Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Deletion

Dear Jagged 85,

Before you judge me too harshly for removing several inventions from the list, all I have to say in my defense is that reasoning is provided in the summary of the edits.

I'm amazed by the medieval science additions that have been made in the article. What I would like to ask you in particular is that out of the list of scholars given given here did any of them make any invention ? (Other than the ones that you, and to a lesser degree I, have already added) These scholars have well documented histories and their achievements should be easier to track but I have little experience, or knowledge, about them at present.

Please don't judge me too harshly, I had a draft ready for Indian maritime history but I deleted it by accident and now I have to redraft it. After it I have a list of luxury products, spices, agriculture, and healthcare innovations that might make it to the list (given by a Agra University professor).

JSR (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored some of the material you removed, for reasons given in the edit summaries. However, there are a few others I didn't restore, like war elephant which probably doesn't count as an invention, or kamal which doesn't yet have any strong citations. I'm quite sure those modern scholars did make more inventions that we are not aware of, but we'll have to research into them a bit more to find out. I'll look forward to your contributions in the future. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you look into optical fiber? I'm sure Narinder Singh Kapany did something but I feel that you can do a better job on him (as you have with the other scholars. I'll try and find out myself but it'll take time). I'll get to implementing my list in in the next 2-4 days. All the best and regards, JSR (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I've added it to the article, along with a reliable source crediting Kapany as the "father of fibre optics". Jagged 85 (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You're doing great work on the article. I especially appreciate the additions of relatively recent scholars and mathematics. JSR (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

About half of these "inventions" need to be deleted. It is not an invention when you merely use a product. Maybe put them in another category in Discoveries. (Trentc (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC))

Please don't go on tagging like that again when you clearly don't have credible sources to back your assertions. JSR (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
When an item in this 'list' declare in a "first use" is clearly not an invention. Such as this one, "Jute, cultivation of: Jute has been cultivated in India since ancient times" That is not an invention. It is a discovery. Put it in another category. INVENTION is described as "(1): a product of the imagination  ; especially : a false conception (2): a device, contrivance, or process originated after study and experiment." Deciding to grow some plants is no way an invention. Now if the process of cultivating was in there, now that would be different. I guess I should add the tag of NEUTRALITY (Trentc (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC))
You say that 'if the process of cultivating was in there, now that would be different' and yet you began with Jute, cultivation of . The cultivation has been addressed and not growth in the wild. Please do not revert on such grounds again and talk here before tagging. JSR (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Tagging factual accuracy for a move to another category is not done. Move it yourself. You have as much power for it as I do but don't tag that the citations don't support the assertions. And this is trivial, why the anger over it and the reversions? JSR (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:HomiJBhabha.jpg

The image Image:HomiJBhabha.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Some additions

According to the Scythed chariot and Ajatashatru page, it was invented by Ajatashatru, King of Magadha.

Source: Alexander K. Nefiodkin, 2004. On the origin of the Scythed Chariots Historia vol. LIII/3 pp369-78

Source: Geyer H. S., 2006. Global Regionalization. Global Regionalization, pg3 (view [1] and [2])

Please visit the Shampoo articlei. It is clearly stated under history section. Sources are given.

Levees were first constructed in the Indus Valley Civilization (in modern day North India and Pakistan from circa 2600 BC) on which the agrarian life of the Harappan peoples depended. [Source: Koppel, Tom, 2007. Ebb and Flow (page 217)] (view: [3]) also this [4]

The earliest reservoir and dam for irrigation was built in Saurashtra. [5] also see: Singh, N. T., 2005. Irrigation and Soil Salinity in the Indian Subcontinent (page 68)(view: [6]).

Other early reservoirs were found in Girnar (3000 BC), which were most probably built due to hot, dry summers of North India. (Source: John C. Rodda, Lucio Ubertini. (2004), Rodda, John; Ubertini, Lucio, eds., The Basis of Civilization – Water Science?, International Association of Hydrological Science, ISBN 1-901502-57-0) <-- Taken from tha Reservoir page

The "great bath" at the site of Mohenjo-Daro was most likely dug during the 3rd millennium BC. This pool is 12 by 7 meters, is lined with bricks and was covered with a tar-based sealant.Great Bath, Mohenjo-daro Also see Keay, John. 2001 India: A History (pg 13) view [7])


I'm not too sure about this one though:

This is what the Aqueduct page says:

India was one of the earliest builders of aqueducts. More prominent evidence can be found at the sites of present day Hampi. The massive aqueducts near river Tungabhadra supplying irrigation water were once 15 miles (24 km) long http://books.google.ca/books?id=_kc3LKI_slEC


and Magnetism (says it was an Indian who discovered it).


BTW I added Hookah and Drainage to the list. Pls advice about the above. 60.50.65.55 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. There are some issues so I have undone it for the coming few days but it can be redone after a few days, and with your support we can make this article better for sure. Meanwhile please open an account and enjoy the real privileges of Wikipedia. It would be nice to have you as a registered contributor to help better this article.
I wanted to explore the origins of the Scythed chariot a while back and as it turns out maybe the Persians are to credit here but the Indians may have made critical developments to the chariot all the same. Hookah is almost certainly Turkish but maybe India did more for developing and popularizing it then anyone else. The thing which we should concentrate most on is adding modern inventions. We have people who have received the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology, almost always for an invention or discovery. All their contributions are yet to be added.
Hope to see you around as a regular.
JSR 0562 04:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi I am the same person above. Firstly I wanna congratulate you for the marvelous job you've done for Indian articles. Keep the good job going. Opening an account isn't gonna help me in anyway. As long as I can edit and interact with others, I'm happy.
Regarding Hookah, Turkey?? it isn't Turkish for gods sake! It originated in India. Water pipe smoking has been practised in India over 10 centuries! In fact in Turkey it is called Nargile, which comes from Sanskrit word Narikela (coconut shell), which suggests it was smoked using a coconut shell[8]. According to this BBC source it originated in India (maybe as far flung as China also), and was intooduced to Turkey only in the 17th century[9]. I have given several other citations to this (which you removed). There is sufficient evidence to prove that smoking through water pipes have been practised in India for over a thousand years! The Hookah was later perfected either during Akbar's rule, or when it went to the arab world, but the fundemental idea of water-pipe smoking was from India. There are too many citations to back it up. (just Google "hookah origin India" or "Hookah roots India" or "Hookah invent India" and you'll get the idea). Book reference: Chattopadhyay A. Emperor Akbar as a healer and his eminent physicians. Bulletin of the Indian Institute of the History of Medicine,2000, 30:151-158. So please reinsert it.
Regarding the scythed chariot, the oldest reference about it comes from ancient India and not Persia as you say. You have to understand that these inventions go a long way back and it's extremely difficult for historians to pin-point exactly where each and every invention originated from decisively. There're always conflicting theories pertaining inventions (except for some cases), but there are strong references to back my claim that it was invented in India. It's just like "button". There are other versions that claim it originated in China instead of India. The same goes with Chess, whereby there are even theories that links chess to Iran and China (as xiangqi) instead of India. As long as there are strong references that can link it to India (as one of the several theories on its origin), it should deserve a place on this list.
Shampoo (undisputed - see the shampoo article), Levee and pyjama are also surely of Indian origin. The sources (reliable ones) are available above. If only you could have a look. To some extent, even swimming pool and reservoir and drainage deserves a place.
If I manage to find out about any modern contributions I'll insert it, but for now lets insert what we have in hand. 118.100.10.171 (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with a lot of what has been said above. All I have to say is that give me two-three days for collecting some viewpoints and I can add them complete with Wikipedia's reference formatting. I will notify here as soon as an addition involving the above mentioned is complete. Meanwhile other suggestions in addition to the above mentioned are more than welcome.
I think you should register with the project and you will do really well here. Just my opinion :) JSR 0562 13:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


If all you need is time, that's not an issue. As long as you can make this article good, I'm with you. I have given all the references above to make your worl easier, which I made sure are reliable ones (and not from blogs / forums etc..) Over and above that, you are free to draw your own references. I also wanna bring the following (important) discoveries by the ancient Indians to your attention:

Heliocentrism

according to theosophists, the earliest traces of a counter-intuitive idea that it is the Earth that is actually moving and the Sun that is at the center of the solar system (hence the concept of heliocentrism) is found in several Vedic Sanskrit texts written in ancient India.[1][2] Yajnavalkya (c. 9th–8th century BC) believed that the Sun was "the center of the lokas" as described in the Vedas at the time. In his astronomical text Shatapatha Brahmana, he states:

"The sun is stationed for all time, in the middle of the day. [...] Of the sun, which is always in one and the same place, there is neither setting nor rising."[3]

Some interpret this to mean that the Sun is stationary, hence the Earth is moving around it,[2] though others are less clear about the meanings of the terms.[4] This would be elaborated in a later commentary Vishnu Purana (2.8) (c. 1st century BC).[3]
Yajnavalkya recognized that the Sun was much larger than the Earth, which would have influenced this early heliocentric concept.[1] He also is said to have accurately measured the relative distances of the Sun and the Moon from the Earth as 108 times the respective diameters of these heavenly bodies, close to the modern measurements of 107.6 for the Sun and 110.6 for the Moon.[5] He described an accurate solar calendar in the Shatapatha Brahmana.[5]
The Aitareya Brahmana (2.7) (c. 9th–8th century BC) also states:

"The Sun never sets nor rises. When people think the sun is setting, it is not so; they are mistaken. It only changes about after reaching the end of the day and makes night below and day to what is on the other side."[2][4]

Spherical earth

Subhash Kak[3] and other writers have suggested that the concept of a spherical Earth may be implicit, though with ambiguity, in the Aitareya Brahmana, an ancient Indian philosophical text dating back to the early 1st millennium BC. Kak has interpreted a verse of the Aitareya Brahmana as suggesting that the Earth's rotation may be the cause of the apparent motion of the Sun rising and setting. He cites verse 4.18, which states:[3]

"The [sun] never really sets or rises. In that they think of him “He is setting,” having reached the end of the day, he inverts himself; thus he makes evening below, day above. Again in that they think of him “He is rising in the morning,” having reached the end of the night he inverts himself; thus he makes day below, night above. He never sets; indeed he never sets."

