finally, what is your involvement in this dispute? What brought it to your notice? You have not previously participated, so naturally it is curious that you are being so disruptive on behalf of someone else. Please stop disrupting and stop commenting here. You've been asked nicely a number of times. Devanampriya (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Please feel free to restore any comments you like as long as they were added after my reply and not before. Also please stop your personal attacks in the guise of requests and try harder to comply with WP:AGF. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Dr.K, how is it possible for me to have been attacking you when I didn't know you existed until today. You came to disrupt a legitimate page protect request, then you edit warred in a content dispute on behalf of your fellow greek, then you deleted an entire comment by me while pretending to be "re-refactoring". There is no need for us to even engage with each other if you remove yourself from a dispute that had nothing to do with you. Deleting comments made by other users is a serious offence and contravenes good faith. I explained the nature of my edited comments--but you didn't explain why you deleted them. You even deleted my comments again--with no explanation. Please stop this disruptive behavior.Devanampriya (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Accusing someone of disruption without any basis is a vile personal attack. Please uderstand one more time: Go and add any reply you want but do not alter your past comments which I already have replied to. Just add new, unreplied-to comments. Is that so hard to understand? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC) You injected yourself into a page protect request--that's disruption. You did not explain why you deleted my unaltered/unresponded to comment, that's disruption. The diffs are there for the altered past comment to show time stamp. You cannot dictate the shape and form of another user's comment. You also did not explain what you are doing here? What is your concern with this astronomy dispute? Again, please stop commenting on my page. Devanampriya (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) You can only add ::::::No, you are edit warring on behalf of a fellow nationalist, attacking users who had nothing to do with you, and injecting yourself into a page protection request that did not concern you to disrupt it. So if anyone should be blocked it's you. You are also editing my own comments as the version history here confirms. You have made this a forum for discussion--it was my request, not yours. The version history also confirms you just got involved in the dispute today on behalf of someone else. I've asked you nicely to stop. Please demonstrate good faith behavior and do so. Devanampriya (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Because it was added after I had replied and it is ok to add. Do you want me to add it for you? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC) No, I want to you to stop editing my comments and disrupting my page protect request and remove yourself from an issue had no prior involvement in. You have no connection to our dispute, but are harassing me here on behalf of your friend athenean. Please stop.Devanampriya (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Stop edit warring on a high-traffic administrator attention board, both of you! Materialscientist (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC) MS. Please see my comments above. This user keeps refactoring his comments after I replied to them making my reply look ridiculous. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC) They don't make your comment ridiculous, they make a specific request for an admin revert to a specified version, that was why I made the change. Whether you are an alias of or ally of athenean is irrelevant to me. You purposefully disrupted a legitimate, good faith page protect request even though you were not a party. What is the reason for your participation and sudden interest in the Indian astronomy page then? Devanampriya (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC) After your report at RFPP and DRN I checked your edits and they appear to me as a massive dose of OR and SYNTH. I have an interest to keep the encyclopedia free from that. I never called you a nationalist or attacked your motives. Unlike you I can reason without needing to attack my fellow editors. With that I will leave here and see you at DRN and RSN. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I have declined the full protection request, so let us move on. Devanampriya, you have asked my advice, so here it is. Two regular editors disagree with your removals on Indian astronomy. Do not assume bad faith, and never speculate about their personal motives - this all reflects very badly upon you. Instead focus on the article content, try to understand their point and argue in a civilized manner. Materialscientist (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I understand and accept that you have denied my request. I'm sorry but who were the two regular editors? Dr.K was not a regular editor. Only athenean. Please clarify?Devanampriya (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Dr.K. is a regular and experienced wikipedia editor, working in good faith to improve wikipedia, this is all I meant. Edit warring among regulars is a shame - we are too few, whereas articles and rogue editors are too many. We should work together and be more tolerant to disagreements. Materialscientist (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I understand that he's a regular editor, but he was not a party to the specific dispute that is going to DR--so how would he know to check my contribs to see my page protect request (i've never prev engaged with him)? I understand that edit warring is a problem, but stealth edits during a good faith negotiation as explained in my page protect request are a problem too. Does it not encourage users to simply edit war if page is not protected? User athenean refused to accept any proposal as you can see on the talk page. Wouldn't page protect of status quo ante have encouraged good faith discussion