India Template‑class
This template is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Pakistan Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject Pakistani history.

Archaeology Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

History Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

excellent template, the colour coding of overlapping eras is a good idea. dab (ᛏ) 18:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India's constitution came into effect on 26 January, 1950. So India got the status of republic in 1950. So, I think it should be from 1950 onwards. Thanks -- Shyam ^(T/C) 08:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see conflicting information about the Chola Empire. Edicts of Asoka (273 BCE to 232 BCE - maybe issued around 250 BC) acknowledges the presence of Chola, Pandya and other Empires to the South that are not under Mauryan Empire. But the time line for Chola Empire shows it starting from 848 AD. Shouldnt that be corrected?

I have a added a nonsectarian image to the India template. The image there should be as objective and neutrally as possible, and the Emblem of India seems to fulfill this. This should be ovious for anybody with a knowledge of Indian history. (Besides the edicts of Ashoka focus on social and moral precepts rather than religious practices). But I think it would be better to have no image at all. Another good neutral image is the "History of Indonesia" template. If a sectarian images should be added, images representing all religions of India of India must be added, but then the template should be horizontal like the "IndiaFreedom" template [1]. The Taj is by most people associated with Islam, wether righly or wrongly is not the question. (One of the reasons is that that it has inscriptions of the quran on its walls.) No single image would represent the history of the whole Indian Subcontinent better than the Emblem of India or the Edicts of Ashoka. That is not to belittle the Taj, it is a great building, but it is unsuitable to represent the whole history of India. (Besides the building is also associated with Shah Jahan, a man of doubtful moral character). --Combes 10:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Deeptrivia said in his edit summary, the template is for the whole subcontinent and not just India. The Emblem of India is hardly a neutral image as it is used politically to represent India. Quite likely you will find someone then suggesting that the national emblems of all the South Asian countries be used. The obvious solution is to use a neutral map of the region as this would not carry any religious or political links. Green Giant 01:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or use no image at all. this template is clutter as it is. maybe split into several specialized templates. dab (ᛏ) 10:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a much better idea actually, use no image at all. Green Giant 01:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the template link to Cemetery H? The Localization Era has 3 cultural phases (Punjab, Jhukar, Rangpur). Cemetery H represents only one of these 3 phases (Punjab Phase). Would it not be better to link to Indus_Valley_Tradition#Localization_Era? --Rayfield 00:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question, yes we could this once we have a full article and not a stub. At the moment we better link to Cemetery H, which is a full article. And once Paleolithic in South Asia and Mesolithic in South Asia are full articles, we could perhaps link to them. --Rayfield 18:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Garwig (who may be pro-Christian) has been attempting to change the date format to a BC/AD format. If anyone disagrees with the original BCE/CE date format, please give valid reasons here for why it should be changed. Jagged 85 19:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The original format was BC, with one instance of CE to denote the change from 1 BC to 1. The conversion to BCE/CE was made without discussion and goes against the Wiki policy of adhereing to the format used in the first major (non-stub) edit. Actually CE and AD are redundant. I'll change this template back to the BC usage, and for years from 1 onwards neither AD nor CE need be used. This is an article about history, not religion. Arcturus 23:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed elsewhere, hasn't it. We prefer the NPOV versions (BCE and CE) on India related articles. deeptrivia (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original format was not BC/AD as you claim, it was a BC/CE format, which doesn't fit with either of the BCE/CE or BC/AD conventions. Since the original format was not correct to begin with, it would not have made a difference if we used BC/AD or BCE/CE. I also prefer BCE/CE because its more NPOV. However, I don't mind leaving the article as it is (without AD or CE). Jagged 02:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the edits and so far as I can see the original was BC, I'm fairly certain of it. BCE/CE is certainly not NPOV! Nor for that matter is BC/AD - POV/NPOV simply doesn't enter into it - and who are "we"? I think a good compromise is not to use AD at all, but use BC. After all, BC only relates to a person who just about everyone accepts did exist, and whose birthdate (erroneous I know) forms the basis of the calendar we are using in this, and every other, article. Arguably AD does make a statement that some people might not like - but BC doesn't, so lets's go with that - no AD, but BC for years prior to 1. I noticed that similar revisions to remove AD/BC have been made throughtout this series of articles. This doesn't conform with Wikipedia policy. Does anyone else have a view on ditching AD (and CE) but keeping BC?Arcturus 16:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with BCE, which the template has been using for a long time. Even if long time ago it used BC (I haven't verified it), what's the rationale behind changing a stable consistent format now? deeptrivia (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original format was not just BC, it was BC/CE. I know because I was the one that added that format under the misunderstanding that BC and BCE can mean the same thing. It was later rectified when we changed it to the BCE/CE format. However, like I've already said, I don't mind leaving the date format as just BC (without CE or AD). It's only the AD ("In the Year of the Lord") that I don't find NPOV, but I don't see anything wrong with just BC. Jagged 20:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe this is what we stick with, unless anyone has got any major objections. In fact, I think the policy of "use BC but not AD/CE" is a good one that could be applied throughout Wikipedia. It removes the contentious AD, but leaves BC, which really only relates to a confirmed historical event. Arcturus 11:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some extra dashes from the date list, and also converted all instances of BC to BCE. I did this conversion before noticing this discussion. My apologies! In any event, I think the BCE notation is strongly preferable to BC in every case, but I am willing to bow to the consensus. — Aetheling 17:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I included it in the timeline because for the following reasons:

1) The Article is History of South Asia. The Ghaznavids administered land in a significant portion of Pakistan (Balochistan/NWFP/Northern Punjab/Makran etc.) in addition to Iran/Afghanistan and other Central Asian regions.

2) Most of the area under the Indus valley civilization fell under his administration.

3) Various Rajas sent tribute and provided right of way when he traversed on his raids and he did have a significant realm of influence even if he did not administer the area. See Kalinjars attack on Kannauj as an example, or reasons for one of the wars with Anandapala.

4) To make the timeline given more reasonable. The initial entry Islamic Sultanates and their date was absolute bunk the only real precense during the early 200 years of that timeslot given was infact the Ghaznavids. There was just the Ismailis at Multan and another bunch of muslims at Makran/Sindh coast which eventually came under Mahmud. The Slave dynasty and the other sultanates preceding the Delhi Sultanate such as the Lodhis et al came after the Ghurid advance which is around 1160 onwards.

5) While Ghazni was the initial capital early on, later on the capital shifted to Lahore.

Too many kingdoms have been added to the Middle Kingdoms section by Tigeroo. As a result, the template has become a bit too bloated. We will need to remove many of those Middle Kingdoms and only keep the significant ones. Jagged 19:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine I realised that after I put them in. Instead I propose to redo the Middle kingdoms of India and add links to various kingdoms in here, more in line with the History of India style and prune it of all the Aryan and Indus valley information already covered and more relevant in the History of India article. Also note that in the History of India the Middle Kingdoms are divided into two distinct ages the Golden Age and the Classical Age (Early and Late) which mark two distinct political timeframs, with the early being marked by the influx of northwestern kingdoms into the north of india and the resistance of the north under the larger gupta and satavahana slowly giving way to the late period of lots of small states and the consolidation of the smaller southern kingdoms in the early period into larger groupings in the later. I suggest we reflect the color coding of the Template to do the same, and split the Middle Kingdoms article into two as well.