However, Shyam Singh Shashi interprets the verse as suggesting that the Sun has one bright and one dark side, its flipping around on itself being the cause of the apparent rising and setting.[6]
The works of the classical Indian astronomer and mathematician, Aryabhata (476-550 AD), deal with the sphericity of the Earth and the motion of the planets. The final two parts of his Sanskrit magnum opus, the Aryabhatiya, which were named the Kalakriya ("reckoning of time") and the Gola ("sphere"), state that the earth is spherical and that its circumference is 4,967 yojanas, which in modern units is 39,968 km, which is only 62 km less than the current value of 40,030 km.[7][8] He also stated that the apparent rotation of the celestial objects was due to the actual rotation of the earth, calculating the length of the sidereal day to be 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds, which is also surprisingly accurate. It is likely that Aryabhata's results influenced European astronomy, because the 8th century Arabic version of the Aryabhatiya was translated into Latin in the 13th century.
(other links: [10], [11])

The Universe

The earliest known philosophical models of the universe are found in the Vedas, the earliest texts on Indian philosophy and Hindu philosophy dating back to the late 2nd millennium BC. They describe ancient Hindu cosmology, in which the universe goes through repeated cycles of creation, destruction and rebirth, with each cycle lasting 4,320,000 years. Ancient Hindu and Buddhist philosophers also developed a theory of five classical elements: Vayu (air), Ap (water), Agni (fire), Prithvi/Bhumi (earth) and Akasha (aether). In the 6th century BC, Kanada, founder of the Vaisheshika school, developed a theory of atomism and proposed that light and heat were varieties of the same substance.[9] In the 5th century AD, the Buddhist atomist philosopher Dignāga proposed atoms to be point-sized, durationless, and made of energy. They denied the existence of substantial matter and proposed that movement consisted of momentary flashes of a stream of energy.[10]

Concept of Atoms

The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India in the 6th century BCE.[11] The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools developed elaborate theories of how atoms combined into more complex objects (first in pairs, then trios of pairs).[12] The references to atoms in the West emerged a century later from Leucippus whose student, Democritus, systemized his views. In approximately 450 BCE, Democritus coined the term átomos (Greek: ἄτομος), which means "uncuttable" or "the smallest indivisible particle of matter", i.e., something that cannot be divided. Although the Indian and Greek concepts of the atom were based purely on philosophy, modern science has retained the name coined by Democritus.[13]


These are all taken from the respective pages. The full citations / references are available there. These should be placed on the list of discoveries. Hopefully you include them. another thing - i didn't notice reservoir is already there, but my source (provided above) says the first reservoir was in Saurashtra. Perhaps the Girnar one came later. Hope you can insert those points too. Just give some time, I'll think about an account. :-)60.50.79.153 (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. As far as I know Hindutva people have damaged these claims beyond repair. I will ask someone to take a look over the real legitimacy of those claims outside of the works of Kak and company. I seriously doubt that it will yield any results though. Kak etc. like to report post factum and connect things to old texts which they think were also science journals. I had the Encyclopedia of India with me when I wanted to edit on Indian astronomy but it turns out that every astronomy article there was written by Kak! I asked for another source which took time to come and had to edit with it but did not use Kak out of sheer conscience.
I have also asked for some time off till probably the 3-4 Jan :) JSR 0562 07:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What is an Invention?

These lists need a bit of shuffling. The definition of an invention is quite restricted, and there are a lot of entries on this page which need to be reclassified as discoveries or innovations, but NOT inventions. This could just be a matter of Indian English using similar words for different concepts, but it looks more like an unwarranted expansion of a list for some misplaced national pride.

The mathematical discoveries obviously need to go into 'Discoveries,' not 'Inventions.' You cant count inventions of the mind (Philosophical concepts) in the same place as inventions of new machines or tools. They may use the same word but in English usage they are completely unrelated. Certainly the 'concept' of a machine - perpetual motion - is not an invention, otherwise there are also inventors of time machines and warp space travel.

Also, archeological evidence for the earliest recorded occurrance of an object is not proof of invention, so the ruler, plough backgammon and reservoirs shouldn't be in the inventions list either. Perhaps an 'Archeological Firsts' list would be more accurate. That way there could be a line saying something like 'although there is no definitive proof of invention in India, archeological evidence places first use of these tools in India.'

The jute section is a bit spurious - is cultivation of a plant an invention or just a discovery or innovation? Perhaps alleviating this problem is simply a redfinition - what was the jute used for? Perhaps the section should be Jute Rope?

But the spinning wheel should be out - I know its an Indian symbol and everything, but 'probably' really isnt enough evidence. The Contributions section could probably be rebadged 'Innovations.' If there's no great uproar at the idea of a cleanup I'll start working on these over the next week.

One article you might want to look at in terms of an alternate layout is my List of Australian inventions. In this list the inventions increase in sophistication with time and the pictures link up with the text much better. Its also easier to read than a table format. But I wouldnt dream of instituting such a radical change without some support on that.

This is a good page, and deserves better than 'stub' status. It just needs a bit of cleanup for clarity. Although I must say the 'Discoveries' and 'Contributions' sections should have pages of their own and not be lumped in with 'Inventions.' The list of Indian mathematical discoveries is quite remarkable and should definitely have a listing of their own. That would get on the Wikipedia front page in no time at all. Mdw0 (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Shuffle of items to correct discoveries listing and introduction of innovations list complete. Mdw0 (talk)

The latest round of edits made were not consistent with the formatting and had several errors, including out of place text. The 'Contributions' section is the section which covers 'joint invention/discovery' or significant development of an object. It should not be replaced with 'Innovations'. The text on archaeology is unwarranted and in most cases does not deal with archaeology and in some cases goes against the text detailing spread or origin. Uncited statements like this do not serve any purpose. Other lists. eg. List of Chinese inventions, also do not follow such patterns. JSR 0562 05:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Joint inventions or discoveries should be in either inventions or discoveries, not in contributons because that's not what contributions means. Contributions implies a junior role, in which case they shouldn't be listed at all. Innovation is the taking of an old invention or idea and significantly expanding it to be used in new ways, which fits the listing. The pioneer of an innovation is much more noteworthy than a mere contribution. For instance, Bose's demonstrations of radio waves are a clear innovation in its use and application. In the end, though, I believe neither discoveries or innovations should be in a list of inventions because they're not inventions. I haven't even started yet on whether something is an Indian invention if it was invented overseas when an Indian emigre was part of the team. Claiming those inventions as Indian is quite spurious, and seems desperate. If spoked wheel chariots were invented in India lets see the evidence, because everywhere else, including the chariots article in Wikipedia lists the genesis of chariots in Central Asia, not India. Just because the Indus Valley people had chariots and the beginning of the Indus civilizatuion dates back to 3000BC it does not follow that chariots were invented there in 3000BC. The text on archaelogy is definitely warranted for the reasons descibed, because an archeological first is not proof of invention as the inventor is unknown. Any or all of these could have been invented elsewhere, its just that the first use that we know of is in India. This should definitely be mentioned. An invention is a new device developed by a certain person or group at a particular time in a particular place. If the person or place can't be verified then this needs to be indicated, which is why I used a marker against the archeological firsts which related back to that statement. Just because the Chinese list overstretches itself doesnt mean this one ought to. The Chinese inventions site should also mention that claims based on archeological evidence are without a confirmed inventor and as such are not definitive the way modern patents are. If this list was more like the Chinese list there would be little need to edit it at all. The Chinese list is much better organised and is much easier to read as it doesnt try to squeeze everything into a table as this one does. There is also some semblance of chronological advancement in the Chinese list, although it needs another couple of separations to indicate modern inventions as well. Rather than reverting because I haven't followed the previous formatting, it needs to be acknowledged that the formatting is the problem with this article. There's no chronological progression and it includes a lot of discoveries thet aren't inventions. My main focus in this edit was to get rid of the unneccessary and weak 'Discoveries - Other' section, and to fix the last section which really should be Innovations not Contributions. There was a plethora of other edits that you reverted without comment - can I assume you were OK with those? I'll continue to edit, but one at a time with clear edit notes so you can see what I'm doing and it will make it easier to flag anything you disagree with. Mdw0 (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Your text on archaeology in most cases does not deal with archaeology and in other cases goes against the text detailing spread or origin. Uncited statements like are not found in other lists, eg. List of Chinese inventions. In fact, even the Aboriginal technology - before 1788 section of the List of Australian inventions does not contain such text.
Could you detail your idea of organization? I would really appreciate better organization here even if means removing tables with a better idea. The contributions section does deal with inventions/discoveries made by Indians and foreigners. The role of Indians in, say, the Wilson-Bappu effect is the same as the other inventor/discoverer.
JSR 0562 06:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Specifically: 'If this list was more like the Chinese list there would be little need to edit it at all. The Chinese list is much better organised and is much easier to read as it doesnt try to squeeze everything into a table as this one does. There is also some semblance of chronological advancement in the Chinese list'
What are we doing wrong? Should we follow alphabetical progression like the Chinese list? I'm very interested in what can be done for better organization and will try and help in whatever way I can. JSR 0562 06:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I feel OK not making the note regarding archeological inventions on the Australian list because I only included items that were uniquely Australian. For example the bullroarer and a host of other hunting weapons were left off the list because there were equivalents in other places. There was no way to know who could claim the invention, so I excluded them and only included the items that were never used or mentioned anywhere else and which were therefore undisputably Australian - the boomerang, the didgeridoo and the woomera. A similar restriction on the Indian list would see it decimated.
In terms of organisation my preference would be three articles - List of Indian inventions, List of Indian technological discoveries and List of Indian mathematical discoveries. The list of mathematical dioscoveries is amazing and deserves its own article. However I would certainly not insist on this - the discoveries and innovations could be included as long as the inventions list is definitive. First, get rid of the table. Next, place in three time periods - ancient, Mughals and post-Independence. Possibly a British Raj period too. This would also apply to the discoveries section.
The Wilson-Bappu discovery I would count as an Indian discovery and list it as such. The only time I would question it is if the Indian scientist or inventor had left India well before working on the discovery. In that case the foreign country could fairly claim the discovery or invention. This is a list of Indian inventions, not a list of inventors from India. It needs to be an exclusive club, not an attempt to show how clever Indians are by listing everything under the sun. An inventor should feel privileged to be listed.
I tell you what - tomorrow I'll put together what I would do on my user page. That way you can look at it as a whole and comment, and encourage others to comment. Then once there's a reasonable consensus we can replace the current one with whatever new layout appeals. How does that sound? Mdw0 (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Let me have till today for suggesting a few options first. A full compilation would be exhausting for you and I have a few ideas that you may agree with, and one idea in particular. I will post them here in a few hours (If I make it back alive from the wretched fog that is. It may not sound like much but has stalled much in Agra for some time now). JSR 0562 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1. We split the history of science and technology in India article into Science and technology in colonial India, Science and technology in Islamic India, Science and technology in India (700 BCE-1300 CE), Science and technology in India (Vedic Period), Science and technology in the Indus Valley.

2. We move the inventions and discoveries in era specific articles and redirect to history of science and technology in India.

I have some sources in hand and can have the first article ready in a week-10 days. The disadvantage with this approach is that it consumes time (maybe till march). But we are all here right ? This is the best way because even if we split the articles into inventions and discoveries all it would take is someone with some knowledge of the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar awardees to inflate the list again.

Thoughts?