on his part? Why deny it?Devanampriya (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Full protection is a wrong option in this case, where the few conflicting editors should resolve conflicts between/among each other. We use edit warring blocks instead. There are plenty of routes to "suddenly" get involved with some wikiarticle - this is almost always a wrong argument in a dispute. Materialscientist (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Maybe, but editor also did not explain how he got involved in the dispute and page protect despite being asked many times. That alone should set off alarm bells. Anyhow, thank you for the explanation and your time. Devanampriya (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC) But I already did: at RFPP. Did you not read my reply? Here it is for your convenience: You say (so curious to see comment and article revert by him) What exactly do you find so curious? Is this a wiki or not? You come here at a highly visible forum like RFPP with "bad faith" accusations against other editors and you don't want to be discovered by other people? You say Possible fellow nationalist pov pusher to or alias of Athenean seeking to keep his version. Very classy. Attacking longstanding contributors in such a vile manner. I will not reciprocate. It just isn't my style. You are welcome to open an SPI against me though, if for nothing else but for the laughs. In short: I saw your attacks at RFPP and checked your contributions, saw your comments at DRN attacking the "eurocentric" editors, checked your personal attacks at the talkpage of Indian Astronomy and in your edit summaries, saw your original research and deletion of sourced material at the article and, this being a wiki, I thought I had to help fix all these problems that I saw with your edits. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Also on your own talkpage, just above: After your report at RFPP and DRN I checked your edits and they appear to me as a massive dose of OR and SYNTH. I have an interest to keep the encyclopedia free from that. I never called you a nationalist or attacked your motives. Unlike you I can reason without needing to attack my fellow editors. With that I will leave here and see you at DRN and RSN. Don't you even read your own talkpage's recent thread before you go accusing other editors that they don't reply to your questions? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC) No you didn't answer the question properly. On what basis would you decide to revert someone else's edit if you had no knowledge of the issue? Here was the actual reason you wrote...very convenient, "sure signs" indeed. How would you know OR if you didn't read talk--talk page clearly provided sources, so not OR. You didn't "fix any edits", you just reverted to athenean's version. Yes, athenean's edits are eurocentric and they are bad faith if you add more controversial content when editors are trying to compromise with you on the talk page. You also insist on continuing to comment here even though I asked you not to since there is otherwise no connection between us. The RFFP has a clear record of you attacking me saying I should get blocked even though you jumped into a dispute that you had no prev knowledge of. What does that say about you then...So again, please stop commenting here. If you have anything to say or anything to contribute do it on the talk page of the article you claim you "fixed". Devanampriya (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Posting a question for someone to stop editing at a community board is absurd. Dr K as mentioned above is a long standing editor in good standing with the community. If I go to any page, it doesn't matter it may be the first time I've been there if there is problems with the edits it is 110 percent ok and encouraged to fix those. I'd suggest that you take a moment and look at what three established editors have been trying to say to you and take a small break. This continued assumption of bad faith about the motivations of others will only lead to blocks and I highly suggest you drop the WP:STICK. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I don't know who you are or why you are posting here on my talk page. Requests to not post on talk pages are not unusual and you are not an admin. I made a request to the admin, who answered my question and gave an explanation, and dr. k jumped in again. I don't know who these three editors you speak of are, all I know is one user has been following me all day and posting on my talk page, now another person I've never interacted with is on my talk page as well--what a coincidence. As such, please leave my talk page alone as I do not know of any content issue you may have with me or how you ended up here. Given that all three of you (athenean, dr.k, and yourself) all have extensive block logs--you esp for personal attacks and harassment, perhaps you should be more concerned about being blocked than I should. I will delete your future posts here--please leave my page alone. Thank you and Good day.Devanampriya (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC) February 2013 Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. You've been warned several times regarding assuming good faith by admin and non admin. If you notice the block log that you are using to try and discredit me the last block was almost 3 years ago so if you have issues with me by all means take them to WP:ANI and roll the dice but be careful of the WP:BOOMERANG. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC) You keep posting on my talk page even though I asked you to stop. You've been blocked for doing this before: 19:57, 4 May 2009 LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs) blocked Hell in a Bucket (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours (Personal attacks or harassment: Posting on another users talkpage past requests to stop) I am not concerned about rolling the dice, I'm just pointing out that what you are doing is harassment, you've been blocked for that before. If you want to be blocked for that again--that's your call. You are not an admin and what you are doing contravenes wiki-etiquette. I don't know who you are or what brought you here, but please leave my page alone. Devanampriya (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indian astronomy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Hello Materialscientist, as you know, I already requested page protection, which you turned down. The reason for my reversion is that other users added additional controversial content during a good faith attempt I made to discuss the issue. As you can see from the talk page (which I initiated), they were not in a mood to give even an inch and maxed out their position by adding even more content. Given that you denied page protection, what other recourse do I have? As you can see, I've also been harassed by random users I had no prior interaction with who appear to be in some sort of coordination. These users never even participated in the talks in the article, had no prior edits in the version history, but are suddenly reverting my reverts without any understanding of the issue. Should the page not therefore either be protected until the DR/N is over, as I requested? All I'm doing is restoring the status quo ante before these bad faith additions during attempts to compromise? Shouldn't there be incentive/disincentive to get users to talk in good faith and compromise rather than coordinate a multi-user revert effort? Devanampriya (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC) August 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Akkineni Nagarjuna may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: | ethnicity = [[Telugu people|Telugu]]) Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Hyderabad State "brutally put down", "committed horrendous atrocities", "Countless Hindu", "preceding MIM/Razakar atrocities" is the exact opposite of neutral language. --NeilN talk to me 01:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC) It is neutral language given the accounts of the period. You are welcome to research to verify and even reword, but not section blank--that's vandalism. You didn't do that, you outright reverted (removing referenced content) without touching on the substance. A good faith edit would change language not considered NPOV, while keeping core--referenced/verified--substance. Blanket removing content is indicative of a desire to skew the article. Furthermore, there is nothing even remotely non-NPOV about "preceding MIM/Razakar atrocities" when this is well known and was referenced in my edit. Please do not attempt to blank out sections of the historical event to suit particular interests. I am moving this discussion to the Hyderabad state talk page. Any further discussion should be conducted there. Devanampriya (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC) October 2013 Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Hyderabad State, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Since it seems you need a refresher... NeilN talk to me 01:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your interest in discussion. However, it appears you need to read the wikipedia policy on vandalism at once before recommending refreshers to others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking.2C_illegitimate. You removed an entire paragraph of content without proper explanation of why the entire paragraph and its sources were problematic to you. In fact, that entire section specifically brought out an aspect of the event that was left out by previous editor--despite being mentioned in the BBC article itself. It is also bad form to attempt to appropriate the language of an admin without being one yourself. Rather than posing as one and issuing warnings, if you have any understanding of the subject matter, discuss on the talk page of the article (I have already repasted previous exchange there). Any further comments by you on my talk page will be deleted. Continuing efforts to do so here despite my request will be considered harassment and may eventually be reported. Let us continue this discussion on article talk. Devanampriya (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Devanampriya reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN talk to me 04:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Reword is not edit warring. I responded to another user's concern after he reverted and made subsequent changes. Please reread WP policy on Vandalism and 3RR. Section blanking is no justified when sources are scholarly and edits are made in good faith, and subsequent rewords are also conducted. Devanampriya (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Hyderabad State. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Devanampriya (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: my last edits were not "subtle" edits attempting to "game the system" of 3RR, but good faith attempts addressing the specific requests of editors: i.e. they asked me to change "countless" and "brutally" for what they considered more npov language--and I did, as the record clearly shows. *even the other editor acknowledged I responded to one of his requests when he said this:"You changed one instance of blatant POV-pushing to slightly less POV-pushing. Not a great improvement." *I also removed "brutally" in "brutally put down"--so it wasn't four times, since the text in question was modified by me in response to their specific requested change. *I added a section of quotes because the other editor specifically preferred quotes to any of my original wording, hence I added this here, having provided it as further proof confirming the event to another editor on talk. He himself had conceded there needed to be some discussion of the preceding violence and background. *Their entire issue was with rewording my words as can be see on talk here (which I initiated). Thus I responded to at least 2 of the 4 specific reword requests. They refused to give me a modified version, but were only demanding I remove this and that, and then complaining even after I accepted their requested changes. They also insisted on holding text hostage on talk until they approved--which is against BRD policy. As you can see, neither of them provided any research on talk, and were only reverting because they disliked what the reliable sources themselves said. That was why they were