Template talk:World timeline

Indian Civilization

How do we represent the cradle of Indian civilization? India with a majority hindu population to this day follows the bronze age religion which has its roots in the IVC and more prominently in Vedic Period. The Classical, Medieval and colonial segments have no issues as they cover all kingdoms across the subcontinent. But the problem arises in the present day period. Do we add India and Nepal? Or all of Indian subcontinent? or just India? In my opinion, India in this context doesn't refer to the modern day country India but rather the entire Indian subcontinent and it's history which includes all of the modern day countries in the subcontinent, so a link to Indian subcontinent page would work fine as a solution for now.

Also, the issue is similar for the Chinese cradle too. PRC or ROC? Footy2000♡; 18:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find this amusing. India or Nepal? Both of which have little to no significant connection to the actual "cradle of civilization" in question here. What exactly is a cradle of civilization? A cradle of civilization is a location and a culture where civilization developed independently of other civilizations in other locations. It has nothing to do with religion or claims of cultural continuity.

So, what is the cradle of civilization for the Indus Valley Civilization? Naturally, it is the Indus Valley, the location of the civilization, most of which lies in modern-day Pakistan and parts of northwestern India. Nepal isn't even relevant here.

Now, should we add India or Nepal? I think neither. In terms of modern countries, it would undeniably be the location of Pakistan, though I see how adding only Pakistan might be controversial. But I also see how the template uses modern countries that encompass most of the cradle of civilization—e.g., Iraq, Peru, China (PRC), and Mexico. So, of course, the modern country for the Indus Valley Civilization is Pakistan (which already stands). Therefore, I refuse to change it to "India" without a proper consensus. 2401:BA80:A1E6:2BB5:A092:413D:7EF9:22B5 (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Pakistan just because other cradles have modern countries attached to them is a circular argument and actually has a few major flaws. While others have no shared history with other modern day country, Indian subcontinent does with atleast three. And there are more IVC sites discovered in India (925) than modern-day Pakistan (475), the most significant example is with Dholavira port in Gujarat, India and Rakhigiri, Haryana.

Actually, if we go by your logic of location, Vedic India, Classical India, Medieval India, Mughals and even British Raj had the vast majority of land within modern-day India. So it makes no sense to attach this history to Pakistan. If we talk about culture, it still continues to this day in India, Nepal and to an extent in Sri Lanka but not in Pakistan which was formed in 1947. Hence, attaching the entire history to a single country be it India or Pakistan or Nepal creates PoV issues. Footy2000♡; 04:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that India and Nepal share cultural continuity with the Indus Valley Civilization is fundamentally your own perspective. Again, a Cradle of Civilization is a geographic location—not a country claiming a cultural ownership, which is frankly ridiculous. Plus, none of the points I raised were addressed, so it seems this discussion is going nowhere fast.

Also, do not edit the content without achieving a clear consensus first. The current version is the longest-standing edit, and it will not change without a clear consensus. We do not push certain individuals' claims on Wikipedia for the sake of it, this undermines our commitment to neutrality (see WP:NPOV). 2401:BA80:A1E5:3A9:84AD:5A23:918C:8EAC (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India and Nepal follow the Bronze age religion to this day. But let's set this aside for now.

> Again, a Cradle of Civilization is a geographic location—not a country claiming a cultural ownership, which is frankly ridiculous.

So why does a single country get to claim the entire history despite having lesser number of IVC sites than in India?

> Plus, none of the points I raised were addressed.

Your argument: Cradle of civilizations are a geographical concept.

Your point is contradictory. As mentioned in my previous response, there are more number of sites in modern day India than in Pakistan. And IVC's location isn't exclusive to Pakistan. Even if we talk about the location, why are Vedic kingdoms, medieval kingdoms, Mughals even added here? Vedic kingdoms are almost all but located in the modern-day India. Mughals too had most of their land in modern-day India and their capital too was in India. So it makes no sense for a single country, especially Pakistan to claim all of that, going by your argument.

Your argument: The template uses modern countries that encompass most of the cradle of civilization—e.g., Iraq, Peru, China (PRC)

As I mentioned in my earlier response, adding Pakistan just because of others exist is a circular argument. Others have no shared history with other modern day countries unlike Indian subcontinent so it makes sense for them, but even so it may lead to PoV issues especially in cases with PRC and ROC.

Your argument: The modern country for the Indus Valley Civilization is Pakistan (which already stands).

Stands since when?

> Also, do not edit the content without achieving a clear consensus first. The current version is the longest-standing edit, and it will not change without a clear consensus. We do not push certain individuals' claims on Wikipedia for the sake of it, this undermines our commitment to neutrality (see WP:NPOV).

Isn't that exactly how Pakistan was added in the first place? Since many years there was no mention of Pakistan here. There was no consensus and it was added recently. And your claim of 'longest standing edit' is just a few months old compared to atleast two years of the previous edit.

Indian subcontinent was added as it comprises of all modern-day south asian countries which have shared history. Exactly how it is done in most of the cases on wikipedia. Having national pride is understandable and is one thing, but creates PoV issues and misleads people.