JSR 0562 04:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC) JSR 0562 04:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. That would mean the List of Indian inventions can be just that. Mdw0 (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Time

I agree with some points raised by new editors and old, and disagree with other points mentioned above. But that's a process that would take some time and I sense an opportunity here to reshape the article in a new and better way. The new year is approaching fast and time is scarce. Should we continue these discussions after say 3-4 Jan and enjoy whatever time we have after work till then? JSR 0562 06:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK I look forward to hearing from you on Jan 3 or 4. I don't know what you mean about Hindutva people damaging these claims beyond repair, but remember, as I said above as long as there are theories linking a discovery / invention to India, it deserves a place on this list. This is because it is extremely difficult to trace definitively something thousands of years old. All the theories of discoveries are based on the earliesy archeological find (e.g. bell - the world's oldest bell was found in China so modern historians term it as a Chinese invention - although it may not be). The other way a discovery is linked to a place is through records / writings (e.g. Tissue paper - is said to originate in China because of arab traveller texts that document it as well as archeological finds of tissue paper in stick form in Japan - although there's nothing definitive that the chinese 'invented' it). In fact for certain things, there are more than 1 theories (e.g. India ink - which is on the List of Chinese Inventions article - which lists Indian Ink as a chinese invention because according to some historians, it was invented in China, contrary to the common believe that it was from India.). IMO this list should contain all discoveries / inventions linked to India either primarily or as a secondary theory. As long as there's a theory (backed by proper citations) linking it to India (even if it's against contrary belief), it should deserve a place here. Whatever I have listed above has been traced to India primarily. I look forward to your coorperation. Happy 2009! 118.100.10.201 (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Let me experiment with the tables and search for the material for a bit. From what I know the Scythed chariot is definitely not Indian but I have asked someone who knows for help. The great bath was used for public bathing rather than as a swimming pool. Give me some time I'm on it and should have the concerns addressed by Jan 4.
We should either split the inventions and discoveries or wait for the creation of Science and technology in colonial India, Science and technology in Islamic India, Science and technology in India (700 BCE-1300 CE), Science and technology in India (Vedic Period), Science and technology in the Indus Valley and move them to their time periods and redirect this page to History of science and technology in India and create links for the articles there.
I know it sounds impossible but I have been looking for shorter and clearer articles and have been planning to modify existing articles to make them readable and create new articles for shorter, more clearer picture (as per mining in India or Indian Antarctic Program). I can get this done by March and if I can have some help (in form of suggestions, expansion and copy editing etc. like I had on the ISRO page) than it can be done by mid Feb. This page is too long and doesn't attract much traffic as is.
Any thoughts?
JSR 0562 03:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back JSR. Happy 2009! In my opinion there's no need for a split for now. Let all the inventions / discoveries / contributions stay under this unified article as it isn't too long as yet. Even if there's a split, we should split it according to discoveries, inventions and contributions; rather than according to the ages (Vedic, Mughal etc).
I don't understand what is hindering the addition of Scythed Chariot although I have given adequate sources of a theory that links its roots to India. You cannot determine whether a fact should be inserted or removed by "asking somebody who knows" and basing it on his consent because it constitutes original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. All claims must be backed by reliable sources; which is exactly what I've provided for my claims.
You should provide equally reliable sources that counter my citations completely if they are not to be incuded (especially for Hookah, Shampoo and Scythed chariot - as well as the 4 discoveries first mentioed in ancient Indian texts). About help, I have no problems inserting the above mentioned inventions / discoveries myself, as how I did earlier. That isn't an issue. The reason I'm discussing is because you removed what I inserted despite being properly cited content; and I didn't want an edit war.
Anyway I look forward to hearing your counter claims on the inventions / discoveries above on Jan 4. I agree with you about swimming pool (it was not built for leisure but for cleansing - so we shall not include it); but not about Scythed Chariot and especially Hookah; both of which are backed by strong citations of theories linking it to India. 118.100.10.187 (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for wishing me and my very best wishes to you. The Scythed Chariot article claims that Nefiodkin rejects Indian origins and so far he has conducted the only study that I know of. That's why I asked for a deeper search of other sources and first hand analysis of Nefiodkin since I don't have it. About Hookah and philosophy others I had a few sources on science and religion interconnection and they were good but I have to get them again and look through them. With New Year, work, and some very dense fog those well laid plans seen to have gone awry! I'm on it and will do the best that I can as soon as I can.
I was asking for an account creation so in case of a delay I can inform you on your message page.
JSR 0562 01:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok you can continue the search on Scythed Chariot while I'm doing my own; although I have limited reference material on my side. So for now Scythed Chariot and swimming pool shall be on hold. About the concept of atoms, spherical earth etc., the sources are clearly stated in the respective pages, and they seem to be reliable, hence they should deserve a place. Regarding Hookah, I have already done my own study and it has shown that the Hookah was invented by a physician under the reign of Akbar, although there are indications to show that water-pipes (without tobacco) have been used in India many years before that. It got transmitted to the middle east from India.

Here are 12 additional sources that attribute the Hookah to India, from my day long research:


  • Rousselet, Louis (1875) India and Its Native Princes: Travels in Central India and in the Presidencies of Bombay and Bengal, Chapman and Hall (London), p. 290
  • Blechynden, Kathleen (1905) Calcutta, Past and Present, University of California (Los Angeles), p. 215
  • Balfour, Edward (1885) The Cyclopaedia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia, B. Quaritch (London), p.901
  • Forrest, G. W. (2006) Cities Of India, Hesperides Press (republished version), p.206 [ISBN 140670198X]
  • Curtis, William Eleroy (2008) Modern India, BiblioLife, p.214 [ISBN 0554235579]
  • Jr, James Villers (2002) Travelers Tales - Turkey: True Stories, Travelers' Tales (London) p.91 [ISBN 1885211821]
  • Council of Scientific & Industrial Research India (1976) The Wealth of India, CSIR India (New Delhi), p.7
  • Partington, Wilfred (1924) Smoke Rings and Roundelays - Pipes and Tobacco, (London), p. 197
  • N.A. (1965) The World and Its Peoples: India, Greystone Press (New York), p. 178
  • Sivaramakrishnan, V. M. (2001) Tobacco and Areca Nut, Orient Blackswan (Hyderabad), p.4 [ISBN 8125020136]
  • Boyle, Peter; Gray, nigel; Henningford, Jack; Seffrin, John; Zatonski, Witold (2004) Tobacco and Public Health: Science and Policy, Oxford University Press (Oxford) p. 253 [ISBN 0198526873]
  • Gupta, Prakash C; Hamner, James E & Murti, P. R. (1993) Control of Tobacco-related Cancers and Other Diseases (Bombay), p. 33 [ISBN 0195629612]


Yes I understand winter conditions in India, especially in the north are cold and foggy and disrupt everyday life. But all I'm saying is that for especially Hookah, as well as Shampoo and the 4 discoveries in ancient Indian texts, the sources are already available here, loud and clear, so there's no harm in including them right away. The sources conform to the WP:Reliable sources article. Thanks! 60.50.76.62 (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't exhaust yourself as I'm not saying that these inventions/discoveries don't belong here. All I'm saying is that there are books that deal with these subjects and it just might take a little time for the material to be bought and studied here. Look up my contributions and you will see that I have yet to make any significant edits since this is what I would like to have finished first.
Please be patient for just a bit longer. Thanks for being accommodating and patient thus far. I know that delays can be irritating but I will really try and have this done soon. JSR 0562 05:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I have added Hookah. Great research! JSR 0562 05:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets act

Mdw0, I have categorized and created the Innovations section. Feel free to move stuff as you please.

This is for everyone involved:

  • Table: Not only is the table convenient to arrange but consecutive tables allow multiple categorizations to be made without a 'blue link subheading clog' here. The content remains unaffected by the use of tables or without. The table can actually help people narrow the text to a para or two, which would otherwise inflate to lengthier descriptions. If we can leave the table and the arrangement scheme as is then what difference does it make? The content is the same.
  • Period-wise sections: The other thing is that division into time periods would further complicate things. There are 8 phases, i.e. 1) Pre IVC 2) IVC 3) Vedic Age 4) Classical Age 6) Islamic era 7) Colonial India 8) Republic of India and even these have subdivisions. They will have to be implemented threefold for three headings.

We reserve this article for inventions which don't belong anywhere else. Other inventions we begin shifting within 10 days time and until then we agree to an informal stop is put on further additions. The article is going to simply explode with content otherwise. And if someone comes up with Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar awardees just to add here then we can go on splitting but there hardly will be any end.

Remember guys, Long term plans work best and we are in no haste. The article is readable now and can only get better as soon as we begin moving stuff.

Do I have everyone's confidence?

JSR 0562 17:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


Sorry for butting in. Here are some inputs:

1. This article is clearly named "list of Indian inventions" - LIST. So there's nothing wrong with the present way it is. it is a list and there's no question of "squeezing everything into a table". This is a list and it is listed down in table form. Thats all.

2. Hookah: Thanks for the addition but whats wrong with the insertion of ".com" websites? Please see WP:RS. My websites conform to it. Also, the hookah picture is really dark and not nice. Please try this [12] (traditional Indian Hookah).

3. Agricultural discoveries: This one is quite complex, but you have to agree that plants like Jute is native to India, so naturally the first cultivation begun in India - nothing really so special about it in my opinion. Similarly we can include many others like Black Pepper (see the Black Pepper page), Mango, Sesame (I have several book sources for this), Radhuni, Tulsi (holy basil) and many other spices.

4. I'm researching a few more but in the mean time, we have sources for the other 2 (heliocentrism, spherical earth). I have done a rough research and it is certain all 4 came from Indian texts / attributed to India. I have not recorded the sources because there are sufficient in the respective pages. However if you need more, please let me know - or else include them too. But please don't make me have to bring you 12 more sources before you decide to insert - it is very time consuming.

5. In my opinion we should split this list into 2: List of Indian Inventions (only inventions) and List of Indian discoveries (discoveries and contributions). You can do an articles like Science and technology in colonial India, Science and technology in Islamic India, Science and technology in India (700 BCE-1300 CE) etc. but they should be in essay (paragraph) form; and are not the need of the moment. This is a comprehensive list we're talking about, that covers all of Indian inventions since antiquity (1) and Indian discoveries (2).

6. Additions: I don't agree we stall the process of adding information because we're undecided on how this article must be reorganized. Updating / improvisation must proceed in the mean while, and we can shift the information into new articles once we've decided.

7. Discoveries: I don't see how backgammon is a "discovery" while chess and S&L are "inventions. You don't "discover" backgammon. You invent it. It is an invention.