section-blanking (why didn't they reword?), and when that failed, tried to stick me with a 3RR block. Despite this, my last edits were good faith modifications responding to their own requests. As such, I did not breach the 3RR rule, since they weregood faith modifications specifically responding to at least 2 requested changes from the complaining editors. I therefore believe I was wrongfully blocked and should be unblocked. Thank you. Devanampriya (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Decline reason: There's no point in wiki-lawyering about whether you technically broke 3RR or not, it is merely one specific type of violation of the edit warring policy, which you do appear to have violated. Below is some information about edit warring and how to avoid it. I'm sorry to see that you are blocked for edit warring. Many users find themselves confused as to why they were blocked in such a situation as they believed they were acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. What it is important for you to understand is that as far as the edit warring policy is concerned there is no right and wrong in an edit war. Anyone who edit wars is wrong and is blocked to prevent the disruption from continuing. There are very few exceptions, such as reverting blatant vandalism, which is not the case here. We don't allow edit warring because it never helps resolve an issue, and it always makes it worse.  What to do instead: Mark disputed statements or, if needed, the entire page with appropriate tags Initiate discussion on the talk page (note that edit summaries are not a substitute for actual discussion) If that does not rectify the issue seek page protection and/or dispute resolution as needed. If you follow these simple steps instead of edit warring you will find it is actually relatively easy to avoid edit warring and getting blocked for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Beeblebrox, thank you for reviewing my unblock request (and for the nice suggestion about archiving). While I appreciate the note, you mentioned that your reason for declining was that it doesn't matter whether I broke the 3RR or not, because I was edit warring--but by that standard the two other editors were edit warring as well, is it not? And yet only I was blocked... I have no desire to edit war, but I believe my request is in line with the 3RR policy--since it specifically says right or wrong doesn't matter--whether you cross the rv line does. Hence, I based my defense on that. However, since 3RR no longer appears to be the basis for my review or block, did I not do what was required to prevent edit warring by initiating talk page discussion (which I clearly initiated as I provided in evidence. This is one of your suggested actions--but I actually did do this and was still blocked)? Did I not respond and accept some of the changes suggested by other editors? Were they not ignoring my requests to modify the text (rather than edit war rv) to show me what they wanted to see? Did they not violate BRD policy by reverting first rather than bold editing? Were not my 4th and 5th changes specifically incorporating their suggestions rather than reverting: 04:41, 11 October 2013‎ Devanampriya (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,801 bytes) (+988)‎ . . (in line with talk discussion, reworded original text from "countless" to "unknown number". This is reword edit responding to other opinions.) (undo) I have been committed to NPOV, but it appears 3RR has been used as a pretext for 1 or 2 editors to block me and to get away with removing entire quotes/paragraphs from reliable sources (section blanking)--when BRD itself mandates refine/reword and revert as a last option (which they breached). Again, I do appreciate the time you took to respond to my request. However, I would like to appeal this decision, since I believe 3RR should be the basis for a block--and I believe I have provided sufficient grounds above to be unblocked--or to at least have a detailed discussion with an admin as to why given that I had actually followed one of your post review suggested course of actions. Exoneration from a questionable 3RR block, no matter how delayed, matters to a committed wikipedian like me who has made some contributions to keeping this site accurate, scholarly, and npov as best he can over 7 years (as you can see from my contribs history where I've made corrections across subject areas and have accepted and compromised when editors provided reliable sources to back up their assertions). Thank you and other admins who read this. I would like to appeal this decision. Devanampriya (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC) This was a clear cut 3RR block as shown in the diffs in my report. You inserted such text as "The Muslim militia and Hyderabad state police brutally put down the armed revolts by Communists and the peasantry and committed horrendous atrocities on the Hindu population" four separate times. It does not matter if you think they were made in good faith. Other editors objected so you needed to wait (and not for a couple hours) and see what discussion took place instead of forcing your text in. --NeilN talk to me 00:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC) No it was not clear cut, as even the appeal admin denied on non-3RR grounds. You are also mischaracterizing what happened: The fourth edit CHANGED the text in the second section of the SAME edit which you conveniently left out: 04:41, 11 October 2013‎ Devanampriya (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,801 bytes) (+988)‎ . . (in line with talk discussion, reworded original text from "countless" to "unknown number". This is reword edit responding to other opinions.) (undo) So the text's second part changed from :"Countless Hindu 'women became victims of rape and kidnapping by Razakars.'" TO "An unknown number of 'women became victims...'". 