I also suggest you reinstate the Rastrhrakuta as they are a significant kingdom and play a role in seeding a few of the later northern rajput dynasties.--Tigeroo 06:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after the next set of prunings I don't think this template is working. Harsha was minor in comparison to the Kushans, and they were only half the story that shaped the entire history of the string of invasions of Northwest for over 600 years. There are still no Rashtrakuta who are likely as important as the Chola, and why lose the Satavahan they are THE kingdom from the Mauryans until the other Southerns Rise. No mention of the Rajputs Kingdoms who form the history of the northern India for almost 700 years. Why Maratha and not the Sikhs, there is no mention of anything in the West after Magadha. The template leaves more holes in Indian history than it fills. I cannot see why it cannot hold a lot more information like the Template:history of Iran can. Why do we require sections like General Histories, Regional Histories, Specialized Histories? If we have too much information to fit then let's just rethink the template and what it is supposed to achieve. The timeline totally ignores huge and important sections of history and provides no information on what the selected links are supposed to represent. At this rate it may just be a good idea to branch out seperate templates for the history of the south, east and western parts of India because they are totally ignored and a timeline profferred that is too simplistic. There are a lot of flags at the top of the template whose history is absolutely not represented by the contents of the box below--Tigeroo 12:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this template is for navigation to various articles related to South Asian history. It's important that the template doesn't become too big or else it would be difficult to navigate. The reason I've removed many Middle Kingdoms is because there is already a Middle kingdoms of India article that includes all of those kingdoms and empires, so it's unnecessary to repeat them here on the template. Only the larger empires should be mentioned in the Middle Kingdoms section of this template (such as the Gupta and Chola empires) although the link to Ancient Tamil country is also worth keeping. Jagged 23:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is obviously I do not agree with you on what is important and what is not to help the navigation across the timeline of Indian history, and others editors also come along and add to it. The Sikhs are important, thats the whole history of a community of people not worth a mention, especially since it also did affect the Mughals significantly. I believe the entire period of the Rajputs, and the Northwestern invasions periods are significantly more important than the Guptas. You are thinking in terms of empires/ kingdoms and I in historical periods. Personally I would redo the template to feature time periods and leave the internal links to specific kingdom on the time period pages such as the Middle Kingdoms.

Vedic Civilzation and Vedic Kingdoms is a duplication similar to Sangam Era and Ancient Tamil Kingdoms yet Sangam era is not important. How can we format this template so that we can come to an agreement rather than just arbitary changes. A policy decision so that we can be consistent.--Tigeroo 08:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to add the "hide option" for the Middle Kingdom and separate it into early and late periods (with hide option). This make the template detailed and reasonable. We don't have to have a long and hard decision about what kingdom is important or not! I believe all the kingdoms played an important in the history of India and should be mentioned and respected. So this will prevent edit warring and unnessary discussion. Separate the middle kingdom into early and late middle kingdom with "hide option". I know hide option is the last resort. But it is the neutral idea. thankyou user Talk:Dewan357

I noticed this template (which is way too big, BTW) at the Partition of India article. It had been relabeled as "History of the Indian subcontinent" and "History of India" had been turned into "History of greater India". What is this? India is going to reconquer everything? India uber alles? Lebensraum? Arrant Indian nationalism is offensive to the other nations that share the sub-continent and should not be countenanced in an international endeavour. Zora 03:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone cant keep their fantasies of Nazism to themself. Do "South Asians" look around and cry "nazi" anytime they are offended? Though the "greater India" thing was wrong, editors dont appreciate useless off-topic rants and allusions to Nazism. A simple unexplained revert would have done the job. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is that "India" can really refer to both the subcontinent and the republic. If you ask me, for the purposes of WP, India should be a disambiguation page to forestall this eternal confusion. If you ask me, generally (which you don't), it was a mistake to call your Republic after a river which lies almost entirely within your neighbouring country with which you are on very unstable terms. I know this is a problem of English, though. Bharat is unambiguous, and the English should just have referred to the republic as Bharat from the beginning. But it's too late to change that now, so we need to be very clear about disambiguation. dab (ᛏ) 08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the Mughal era link to Mughal empire -- all other links refer to individual empires. I also propose inclusion of a link to Sikh Kingdom since it was an important pre-British political entity. ElvenHighKing

--Ksyrie 10:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can/should Myanmar be added to the template, as sharing a similar stretch of history? Chris 07:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way, because Myanmar is likely part of Southeast Asian history. 96.229.179.106 (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been the victim of a number of anonymous date warriors changing style from BCE/CE to BC/AD against consensus and Wikipedia policy. Interested parties please keep an eye out. --Steven J. Anderson 07:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British India was formed in 1765 or 1858, what is the exact year? 96.229.179.106 (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The flag is representing exiled Tibetans and the Central Tibetan Administration, a political body. It has nothing to do with the geographical location of Tibet