118.100.28.68 (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You're pretty much spot on here - backgammon should be in the inventions list, and the inventions list should be clearly separated from the discoveries list if not in a separate article. And of course you are always welcome to edit as you see fit. The assumption about jute isn't necessarily correct, though. Why cultivate something that grows naturally? There's a logical argument to say that cultivation might start somewhere else, where jute does NOT grow naturally. This is a classic reason why the archeological firsts should be qualified, because we don't know for sure. The table format is OK to present a certain amount of information, but putting the whole article as a table is harder to read than the format used in the Chinese, Swedish, Australian and Islamic articles. Mdw0 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Stuff should be moved around as per discussion and all of us should feel free to do it. There is a lot of stuff which should be moved. I suggest you guys take the reigns and shift the material till its proper. Jute was first cultivated in India and this is the region where it was first applied to a host of other things (cordage, burlap etc.). Jute is to India like Tobacco to America (pardon the analogy).
Dear 118.100.28.68, The reason why I removed the dot com websites is that the kind of time consuming research that you conducted for hookah yielded exemplary respectable material in form of books etc. That is central to the credibility of this page. If we keep adding websites like http://www.thecolorsofindia.com/hookah/hookah-history.html then the credibility of the page suffers.
The two books I had asked for (Encyclopedia of Science and Religion and Science, Religion, And Society) yielded nothing. I found some stuff in Sarma, K.V. (2008), "Astronomy in India", Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures (2nd edition) edited by Helaine Selin. Springer. 317-321. ISBN 978-1-4020-4559-2 but it was not enough. I own a motorcycle and not a car and that's one of the reasons why I'm specially hit by the fog and am not as prompt as I should be.
If you register yourself here and read the Indian Journal of History of Science you will find some things for yourself. Its bound to throw up a lot of stuff for your research but its without searchable text.
JSR 0562 05:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Your analogy is terrible because tobacco wasn't first cultivated in America! Mdw0 (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ouch! :) I meant the Americas not the US but was just speaking off the top of my head there. JSR 0562 07:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Mdw0, the reason I don't edit is so that there isn't an edit war. My changes are most often than not reverted.

2. Diamond: It should be in both discovery (diamond) and invention (diamond jewellery / gemstone) section. Diamond as a mineral was first discovered and mined in India, while diamond jewellery was first invented in India. I feel in the invention section we should rename Diamond (gemstone) to Diamond, use as gemstone / jewellery or something like that.

3. Concept of Atomism & philosophical model of universe: Are these innovations or discoveries? Mdw0 and JSR what do you think? I feel it's a discovery because an innovation means introducing something new. The universe and atomism has existed eversince is nothing new. Just like how Issac Newton discovered gravity, not innovated it; and like how Columbus discovered America not innovated it. It's about a discovery of something that's already there but has never been discovered by anybody else.

4. Zinc: Similarly zinc is also a discovery because it is a naturally occuring metal. So somebody has to "discover" it not "innovate" it.

5. Heliocentrism & spherical earth: I will be checking out on these tomorrow. Heliocentrism is definately in (at least one other source on my own reference has confirmed); about spherical earth I couldn't find any yet. Please note that you don't only refer to one or two books as sources. No book credits itself with having everything perfect and complete. What may not be contained there may be in other books which I ought to dig up. But please JSR don't harm yourself by travelling in the cold and foggy conditions of north India, more so in a motorbike. It's really dangerous. That's why I'm also looking for reliable book sources to back my claims. The condition in my part of the world is fortunatey clear, warm and sunny all year round.

6. Addition: Chakravala method - shall I do it?

7. I had a conversation with some people who were telling me Badminton, in its modern form originated in India. I did a long search and true eough, I found many sources that confirm this. The modern form of badminton with a racquet was first played in India, and by the late 19th century the British started playing it, where it was known as Poona. They later took it back to England and it's been called Badminton to this day. This was confirmed by the Olympics Factbook that wrote "...it may have began as Ti Jian Zi or Shuttlecock kicking in China of the 5th century BC. The modern version of Badminton can be traced to India where British military officers in the country became interested in 'Poona' due to the similarity with Lawn tennis..." Several other sources state the same thing (i.e. modern version of badminton with net and racquet originated in India and was taken to Britain by British soldiers):

  • Connors, Martin; Dupuis, Diane L.; Morgan, Brad (1992) The Olympics Factbook: A Spectator's Guide to the Winter and Summer Games Michigan: Visible Ink Press ISBN 0810394170 [p. 195]
  • Boga, Steven (1996) Badminton Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books ISBN 0811724875 [p.1]
  • Guillain, Jean-Yves (2004) Badminton: An Illustrated History Paris: Editions Publibook ISBN 2748305728 [p.47]
  • Purohit, Vinayak (1988) Arts of Transitional India Twentieth Century Mumbai: Popular Prakashan ISBN 0861321383 [p.333]
  • Vaidya, Tulasī Rāma; Mānandhara, Triratna; Joshi, Shankar Lal (1993) Social History of Nepal New Delhi: Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd. ISBN 8170417996 [p.267]
  • Richardson, Adele (2000) India Minnesota: The Creative Company ISBN 1583410317 [p.29]

8. Another addition: I have also come across some really good material that present the dice as of Indian origin judging from early excavations and records that it has been in use since vedic times (mentioned in the vedas too). See:

  • Lowie, Robert H. (2007) An Introduction To Cultural Anthropology Masterson Press ISBN 1406717657 [p.162]
  • Richter-Ushanas, Egbert (1997) The Indus Script and the Ṛg-Veda Kolkata: Motilal Banarsidass Publ. ISBN 8120814053 [p.223, 224]
  • Varadpande, Manohar Laxman (2005) History of Indian Theatre New Delhi: Abhinav Publications ISBN 8170174309 [p.156, 157]
  • Shashi, Shyam Singh (2000) Encyclopaedia Indica India, Pakistan, Bangladesh Vol. 76 Major dynasties of ancient Orissa: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh New Delhi: Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd. ISBN 8170418593 [p.307]

9. In fact Mdw0 removed backgammon because apparently it originated in Persia (which may be true) - one source of mine says the following: "the game of Backgammon is first mentioned in Bhartrhari's Vairagyasataka (p.39) composed around the late sixth or early seventh century CE. The use of dice is another indication of its Indic origin.... The rules of the game however first appeared in the Middle Persian text Wizarisn I catrang ud I Nihisn I New-Ardaksir (Explanation of Chess and invention of Backgammon) composed in the 6th century during the rule of Sasanian king Khousro I (530-571). The text assigns its invention to Persian sage Wuzurgmihr...." So although one can dispute the invention of Backgammon, the dice has its roots in India. See:

  • Meri, Josef W.; Bacharach, Jere L. (2006) Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia London: Routledge ISBN 0415966906 [p.88]

10. Hookah: In one or two of the book sources I gave earlier they had also mentioned about more primitive Hookahs in India before Akbar's physician's invention of the modern Hookah. I will look up which source it is and reinsert. By the way the other website citation I gave should be reliable, isn't it?

11. Agriculture: I have several sources that show sesame was first cultivated in India. can it also be included under agriculture? I personally feel we leave out "cultivations" and concentrate on use of agricultural produce (like wool, indigo dye, sugar etc.); because growing a crop in large scale is no big "discovery". Discovery is more like the use of a crop. And since sugar is there, note that sugarcane was also first cultivated in India.

12. Sources inserted for several discoveries that has no references.

118.100.30.219 (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add as you please. As a new user some reverts happen but you should not think that I'm going to edit war with you (or anyone else). I have had to juggle too many things and have bumbled on more than one occasion so if I gave that impression then my mistake. I'm going to be out of action for some time but do take a look into the Indian Journal of History of Science. The IJHS is available after a signup and its volumes should cover nearly all of your research. IJHS has some things on heliocentric models etc.
Not a good time for me to brainstorm I know but here goes: I came across the depreciated List of Indian scientists not too long ago. In the future, when this articles becomes long, would a good way forward not be to shift material from here to the scientist(s) there and leave a note on top of this page so that people know that 'scientist-specific-inventions' can be found there?
'JSR don't harm yourself by travelling in the cold and foggy conditions of north India, more so in a motorbike. It's really dangerous.' Prophetic words those, skidded off a speed breaker yesterday night :) JSR 0562 08:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh my god, my deepest sympathies. Were there serious injuries? And please don't get me wrong: I fully understand your quest for quality in this article and I fully support you, that goes without saying. I know I've been a bit pushy; what we need here is check and balance; not anybody adding anything; and you make a great partner in this respect. Please don't leave because of it. The reason why I'm discussing any additions here before inserting is because I want everyone's (especially your) consent. I recognise and appreciate your effort in beefing up many India-related articles including this one and appreciate your effort of "guarding" this article against unwanted edits. Please don't misunderstand me JSR as my objectives are the same as yours: I want to expand this article, but only with quality citations and I stand by that. Please stay. 60.50.73.168 (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Ouch. But then again, motorbike riders are always falling off their bikes and telling stories about it later. You'd know if it was a serious accident because he'd be saying how badly his bike was broken! If there's references for dice games in India before anywhere else then that's certainly a valid invention. As it was, the backgammon section actually said the rules of backgammon were in Persia early 6th cent with the Indian reference being in late 6th early 7th cent, so on that basis it had to go. Badminton goes in inventions. A philosophical idea could be considered eitehr a discovery or an invention. Diamond should be Diamond Gemstones. The use of commas in order to produce an alphabetical list gives me the irrits. It prioritises an alphabetical list over readability and imparting information. Since there's a general consensus we should be moving to a chronological list rather than an alphabetical one this should change to 'Diamond Gemstones.' Mdw0 (talk)
I'm still doing some research on dice and it looks quite promising; badminton is almost certain. I'll have it up in a few days. Inserted Chakravala method earlier. Your removal of backgammon is acceptable because I've only come across one source attributing it to India, but anyway I've put someone on the job. I would personally prefer an alphabatical list though. 118.100.5.169 (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear 118.100.5.169,

Thanks for your message. No injuries just a broken indicator light and some damage to my bike (nothing that can't be repaired easily):) I'm not going anywhere but just staying away for a few days till it gets easier for me to contribute significantly. I will keep looking here every couple of days till then. I sincerely am enjoying the great contributions that you are making. India was also one of the first countries to textually mention the dice in the religions literature and use it for gambling.

Dear Mdw0,

I think that this is good work. What I would like to add to it is:

  • Division of India's time line into "ancient", "Mughal" and British" can be done away. The term "ancient India" is usually replaced with specific period/empire in scholarly literature because "ancient India" kept changing with dynastic rule and without the exact time period being mentioned which ancient India is being talked about becomes confusing. There were other Islamic and Hindu medieval kingdoms before the Mughals that were neither Mughal nor ancient. Throwing a few suggestions out there:
  1. Idea 1: Follow a 'pre-Shang' 'Shang and later' style way (as per List of Chinese inventions) and somehow try and tailor it for here.
  2. Idea 2: An earlier version of alternate layout is found here. I find that arrangement acceptable. Alphabetical lists works better so follow alphabetical arrangement for inventions, discoveries, innovations without time periods or alphabet name in heading.
  • As long as the image scheme does not have those huge spaces that some Wiki articles have and the images are evenly sized I'm with whatever you do.
  • Bullet points (*) can be used in the list.
  • Notes like "The following are archeological firsts, whose first use or first written reference are Indian, but cannot be attributed to a particular Indian inventor." and "Similar to the inventions listing, the discoveries made in ancient times have their first use or first written refernce in India, even though the discoverer and exact date of discovery is unknown." can be done away. India, like Persia and China, does have inventions without the names of inventors but as long the region is credited with convincing evidence such notes do not serve any purpose. In many cases the invention is attributed to the inventor with date etc. and in other cases the invention probably evolved over such a long period of time (eg. Calico in India or Gunpowder in China) that it has no single inventor but regions within the main region of invention where significant progress was made for its development. No other "list of inventions" article has such uncited notes and this article should not become the first one to do have such a note.