'Countless' became 'An unknown number'--responding specifically to Abecedare's talk page concern. Also, one of my edits was accidentally but obviously interspersed with yours (there was less than a minute difference between the two)--since I was changing the headline of the section. Because it happened during your revert, my good faith section title edit replaced your revert: (cur | prev) 01:47, 11 October 2013‎ Devanampriya (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,788 bytes) (+956)‎ . . (restored original title prior to sectional blanker's pov edit. This will head off inevitable "annexation" vs "liberation" edit war. more than 80% of native population wanted merger w/India.) (undo) (cur | prev) 01:46, 11 October 2013‎ NeilN (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (28,832 bytes) (-983)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Devanampriya (talk): See WP:NOTVAND. using TW) (undo) Someone other than you had made the change to the title of the section, and I was changing that not your edit. That's why our two edits took place within a minute of your revert and more than 20 minutes after my first revert of you. I clearly didn't even realize you had reverted. So on all counts, you don't have a 3RR case or even an edit warring case, since you yourself were rude and confrontational and edit warring from the beginning. You even admitted that I changed the text in good faith when you said this: "You changed one instance of blatant POV-pushing to slightly less POV-pushing. Not a great improvement." Finally, as per BRD, YOU have an obligation to reword not revert. But you breached every time because you were more interested in reverting (removing an entire section) rather than changing a few words. You can't hold text hostage--you have an obligation to either academically research and disprove if you have the skills/interest or to honor the reliable source of another editor. You have to properly discuss in detail, not make one line threats about what must be removed...or else. You operated on bad faith, I operated on good faith. Also, what business do you have here? Despite the fact that you began edit warring with me, and were threatening me with 3RR reports while you were edit warring, I have been blocked. Any further comment by you on my talk page will be deleted and if needed, reported as harassment (I already asked you once to stop commenting on my talk). Admins can decide grounds for appeal not you. I have given sufficient evidence and they have the noticeboard archive to see your mischaracterized arguments as well. They can also see your contribs to see how you go around reverting and trying to threaten users with blocks rather than make your own researched edits. Not only is your comment here non-collegial, it is down right rude to inject yourself into a matter that no longer concerns you. It seems you are less concerned with researching and improving the article and more concerned with procedural battles and banning good faith editors for sport. Devanampriya (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Devanampriya (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Per my response above to the appeal Admin, I would like to appeal the 3RR block decision as the unblock was denied not on 3RR grounds, but based on edit warring (though the other editors were not blocked--only I was). *Based on the evidence I provided above, I did not violate 3RR *I did not intend to violate 3RR as I 1. initiated talk and requested counterparty modification rather than revert 2. Accepted specific counterparty suggestions to good faith reword my previous edit--this was used against me to count as 3RR breaches. 3. these were not "subtle" edits to get around 3RR but were THE specific good faith word modifications requested by counterparties. *The other parties violated the BRD Policy when they reverted rather than reworded my edit through their own Bold edit--only I was blocked--and on questionable 3RR grounds. They refused to provide any research of their own and even said they had no interest in doing so--but wanted to hold my edits hostage on the talk page. Rather than contributing or providing rewords, they wanted vetoes. *The Appeal admin said blatant vandalism is grounds for revert--but is not section-blanking considered vandalism too? That's what I had been working to stop, as the record clearly shows *The Appeal admin said the alternative course of action for edit warring was to initiate talk--I specifically did do that. I would have initiated DR or RfC --but the counterparty (NeilN) preferred to 3RR block (as you can see from my talk page hist, he had been itching to do this, even before my 4th edit). (As you can see, even after reporting me blocked, NeilNis still harassing me on my talk page on a matter concerning admins making his actions personal not procedural). *Thus the counterparty edit warred, failed to initiate talk page, and failed to go to DR, but was not blocked. I initiated talk, I requested Bold edit rewords to my contrib, I accepted and implemented reword suggestions, but I was blocked. If edit warring is the basis for a block--should it not be applied evenly?--to all parties? Thus neither 3RR nor edit warring were accurate grounds for blocking me. *Exoneration from a questionable block matters as I have a 7 year history here of working for NPOV and scholarly articles, removing blatant vandalism and preventing (section-blanking)in my spare time. I am not WP: Litigious, and have adhered to wiki BRD and RfC processes as a wikipedian in good standing--however tendentious early exchanges may have been (some of those who previously commented on my talk were since banned for gaming the system. I however don't believe I have ever even been blocked previously and certainly not recently. *Given my previous contributions and the evidence I provided above, I believe I should be exonerated and unblocked as my appeal was denied on non-3RR grounds and my last edits were not reverts but good faith implementation of specific talk page suggestions. Thank you. Devanampriya (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Decline reason: User no longer blocked. Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. on an unrelated note... This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Although it isn't just the length, there is some sort of messed up formatting up the page a bit that makes it difficult to render the page at all on smaller screens. Probably the easiest fix would be to archive once the block has expired. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)