With all of this said and done, I'd love to see a third person's view on this. Pretty sure these factually wrong edits won't stand long.

Edit: I removed the country segment entirely as a better neutrality measure. Exactly to how it was before. This will avoid any controversy and eliminates PoV issues. Footy2000♡; 08:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fewer IVC sites in Pakistan compared to India? That’s not the argument here. Again, a Cradle of Civilization is the location of origin of a civilization or culture. The inclusion of post-IVC sites, aka post-Harappan sites, inflates the count in your argument for India (Source: Malik 2016). Let’s be clear: archaeological evidence shows that 90% of inscribed Indus scripts have been discovered in the Indus Valley of modern-day Pakistan, which corresponds to the mature IVC phase. The centrality of Pakistan’s territory during the civilization's peak, as well as its origin, is firmly in the Indus Valley (modern-day Pakistan). This is comparable to how Mesopotamian sites are spread across modern-day Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and other regions. Yet, we don’t replace "Iraq" with "Middle East" when referring to the cradle of Mesopotamian civilization.

If you're arguing for including the "Indian subcontinent," your logic falls apart, because Indus sites like Shortugai are located outside the subcontinent altogether. By that flawed reasoning, wouldn’t "South Asia" be a better fit instead? Now, assuming we replace "Pakistan" with "Indian subcontinent" or "South Asia," we would logically need to apply that correction across the entirety of this template.

You also need to understand what a circular argument is. Let’s address the blatant circular reasoning here:

India (Hinduism) inherits IVC religion →
IVC belongs to India →
India should be included →
India is a special case, unlike other Cradles of Civilization (COCs) →
India is the inheritor of IVC heritage →
Pakistan has no IVC heritage.

Sound familiar? Any Wikipedian would recognize this as the same old nationalist POV-pushing. And per your own statement, Pakistan was added "5 months ago," which absolutely makes it a long-standing revision. Deleting the entire segment doesn’t help anyone and just erases valid historical context.

Can’t decide? Then stop forcing edits and creating an edit war. Wait for more opinions, or don’t bother (P.S. pushing agenda is cheap). 2401:BA80:A1E8:A5A:C9B6:9CC3:52E4:2A11 (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument has evolved from location of IVC to majority of the IVC location and finally now the phases of IVC. It is pretty clear that the pre-harappan, post-harappan and everything in between is indeed part of the IVC. Adding modern day countries in this timeline, especially when they share significant portion of history with other modern day countries actually does not make any sense and is outright factually wrong to do so, let alone the countroversies it would brew. Plus the longest standing edits of this template had no mentions of modern day countries, so going by your argument of longest standing edits, we should ideally revert it back to its original form. Or have a version with no modern-day countries mentioned. And about, Shortugai it was merely a trading post and most of the maps including official ones show it as a small exclave. But yes, South Asia would also work here. And yet again, your response fails to clarify the contradictory nature of your argument as to how the location/having majoirty of the area/phase of a political entity works for Vedic Period, Classical Period, Medieval period and Mughals.

Now coming to the circular argument part: All of that, part of my discussion opener, was to gain a consensus on how we represent cradles of civilization and their continuity. If we are basing it on the culture, I questioned if India and Nepal would work in that case. I never really ammended the edit based on the religion, infact my addition of Indian Subcontinent should make clear of my neutral intentions because definition of IS includes Pakistan. Adding a single country obviously would go on to create controversies and PoV issues, even if I do not revert it to the neutral form. Also I am pretty sure having a single country versus multiple or none at all, especially in Indian subcontinent's case, inclines more towards 'the same old nationalist POV-pushing'. Footy2000♡; 14:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My argument from the beginning has been and still is the same: a Cradle of Civilization is the location of centrality and origin of a civilization— in this case, the Indus Valley, which is primarily in modern-day Pakistan. Can’t believe I need to say this, but no, pre-Harappan and post-Harappan sites do not equate to "Harappan."

What is a long-standing revision? A long-standing edit refers to a revision or change made a long time ago that was not removed, meaning it was generally accepted. Comparing this edit to the creation of the template itself? That’s absurd.

Also, your argument about the Vedic Period, Classical Period, Medieval Period, and the Mughals is completely misaligned. In this context, these references exist specifically in relation to the Indus Valley, not the entire Indian subcontinent. The subcontinent as a whole is *not* the cradle of civilization, which is a point you repeatedly fail to understand. Similarly, while Mesopotamia wasn’t exclusively Iraq, only Iraq is included in this timeline because it encompasses the primary region of the COC. Following that pattern, it should remain Pakistan for the IVC—unless, of course, we’re changing the criteria for other COCs as well.

Your "argument" continuously make claims that "India follows IVC religion, and therefore the COC of IVC is a special case and should include India." Not only is this not a strong argument, but it’s also blatantly nationalist POV.

Lastly, stop reverting a long-standing edit. Your change is being challenged per WP:CONSENSUS. The only way forward here is to achieve consensus, not to engage in edit warring. 2401:BA80:A1E5:4AF6:B057:5905:BF8C:4750 (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]