You guys are doing great work. My opinion was asked and I spoke my mind. Keep it up Mdw0 and 118.100.5.169.

JSR 0562 11:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi JSR. Good thing it wasn't serious. Be careful in future. Yes now I have 2 sources that explicitle says that dice originated in India. Also there are many for Badminton. Do you have the source that says "India was one of the first countries to textually mention the dice in the religions literature and use it for gambling" ?? If you have any then I can add it in. I'm soon gonna insert Badminton, and in the mean time I'm just inserting citations to some weakly cited parts. And JSR, go to the carrom page and it says it's from India - the reason I checked it out is because somebody told me it is from India. There are some articles online (google search) that say the same although I cannot really find any good book source that says. Surprisingly in the local library there are only 2 results for "carrom" -both useless ones. Please have your say. If you find anything wrong with my contributions, please don't hessitate to correct / revert, no problem, we can discuss.
HI Mdw0. First of all I checked out your List of Australian Inventions article and found you missed out polymer banknote. I haven't really done any deep research to ascertain if it was indeed from Australia but Australia is often credited for it (even the article says so). And your proposed new list for Indian inventions is cool. Nice job! And yes, there were many dynasties in India and not all ruled the whole of India. For example during the Mughal period some present day states like parts of Tamil Nadu and Kerala were not under any Mughal rule. So it's not applicable. 60.50.77.17 (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

One source to get things started on the oblong dice:

If we look at the equipment used in playing chaupar and pachisi we find that not only the men, but also the oblong dice for chaupar and the cowries for pachisi are as old as the third millenium B.C., while the four-armed cruciform board appears to be a development from much simpler gaming boards, marked in squares or houses, of the same period.

The use of both cubical and oblong dice was evidently common in the Indus Valley (Harappan) sites of about 2300 B.C., with the oblong dice being somewhat commoner. These latter were generally rectangular in section, occasionally triangular, and variously marked with numbers. For example, all the sides might be different, or two sides might be similarly marked. Cubical dice are known in antiquity outside India (for example at Ur and Tepe Gawra in Mesopotamia and Tell el'Amarna in Egypt), but oblong dice occur very rarely, if at all, outside the country in this early period.

When we get our first literary texts in India, we find that dice-playing was a common failing of the upper classes. The Rig Veda, which we may reasonably consider to have been in its present form before 1000 B.C., has references to the use of dice, and one of its hymns (Book 10, 34) is a charm to cure an inveterate and unsuccessful gambler of the compulsion to gamble that has ruined him. In the Atharva Veda, also, gambling with dice is mentioned (2.3; 4.38; 6.118; 7.52; 7.109). - Brown, W.N. (Spring, 1964), "The Indian Games of Pachisi, Chaupar, and Chausar", Expedition, 32-35, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

I highly recommend some free online sources for research:

There is plenty of information out there. Not enough time :)

JSR 0562 17:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

JSR, I have got 2 citations explicitly saying that the dice is from India. I have also got 3 sources (including the one you gave above) about early excavations from the Indus Valley. Further there are 2 sources that indicate the dice was mentioned in the Vedas in addition to what you gave above (which includes the exact verses - I found to be true in sacred-texts.com). I tried going through the INSA but the search repeatedly yields "No Records Found". If you're familiar with these journal sites, which I'm not, I would really appreciate if you can find me at least one journal that says "the dice originated in India". If you can't find the time, I'll just go ahead and insert it with the sources I have. 60.50.77.17 (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
JSR, something unexpected came up and I will be out of town for a week or so. I will put up information on badminton and dice as soon as I return -badminton is complete and it's just a matter of inserting. Dice too is more less done. I'm also researching carrom and incense clock- of which 2 prominent researches who have studied the origins of the clock attribute it in its earliest from to India, although the Indians may not have used it for time keeping, but religious purposes. I managed to get hold of both their books and have read through it. Till then JSR, if you could get me an additional journal source about dice and its Indian links, I would be grateful. I want all claims to be well cited with at least 2 or 3 citations from different sources. Thanks. 60.51.63.20 (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone - glad the general response to the layout is positive. That was my main concern. Personally I think it looks HEAPS better
The rationale behind the time splits was that the inventions fit them best. The inventions during the period between ancient and colonial India were predominantly Mughal court related. It would be good to be able to split up the ancient India section into an earlier and later period - is there a clearly deliniating period in Indian history that would define that? The problems is that a lot of the inventions from ancient India are so badly noted in terms of WHEN they were invented, which I would consider a major flaw. Is there a name for the period of royal kingdoms in India? I think getting too obsessed with absolute accuracy in the time periods would be a mistake, especially as the geography we are dealing with is so fluid. India as a nation is a modern concept, and raises questions as to what counts as India. I think teh geographical it should be inclusive rather than Is the Indus valley really Indian? The goal is a chronological listing with relatively even numbers of inventions in each one, which I agree needs work as the ancient period is too large. Why chronological versus alphabetical? Because the reader can see gradual development over time. You dont have modern high-tech mixed up with ancient low-tech. You can see the historical context of the inventions, which in some cases are vitally important. It also makes the focus on the time the invention was first created, which is what proves the invention is Indian, and is badly lacking in the current article. To balance this we need to find more inventions from the modern periods. As it stands it looks like India's most successful period is well behind it, which I cant believe is accurate.
I dont consider the polymer banknote to be an invention. Making a something out of a new material is not an invention - its a new design. Its a classic example of an innovation, not an invention.
The trick with ensuring no huge spaces in the text is to alterante between left and right aligned images.
The reasoning behind acknowledging the inventor is not known is that we are making an ASSUMPTION that the first acknowledged use of of an invention in India means that it was actually invented in India. First documented use does not equal invention. This is a list of inventions, not a list of technological achievements, and not 'someone once worked on this a bit sometime somewhere in India.' The other lists of inventions from China etc. should also have such an acknowledgement and you can rest assured I'll be tackling that issue with the custodians of those articles shortly.

I have some main issues with it as listed above. Let me describe them below again:

  • Dividing India's timeline into Ancient, Mughal, and Colonial is not right. There the Mughal empire (1526–1858) was a medieval empire and the kingdoms before it were medieval for a few centuries. Describing them as "ancient" is not right. I'm not even sure if the later Gupta empire was "ancient". Anything between the later Guptas and the Mughals was most definitely not ancient. As a suggestion to your time division scheme, analougous to the 'Pre-shang' 'Shang and later' of the Chinese list could be a 'Pre-Maurya' 'Maurya and later' list (after the Maurya empire). Alphabetical progression can then take over. Frankly inventions getting sophisticated over time is something a lot of lists are doing without and this list can do without it as well.
  • " The reasoning behind acknowledging the inventor is not known is that we are making an ASSUMPTION that the first acknowledged use of of an invention in India means that it was actually invented in India " is also something I don't agree with. Many inventions don't have inventors (gunpowder or Palampore) and in most cases India is stated clearly as the place of origin and the spread of commodity from India to other regions is given eg. calico, which was marked earlier. Calico is uniquely Indian, as are most of the other commodities there. My suggestion is that we drop the note since its not included anywhere else and does not have a source. I know its become a bit of issue since this is the third time it has come up. But lets put it in deep-freeze and agree to open it when we're both ready for it. Lets get the ball rolling first. Layout, clarity, images etc.

JSR 0562 08:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I also have a case for retaining status-quo: MdoW, you have worked hard and almost exclusively at this between Jan09-Jan12 so I can see why you may not agree. I saw User:Mdw0/List of Indian Inventions and have to say that 3300 BCE - 1200 BCE was not "Stone Age India" and 1200 BCE-1 BC was not the time period of origin of either chess or calico. Similarly the dental drill was not invented in the Middle Kingdoms, 1 CE - 1279 CE. The new layout suffers with many such errors and I have to request you to not exhaust yourself spending time exclusively to repair it while you put your other Wikipedia activities on hold.
You are laboring too hard over what is bound to yield little, if anything. Why are we changing the layout of the article? A table is as good as any and the length is an issue we can have solved by the end of January (split into inventions, discoveries, and shift some scientist-specific inventions to List of Indian scientists) but why alter the layout? What good does it do to the content? Our real issues are length, scrutiny, and categorization. We have to split and shift for length, give a once-over for scrutiny (where dates have to be added and where points should be removed till a more detailed addition is made), and categorize for clarity since discoveries were found in inventions and vice-versa. I feel that with these issues at hand other issues are secondary and three editors combined ought to have these taken care of soon.
Just throwing what has been on my mind out there. Thoughts?
JSR 0562 08:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Aside from carom the origins of Marble (toy) may also yield some results. I had some knowledge of these but the size of the article admittedly kept me from adding them. I will see what can be done for the oblong dice. JSR 0562 16:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The table layout as it stands is not as readable. Readability is an important factor in an article's quality. Also, in the current layout the images dont link to the text, wheras in the alternate layout they do. That's two benefits. If you're interested in improving layout and clarity than I'm struggling to see how you can miss the improvement in layout of the alternate version. It seems you oscillate between wanting change and then being conservative. Do you have any reason why an alphabetical list is better than chronological? I've already outlined that chronological list helps readers to understand the technological and historical context of the inventions, and shows an ongoing development. The other inventions lists which use a chronological list include; Swedish, Australian, Irish and American. The Islamic inventions are separated into different articles by chronology. English, Scottish and Canadian inventions are categorised soley by industry. Only the Chinese list is comparable, but even it has a major chronological division to separate ancient and more modern inventions. I dont think you can point to other articles as examples, especially as none of these lists uses a table format.
I am still in the process of reworking the historical categories in the alternate layout so at the moment some of the items are not in the right areas. I used the same divisions as the Wikipedia 'History of India' article and found them useful. As has been remarked, Ancient, Mughal, Colonial and Independent is not adequate. I'll advise when I think the splits in categories are OK. If the History of India page categorises 3000BCE to 1200BCE as Stone Age I don't see why we can't. It's not an insult - it just means a period before metal was widely used. I think its interesting that Indian people were able to produce so many unique items in a stone age environment. By the way, this isn't hard work for me at all - it's a lot easier to scratch around on my own home page and present an example rather than bash my brains out trying to explain what I mean here. If no-one likes it at least there's an informed decision made nased on valid comparisons.
Inventions have inventors. That's a fact. They just dont necessarily have documented inventors, and that's the point. The inventors are not documented. That is all the line says. Just because the first recorded reference of an invention is in India, that is not proof of invention the same way a patent is, or when an inventor is known. There is nothing wrong with making an assumption that calico etc. were invented in India and not elsewhere, based on the available evidence, but that assumption should be acknowledged. Mdw0 (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Categories updated OK - have a look at the new alternate layout. Mdw0 (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mdw0,

  • For "It seems you oscillate between wanting change and then being conservative". I am not doing a flip-flop on anything. Any article on Wikipedia can do with a better layout and such but after having seen your version with all its errors I feel that perhaps it would be best that we retain the current version, which has lesser errors thanks to the diligent work of the two editors, including you, who helped arrange it after I was held up in real life and unable to spend time here.
  • For "If the History of India page categorises 3000BCE to 1200BCE as Stone Age I don't see why we can't" The History of India makes no such categorization and no such categorization exists anywhere else. That information is false and I am surprised that you insisted on it. Moreover you cannot and should not use Wikipedia as your source.
  • For "Inventions have inventors. That's a fact. " You have to understand that while dealing with Persia, China, or India everything prior to a medieval kingdom is not "ancient", and every invention may not have a name of an inventor but archaeology and other branches may have yielded convincing results attributing the invention to the region. Moreover the the List of Australian inventions, a list that you worked for, has a complete section which does not follow the "Inventions have inventors. That's a fact. " approach.

Listen, I was always of the opinion that change in layout is bound to bring little change, if any. You went ahead and created a version which was ridden with errors and was cumbersome. I applaud your efforts but even the best of us make some mistakes sometime. I implore you to help make this article better by helping us devise a way of correcting article length, and once the shifting, splitting, once-overs etc. are done you will find that this long list is short enough to leave the issues of periodization etc. behind.

JSR 0562 09:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This new layout still has the same issues as above. Remove the table and replace it with bullet points if you wish. I solely implemented the table and can budge on the idea of it. However I feel that a greater amount of time has been spent on trivialities and such than with other issues. JSR 0562 09:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I know what you mean about trivialities, but the look of an article can often make an important impression. The historical separations I've used come from the History of South Asia table at the top of the History of India article. I know what you mean about using Wikipedia as a source, but it's not really a source as such, its just an idea of time boundaries that we can use. If the Afghans, Indians, Nepalis, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis can all agree to use one table we should be able come to an agreemant as well!
One other idea we might want to consider is to rename the whole article to 'Indian inventions and discoveries' like the Irish article and then separate soley on the basis of industry. That might split things up nicely.
I had mentioned before about the ancient Australian inventions being whittled down to those which were uniquely Australian in 1788. I suppose its POSSIBLE that the items had been invented elsewhere and then brought to Australia and then been supplanted by other technologies later. As such I have acquiesed and added a note explaining that the actual inventors are unkown, just as the Indian one should. As I said before, I'm OK with making the assumption that an archeological confirmation is fairly conclusive, but since there is a POSSIBILITY that these inventions were invented somewhere else and brought to India later, that possibility should be acknowledged with a simple line saying the actual inventor is unknown.
With regards to what is ancient and what isn't, in European history its pretty standard to refer to pre-Middle Ages as ancient. That's what the term "middle' ages refers to, being between ancient and modern history. The wikipedia article for Ancient History actually descibes the Gupta Empire as being 'Classical' India, and the later Chola Empire as being the 'boundary' of ancient history. While I wouldn't necessarily agree with this, I figure if there were still Romans running around in 400 AD, anything prior to the Common Era can definitely be referred to as 'Ancient.' With regards to Stone Age - yes, I mucked that up. I've put the Stone Age through to the beginning of the Iron Age, which obvious wrong. Generally the period from the Stone Age to the Iron Age, which that table says is from 3000BCE to 1200BCE and is the period in question, is referred to as the Bronze Age, but that name isn't on that table. Did the Indus Valley people use bronze?
I think its a little unfair to keep saying the alternate version is 'ridden with errors' when you looked at it halfway through a major edit. What's wrong with it now? The items are in their correct time periods, aren't they? Of course some of the items I had to guess because there was no date reference on them at all. If you feel you're OK with the layout change then I can probably go ahead with the change to the article, but I'd appreciate it if you'd give the alternate version another look and advise any errors to be fixed before the change.
By the way, sorry about the dig about 'oscillating.' That wasn't a fair description. I know you only want what's best for the article. Mdw0 (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again guys, sorry I had to go out of town. Ok regarding the layout, Mdw0's looks really nice and it's in line with the Chinese / Australian and other lists. In fact it looks better than the present form. But if you ask me my opinion when it comes to readability; hands down the table form makes it more readable. Regarding chronology, this is not "timeline of Indian inventions" article. It is just a list of inventions from a land that was in the past, and is presently called India, hence no harm in alphabatical form. Information pertaining to when/why/how etc. is given in the description. In fact in comparison, even the Chinese list has only "pre-Shang" and "post-Shang". If something like that is to be done, we can do something like "Indus civilization" and post Indus civilization, but again, there's no striking need. In fact one look at the Chinese list, there's quantity, a lot of it but it lacks quality (e.g. inventions include Anti-malarial properties of artemisia, Pi calculated as..., Tea as a drink (??) etc.). Exxoo (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

On the additions, I'm currently working on dice (would be good if I can have another 1 source as requested), incense clock and chillum. Regarding Ludo, how about Parcheesi, Trouble (board game), Sorry! (game), Mensch ärgere dich nicht, Wahoo (board game) etc.? All are derive from the same game. Do we need a seperate entry for all those (there are many more), or should all come under Pachisi? Then comes Ashte kashte which reportedly is the ancestor of Pachisi! Exxoo (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, it seems opinions are fairly evenly divided, so I'll hold back on making the layout changes for now. If there's anyone else interested in making a comment on the alternate layout it's here. I'm battling the bots that keep removing non free-use images from the alternate layout which is still on my user page, so if it seems a bit bare at times please take this into account. The biggest problem I have with an alphabetical list is that there is no context - not historical, not industrial. 21st century items line up right next to IVC. I think that lack of organisation and context hurts the article and makes the article overall less readable. A lot of the entries actually have very poor 'how and when' referencing, but this is somewhat hidden in the alphabetical list. I've mentioned before how the current layout divorces the images from the text, so that the images are rendered meaningless - you may as well have no images at all. I think keeping the table format separated from the images and the simplistic alphabetical list will see the status of the article remain at Stub class for the forseeable future. In comparing this Stub class list to the Chinese featured list, what do you think is the main difference? Is it the quality of the entries, or the 'look'?
With the board game the most famous derivative of Parchisi is definitely Ludo, and it being an English article I dont think it hurts to have these details under the Ludo section. Mdw0 (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Exxoo,

More on Dice:

The earliest dice, made of bone and ivory, are reported from Alamgirpur, Desalpur, Kalibangan, Lothal, and Ropar-all Hapappan sites. They are long and square in section, one to six dots incised on the sides. From the early 1st millenium B.C. to the early centuries of the Christian era dice were prepared of stone, shell and terracotta in addition to bone and ivory. The predominant shapes are flat, rectangular or oblong, with four sides incised with one to four dots running serially, each dot surrounded by one or more circles and bordered by straight lines. - "Games and Amusement: Dice", Encyclopedia of Indian Archaeology edited by A. Ghosh (1990), 1: 178-179, Brill Academic Publishers, ISBN 90-04-09264-1.
In general games were accompanied by objects that were thrown and objects that were moved. Thrown objects included dice, probably of Indian origin, which have been dated to all periods and found at sites throughout Mesopotamia. The dice are cubes of bone, clay, stone, and even glass. - Nemet-Nejat, Karen Rhea (1998), Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, 165, Greenwood Publishing Group, United States of America: ISBN 0-313-29497-6.

I could point you to specific journals for a number of other inventions to come up, some actually surprising. I have to say that I have been holding back on adding inventions simply because the article was too big. In my opinion we should split first and then expand once we have small articles.

Dear Mdw0,

For "A lot of the entries actually have very poor 'how and when' referencing, but this is somewhat hidden in the alphabetical list." I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with you. A while back I said we needed shifting and scrutiny. By scrutiny I meant that we have to have the details of the 'how and when' and that is essential.

Here is what I propose:

  • Step 1 (Make space here): Whatever expansion we do, details or additional items, is bound to result in swelling of this article. I can bring the List of Indian Scientists to a good shape in 3-4 days from when I get a go-ahead (I will be on somewhat lesser workload from tomorrow since I should have most of the things done today). We shift inventor specific items from here to there as soon as this is done. We leave a note of some kind on top so readers can see that other article.
  • Step 2 (Create further divisions or rename for clarity): Then we divide the remaining article to "inventions" and "Discoveries" or rename it to "Indian inventions and discoveries" as Mdw0 suggested.
  • Step 3 (Article by Article scrutiny): Mdw0 has raised valid concerns on the poor 'how and when' referencing in this article. We have no dearth of material but if we could add details to items identified by him then the article is bound to improve manifold in terms of quality. This can be done as soon as we have clear articles where everyone can edit regardless of size and category concerns.

By far every one has engaged each other in marathon discussions but if we act then we can actually have this done very soon. We have good and reliable editors here and we can have every single thing done by the end of the month.

Note: In case I get a go-ahead I will have to use a "Scientist, Field(s) of study, Contribution" table in the List of Indian Scientists. I hope that is not an issue since I cannot see a clearer option.

JSR 0562 07:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JSR for the sources. I will have it inserted tonight or tomorrow. I'm also working on a couple others. If you have some other interesting ones with strong references, do insert them. Lets work together to make this list as complete as possible. By the way what do you think about Ludo / Parchesi / Pachisi as I wrote about above?
I agree on the poor "how and when" part but sadly we cannot ascertain such minute details for 1000+ year old inventions. For some of the newer ones like Autocanon / Hookah / Coherer, iron and mercury etc we can give more accurate details, but for dice / button / bow drill how can we? Of course if anybody can produce strong references attributing these 1000+ year old inventions to a specific person, by all means please insert it.
Also it's fine if the list of scientists list is expanded and information on their inventions / innovations imported from here. I don't quite understand JSR but do you mean remove inventor-specific information from here and insert it there? Something like removing Boson / Bose Einstein Stats from this list and inserting it there? That wouldn't be wise because this is to be a list of "inventions from India" - plain and simple.
Sad thing is there are only 3 people here -not enough to derive consensus on the form of the article. Exxoo (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The dating details don't need to be that accurate for the older items - but a large chunk have no date at all. This is probably because dating hasn't been shown to be a priority in this article. I see what you mean about not specifically mentioning what we don't know, but by adding an item into this list, we are automatically saying that we know this item was invented in India, which for the ancient items cannot be 100%, as it could have been invented elsewhere and brought to India where the limited archeological records first mention its use. There is an assumtion made that first recorded mention implies invention in India. This is a valid assumption, but should be mentioned.
Looking over the article again, I think renaming the article to 'Indian inventions and discoveries' is a good move - it validates the discoveries listing. Mdw0 (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Indian inventions and discoveries sounds good. You have my confidence to make the move. JSR 0562 01:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

New name

I think I got all the non-free use images but a double check would be appreciated. Mdw0 (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Mdw0 I couldn't find any sources about Egyptian stepwells. And no consensus has been reached on the layout. I still looked at both versions and even asked a third party and all feel the table is more readable. If in future a majority call for the new format, it can be done. There's no hurry. Exxoo (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I've seen the Egyptian stepwells - look up nilometer, most the well-types have steps. Or try the Temple of Kom Ombo, that has a fantastic well-shaped nilometer with steps.
I must say I was tempted to just give up and say 'Well keep your stub class article, if you want to keep it looking ordinary and disorganised see if I care', but I won't. I'll try to pursuade you again.
By your logic all Wikipedia articles should be crammed into a table to improve readability. Do you have ANY other examples of Wikipedia pages that look similar - I've never seen any, and certainly no Featured Articles. Previously I asked what people thought the difference was between this article, stub class, and the Chinese list of inventions, featured article. The difference is not the referencing or the length, its because the Chinese list looks a 100 times better. I think an article that looks good encourages readers and gets higher classes, simple as that. I think in the current version it is actually harder to see what's there, good or bad. For instance, the second image in the right column of the IVC cart - why is that even there? As it stands the images down the side are random and for many of them there no obvious link to any of the items in the list. You also might want consider some of the text edits I made along with the formatting - a lot of the items listed currently have the name, and then the first sentence says 'XYZ was invented in India.' Well of COURSE it was. That's OBVIOUS, otherwise why would it be in the list?! A pile of them have NO date referencing at all, which is the most important thing in a list of firsts. If the list is so readable how come those weaknesses in the text have been missed? In the alternate version those weaknesses become much more glaring - they stick out like sore thumbs begging to be fixed, wheras in the table they hide. I think that must be because you scroll down the list looking for something in particular, or for the latest item you're working on and miss all the weaker items as they flash by, but of course I could be wrong on that. It may be that you just think it looks great as it is. As I said, I can't agree with that. It doesn't look great as it is. You mentioned before that there aren't many stakeholders in this article so its hard to get a consensus - maybe you should think about why that is. I just got so sick of reading and editing an article in this state that I felt I had to change it. That's not how I feel about most other aticles I've edited - some of which have been a joy to read and a privilege to work on.
JSR mentioned he wasn't necessarily opposed to taking the text out of the table, and JSR is probably the senior editor - who's your 'third party?' Its not as though I'm not amenable to change myself - I had removed all the chronological organisation in the alternate version, and it was purely alphabetical. I tell you what - why don't you leave the alternate version for a week and read through it exhaustively once. If after that you still prefer the old version change it back and I'll never mention it again. Does that sound OK to you? Mdw0 (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
A Nilometer is not a stepwell, althouth both have steps and lead to water. A nilometer is a station that shows the height of the Nile waters. I did a quick search and I couldn't find any relation between a nilometer and a stepwell, although the "form" of both may be identical, they serve different purposes and are 2 different things. In fact when I did a search I found water wells were used in ancient Egyptian settlements and found that those wells used were not stepwells. Give a few days and I will insert additional sources ascribing the stepwell to India, it's a simple task.
I appreciate you explaining something for the good of this article, but its not about keeping "my stub class article". This article doesn't belong to anybody and anyone is welcome to do good to it. The Chinese list may be a "featured article" compared to this "stub" but I can easily pick out many flaws: discoveries and innovations in that list of "inventions", e.g. Pi calculated as 355/113, drinking tea, rice cultivations - such are comparable to the mathematical and agricultural discoveries list you implemented here when they were initially classified as inventions, which I fully support. Nobody can "invent" tea drinking or Pi calculations. Such things are out there only to be discovered sooner or later. In fact if Pi calculated as xx/yy is considered an invention, I can go on to include the Shatapatha Brahmana's "invention" of pi as 339/108, Aryabhata's "invention" as 62832/20000, Brahmagupta's "invention" as √10 and many more. Amongst many, "multiple-tube seed drill", "collapsable umbrella", "Suspension bridge using iron chains", "stern-mounted rudder" etc. should come under "innovations" since there were more basic versions from earlier times. In fact "Mountain-and-water painting" in my opinion doesn't even deserve a place in the list. Another such case is "Hybrid rice" which was invented by Henry Beachell, but is on the list because "a Chinese scientist developed a new type of rice that produces greater yields". If that is correct, we should be including "Hybrid rice" to this list too: Basmati 198, 217, 370, 385, which are all Indian developed hybrid rice that have distinct qualities like grain length, resistance to pests, harvest time etc. In fact there are many Australian developed hybrids of corn, sorghum, etc. too that should make it to your list, since you base everything on the Chinese list and think it is perfect.
I don't need to go on as I'm sure you understand what I mean. Just because the Chinese list is a featured one doesn't mean it's flawless and should be used as a model for every other article. IMO all it has is quantity not quality, regardless of whether it's featured.
What I meant by a third party is an unrelated party: I called 1 gentleman and 1 lady randomly who have no connection what so ever with Wikipedia and asked him which is more readable, to which both said it was the table being more readable. This may not hold waters here but I just wanted to consolidate my persona; opinion, which clearly leaned towards the table, and decided to ask some people.
Ok I tell you what, have your go, undo the table and lets leave it for a week and see the outcome. I'm really sorry but I suck in HTML or XHTML whichever this is, but if you could, please make the list alligned with bullets like the Chinese one (i.e. pictures only to the right side). And some updates to the article had been made (namely inclusion of a date range for Hookah), which didn't get incorporated into your revised list. Please look into those and do your best basing it on the current version.
JSR please have your say too. Exxoo (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If a nilometer and a stepwell look the same and effectively produce the same result, then they use the same architecture and basically the same technology. They're both brick cylindrical holes in the ground with steps that hold water. If nilometeres appeared hundreds of years before the Indian wells I dont really see what can be claimed as an invention. Obviously not all the wells in Egypt were stepwells, but that was never the case in India either.
I completely agree regarding the Chinese article - a lot of the information is poor and some of the additions are patently ridiculous, but that just proves my point. An article with a superior look can achieve higher rating even when the information isn't first rate. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but I think in our case the new look will lead to even better text. Once we have elevated the rating of this article I intend to tackle the problems in the Chinese list. Any help you can render would be appreciated.
By 'your article' I actually meant the plural 'your' - the collective, not you personally. I dont normally put such base, childish impulses into text but I'm sure its something most of us go through to some extent in these negotiations.
Thank you for your go-ahead. I will change today, and promise to make every effort to ensure it is up to date. Unfortunately putting all the images on the right won't be possible. Some of them are quite long and if they're all on the right there will be gaps in the text. I quite like the left-right positioning, it breaks up the blocks of text and makes it look more like a magazine article. By the way, none of it is HTML - its just a matter of learning how to achieve certain looks by copying and pasting the codes from other articles and learning by trial and error what the codes do. Mdw0 (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Egyptian step wells are not that ancient and the Temple of Kom Ombo was only built during the Lagids. The Indian precedent rises from the archaeological sites dating from 4200-4400 Before Present off the top of my head. Little cursory research may yield the Indian stepwells to be older than 3300 BCE.
  • The version without the table is not readable. Images are uneven, uncited text exists, and blanket claims of "no inventor" are made in cases where there clearly were inventors.
  • The table format can be taken down but it must be done properly. We can manage a bullet point format but I have to say that it gets messy as soon as the description exceeds one paragraph.
  • If there is any problem with any item's date then it must be mentioned on the article talk page and it will be taken care of. This is a good and valid concern.
  • Uncited text does not belong in any Wikipedia article. The text 'the discoverer and exact date of discovery is unknown' is followed by a list of mathematical discoveries complete with the discoverer and date.

I was in the process of collecting sources and getting some photocopies and printouts for the phases of Indian science but from my experience if one article dominates a regularly editing Wikipedia editor's edit pattern then there is either an expansion or a dispute. We have had an expansion and now the dispute exists over 'tables' then go ahead and take them out. I have been almost out of Wiki since 26 December but all of this is almost exclusively taking up all your time guys. Take the table down, list the items which need further details on talk, and move on. I have and generally always do. I know my editing is better applied in another article elsewhere right now.

Finally, before a set of major edits I don't edit for a while and may be busy on a sandbox somewhere writing details. My responses may be delayed.

JSR 0562 09:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the era but I have seen Nilometers (specifically the well like one) on TV and it is different from a stepwell both in terms of design and function. In terms of design a Nilometer does not reach an aquifer. It is just a relatively shallow pit with an underground channel leading to the Nile. Its "steps" were not built for people to descent into the water but as a scale to measure the Nile water level, and that's why the Nilometer steps never start from ground level but only half way down. It's a totally different concept. An innovation would be more like a Gangometer or Indometer (to measure Ganges / Indus water levels - it doesn't exist though).
I forgot to touch on this, but the reason why I insert "xxx was invented in India" although it's understood is because I want to firstly present sources that explicitly say that "it was invented in India". Period. After that we can touch on its background. I can't think of any other way to do it.
Mdw0, suggestion: start the description of an invention after one spacing, increasing readibility. Something like this:
Fathullah Shirazi (c. 1582), a Persian-Indian polymath and mechanical engineer who worked for Akbar in the Mughal Empire, invented the autocannon, the earliest multi-shot gun.[14] Shirazi's rapid-firing gun had multiple gun barrels that fired hand cannons loaded with gunpowder.[14]
I also advice you not to make any changes to the wording of the description because any alteration may change its scope of definition, making it no longer supported by the references provided. If anything needs to be addressed, please bring them here and we shall discuss the appropriate course of action. Exxoo (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
That looks good - happy to do that. I understand you want to present an explicit source, but the language is surely ruich enough so we can avoid repetitive redundant text. I think I'm expert enough at the English language to be able to correct grammar and redundancies without changing the meaning. You never know - it might even improve it! If you think I've done anything wrong just revert it - that ought to bring me to the discussion!
I'm just thinking that when it come to opinions on 'readability' there are just some people who think that the 'magazine' style layout of the alternate version is cluttered. They prefer big blocks of text, like a novel. Wheras there are some people who prefer to have those blocks broken up with images and tables. This might not ever be resolved.
I think with the stepwells you'd have to admit that the technology used to build the nilometers is the same technology as used in the stepwells. They are built the same way, even though the nilometers are used measure rather than store water. They are just not different enough in terms of technology to claim the stepwell as a unique invention. However, this all hangs off the dates that were mentioned, which were 200 CE for the Indian stepwell, with the brick-lined well being 3000 BCE. Maybe theer was a zero missing. If you've got a source with stepwells being as old as 3000 BCE, and not just brick-lined wells then it would go back into inventions.
You're right - the inventors aere not always unknown, that line should say they may be unknown or are often unknown. Basically these lines are a defence whenever anyone comes along and says there's no proof that the inventor is Indian. These lines are upfront with the fact that we are aware the inventor is unknown but the sources give the best possible indication that the ancient invention is Indian. We head off such challenges with being upfront with what we are claiming. If you can't stand those lines that badly then delete them with my best wishes - my case regarding that really is closed.
I'll make the changes over the weekend and then get stuck into ensuring the sources are all formatted properly, which is a big factor in getting better ratings. Thanks to all for your support, which I know is skeptical in some areas. If this method doesn't achieve a higher rating for this article I'll be amazed. Mdw0 (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding wording of the inventions, I used the exact / closest key words and terms from the references for the ones I inserted e.g. Badminton, dice etc. The reason why I'm not comfortable with any changes is so that this order doesn't get changed because sometime in future somebody may interpret differently and point that "the source doesn't say that". If you so decide that some changes have to be made please refer to the sources before making those changes. It has got nothing to do with English proficiency.
Regarding arguments like "no proof inventor is Indian", I insert multiple reliable sources to back my additions so that those references are the proof. Each and every invention / discovery here is backed by a reference and so such arguments would not hold water. Archeological firsts are indicated in the description section. It's not appropriate to include that phrase "Archeological firsts, where the first use or first written reference are Indian, cannot be attributed to a particular Indian inventor" because some inventions that follow (e.g. seamless celestial globe, Bhatnagar-Mathur Magnetic Interference Balance, Hookah etc.) are attributed to particular inventors.
Your magazine layout looks good no doubt but in terms of readability the Chinese list where all inventions are alligned to the left scores better. Anyway you make a choice, if its good and readable we can go with it. Exxoo (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd be Ok with the pictures on one side but as I said, there are some long pictures which would create gaps in the text, so where that would happen we need to swap them to the other side.
With the referencing influencing the text, I'm sure you're aware that in order to have the Wikipedia article read well you can't always use the exact wording from a source. That's all I intend to do, to improve the text without changing the meaning so that the referencing still works.
I know I said case closed before, but if your reference doesn't indicate who the inventor is, there's no proof the inventor was Indian. I also said I'd adjust the line to say "cannot always be attributed to a particular Indian inventor", which would cover where we do know who it is. Also, nearly all the references aren't contemnporary, they simply indicate the facts as we know them, which are often very limited. First written evidence of an invention being in India doesn't preclude it being invented somewhere else, with evidence for that now lost or still to be discovered. In any case I've decided these lines are either too obscure to be easily understood or they offend some deeply held tenet so I wont put them in.
I need to double check all the recent updates are included and accurate so the new layout won't be there until Monday. Mdw0 (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry this is taking longer than expected - it looks fine, but some details to be worked out to ensure it is at its best. I'm thinking we should rename it to 'Indian inventions and discoveries' as what we have here is so much more than just a list of links. It is an itemised article, not just a list. Mdw0 (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
No problems. I went through your draft but found that some information is missing / not as it should be. One new addition that is missing is AKS primality test. Under discoveries (mining), there's only one citation for Zinc when there are actually 4 different ones I provided originally. You have to understand that Zinc may have been found somewhere else before India but Indians were the first to discover, use and classify Zinc as a metal, and that's why I put it in not wanting any ambiguity in future. In fact the last source for Zinc mining (citation [224] in its current form) is a very important publication that provides in-depth information about the use of metals in ancient India - is missing from your version. The same goes with dice, where I produced sources to back my claim that the dice is attributed to India by several accounts (although not all). Apart from that although JSR has clarified regarding Stepwell predating and Nilometers you continue to classify stepwell as "brick-lined well" under innovations. I just browsed through it and there may be further missed out important information (261 citations in the article in its current form as opposed to 239 on your list). My suggestion is to leave the text as it is originally and for now just tackle the form / arrangement of the article for now. We can tackle the wording later if concerns arise. It's pointless doing everything at once single handedly. Please consider. The last thing I would want is removal of information / citations that we may not be able to reproduce in future.
By the way it's still a list with a short description to every invention. Indian inventions and innovations should be more like an essay. But anyway I leave that aspect to you, it's really a non issue. The important thing now that needs attention is the wording. Exxoo (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The table can be removed in a matter of a half hour. The 'date required' candidates can be listed here in another half and then dealt in a matter of two days.
I repeat my stand of taking down the tables if it leads to all concerned, inducing myself, moving on without being engaged here. Its just that out of curiosity I viewed the Wikipedia:Featured lists section of this encyclopedia and found some examples of the best lists being made by tables. Let me provide a few: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ............... well over half of the best lists have tables according to my estimate.
My stand is as listed in the first line of the paragraph above but I request everyone to do the best for the article and if they can then follow established norms of the best lists on Wiki then all the better. Tables now rest solely on Mdw0. Needless to say that if he can find it to let go and help us keep them then I would accept.
As a side note: In most 'date required' cases the date is provided though it has been done by mentioning the name of the empire as the authors were under the impression that it was self explanatory. The empire dates themselves are mentioned above multiple times before they go missing in potential 'date required' candidates. The philosophy, it seems, was: Why mention the date of the Mughals and Guptas as many times as they appear? However since Mdw0 views every item individually extra dates can be provided.
JSR 0562 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I firmly believe that when claiming an invention the best date we can find must be provided. I had a look through your Featured examples, and I dont think they really can be used as examples because the vast majority of the items in these tables consist of one line only, and very few of the tables expand over one screen. They look good in these articles because they're not trying to cram too much into the table. The Castles of Greater Machester looks more like our article, and its much clunkier in comparison to the others. It also reads quite poorly - the text there needs a major edit. Very few of them have images, and only one tries to insert them into the list. The only reason why I suggested removing the 'list' in the name is that we could run into a pedant who would rate the article only as 'List' status when it should be rated B or C.
Its a bit harder than you might think to remove the table, because the layout then needs attention. I have a cutoff date for adding in references, and then I'll update once that layout is all correct.
However, if you want to present the table as is to the WikiProject India I'd be happy to sit back and see what results. Mdw0 (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The stepwell section still says they date from 200 CE, which is huindreds of years after the nilometers which are brick lined wells with steps. So far no-one's addressed the claimed difference in technology between the nilometer and the stepwells, which look to me to be essentially the same design using the same materials. If the date of invention is earlier, then it needs to be fixed - otherwise its not an Indian invention.
I've only removed excessive referencing, where the same reference is used four or five times after every sentence when only one is necessary. Mdw0 (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't argue on tables. That's up to you.

Also:

  • If you want then I can remove the table within a half hour and we can start from there. I have some expeience on tables and obviously would like to answer all concerns here. As a gesture of good faith and in response to 'Its a bit harder than you might think to remove the table' I am moving to take the tables down right now.
  • Keep 'excessive referencing'. If one reference appears after the sentences it supports sentence then good. If it appears once after three sentences then what prevents someone from legitimately putting a 'citation needed' tag on the other two.
  • Nilometer-stepwell is best left till tomorrow or the day after. I can find material on it right now but lets address layout first.

JSR 0562 05:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have taken down the tables. List the 'dates required' candidates and lets get things moving. Any other detail, if missing, should be listed here. I will devote some time here and try and have all concerns addressed by the 4th-5th (provided I have a list of wanted details by the 3rd). JSR 0562 06:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice work JSR!! The article looks pretty decent in this form since all the inventions are with bullets and arranged inline on the left. In terms of reading ease I still go with the table but if the majority want this form, am with you all.
Yes, the reason why I cite each and every sentence (although it may be from the ame source) is to prevent [citation needed] tags from coming up. What's available here isn't really excessive referencing. You should check out the Chinese inventions article and some have even up to 8 references for a single sentence! The reason is to back up the statement in question with strong references from multiple sources, nothing wrong with it. Exxoo (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Referencing is to do with quality, not quantity. Multiple referencing is great - I'm talking about referencing each sentence in a section with the same source. It is simply not necessary to reference every single sentence if the source is the same. You'll never see a published scientific or historical text doing that. To put into context, if you use the layout where the references are put at the end of the paragraph you wouldn't repeat the same source five times. Yes, I agree the Chinese one is even worse. Mdw0 (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes but when we have both quantity and quality, all the better. And I'm confident that the references I have given in the article are quality ones. As mentioned the reason why I cite each sentence is so that in future nobody would come and add the [citation needed] tag even before checking the citation. And this thing is common on Wikipedia, whereby people just come in, read, then before even checking the references at the end of the paragraph simply tag a sentence it as uncited. I know that texts of high quality never have such things, but thats because they are not free for anybody to edit it. It is written and published, thats all. Over here anybody can come in and put a tag where they like. Exxoo (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Teresi (2002).
  2. ^ a b c Blavatsky (1877), Part One, Chapter I.
  3. ^ a b c d Kak (2000), p. 31. Cite error: The named reference "Kak" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Haug (1863).
  5. ^ a b Joseph (2000).
  6. ^ Shashi, Shyam Singh (1999), Encyclopaedia Indica, Anmol Publications, p. 204, ISBN 8170418593
  7. ^ Aryabhata_I biography
  8. ^ http://www.gongol.com/research/math/aryabhatiya The Aryabhatiya: Foundations of Indian Mathematics
  9. ^ Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage:

    "Two systems of Hindu thought propound physical theories suggestively similar to those of Greece. Kanada, founder of the Vaisheshika philosophy, held that the world was composed of atoms as many in kind as the various elements. The Jains more nearly approximated to Democritus by teaching that all atoms were of the same kind, producing different effects by diverse modes of combinations. Kanada believed light and heat to be varieties of the same substance; Udayana taught that all heat comes from the sun; and Vachaspati, like Newton, interpreted light as composed of minute particles emitted by substances and striking the eye."
  10. ^ F. Th. Stcherbatsky (1930, 1962), Buddhist Logic, Volume 1, p. 19, Dover, New York:

    "The Buddhists denied the existence of substantial matter altogether. Movement consists for them of moments, it is a staccato movement, momentary flashes of a stream of energy... "Everything is evanescent“,... says the Buddhist, because there is no stuff... Both systems [Sānkhya, and later Indian Buddhism] share in common a tendency to push the analysis of Existence up to its minutest, last elements which are imagined as absolute qualities, or things possessing only one unique quality. They are called “qualities” (guna-dharma) in both systems in the sense of absolute qualities, a kind of atomic, or intra-atomic, energies of which the empirical things are composed. Both systems, therefore, agree in denying the objective reality of the categories of Substance and Quality,… and of the relation of Inference uniting them. There is in Sānkhya philosophy no separate existence of qualities. What we call quality is but a particular manifestation of a subtle entity. To every new unit of quality corresponds a subtle quantum of matter which is called guna “quality”, but represents a subtle substantive entity. The same applies to early Buddhism where all qualities are substantive… or, more precisely, dynamic entities, although they are also called dharmas ('qualities')."
  11. ^ Gangopadhyaya (1981).
  12. ^ Teresi (2003:213–214).
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ponomarev was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ a b Bag (2005)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Indian_inventions_and_discoveries/Archive_1&oldid=1136261523"