"No Need to Revert" is hardly a reason/counter-argument. 219.79.27.59 (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits with nonsense edit summary, "that has been a part of the template for a while" or something like that sounds more like an excuse rather than an argument.219.79.27.59 (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I revert POV pushing like this. The editor who inserted the POV obviously made false claims in his/her edit summary, as revision 223502569(by IP 58.111.87.99) never mentioned this placename.116.48.63.112 (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They ruled small parts of the subcontinent not the whole. Since when is the history of punjab the history of south asia? Gqegg (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sikh Empire at its peak under Ranjit Singh spanned from Peshawar in NWFP to the current day Punjab of both India and Pakistan, as well as Kashmir. His was the largest empire in North India at the time before the rise of the British.

As far as the Maratha empire goes, the northern and the western boundaries of modern India correspond to the northern and the western boundaries of the Maratha Empire. Hence they had a significant impact on the history of South Asia.

that is true the Maratha Empire is more important then Sikh Empire! (Dewan 07:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Changed back to 'History of South Asia'. Khokhar (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this template is quickly becoming unusable. It will need to be collapsed, and instead of a good and detailed template, this will amount to no template. It needs to be cut down to something that doesn't hog half the screen when transcluded. --dab (𒁳) 07:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to add the "hide option" for the Middle Kingdom and separate it into early and late periods (with hide option). This make the template detailed and reasonable. We don't have to have a long and hard decision about what kingdom is important or not! I believe all the kingdoms played an important in the history of India and should be mentioned and respected. So this will prevent edit warring and unnessary discussion. Separate the middle kingdom into early and late middle kingdom with "hide option". I know hide option is the last resort. But it is the neutral idea. Thankyou User Talk:Dewan357

There remains the larger question whether the political history of South Asia comprises all of the history of South Asia. In my opinion to ignore economic history, social history, people's history etc of South Asia would be a gross injustice in presenting a comprehensive view of the state of South Asia through the ages. With this in mind I have created a template which I have posted on Talk:History_of_India#Template_in_the_lead which (although preliminary and subjective) takes in account all approaches of history.--Shahab (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the recent eits have turned this into an abhorrent example of what navigation templates should not be. For some reason people keep confusing navigation templates with Wikipedia's categorization system, linking every possible and impossible article related to the topic. This is pointless. A navigation template should link to a handful of chief articles. Anything else simply isn't useful to the reader. Instead of "browsing" collapsed gigantesque templates, users can browse categories. Or, if this must be a giant link collection, at least turn it into a collapsible footer which will not take up any space at the top of articles. --dab (𒁳) 09:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so this template is now stuck somewhere halfway between "collapsible" and "not collapsible". It is now worse than ever, it is now not only extremely large but also extremely ugly. Please do something about it or I will see myself forced to revert to the last halfway acceptable revision. --dab (𒁳) 08:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for some reason, people still keep adding material without discussion in spite of the repeated calls to reduce template size. --dab (𒁳) 12:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this mentioned under a separate section? I propose including that in the National History section. Sabih (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((edit semi-protected)) Something has gone wrong with the formatting of this template, meaning that (at least) the 'List of Indian Monarchs' and 'History of South Asia' pages now have a peach background with the article text included in the template table, as of 2010-10-02 09:48 UTC. I'm afraid I am merely a wikipedia reader, not an editor, so I cannot be more specific about what needs to be changed. TCS

82.45.204.54 (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) has fixed the template. an edit was made that temporarily broke one of the collapse tables. - Happysailor 11:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to understand why the section 1100–1800 CE is considered "Muslim Period." There might be some confusion among new readers about: why it is considered Muslim when there is the Vijayanagara, Maratha, and Sikh Empires. Is it possible to change it to something else such as "Medieval" period. It will be more neutral and clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.241.214 (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP, You have a point, but one also has to strike a balance between very generic descriptions such as "ancient," "medieval," "early modern," "modern," which are too anonymous, don't grab a new reader, and would apply to the history of any region; and the very particular description of every significant kingdom by name, which would overwhelm the reader. Other sources and tertiary sources are a good guide. Encyclopaedia Britannica, whose India history section, is written by some of the best-known historians of India, has this broad breakdown: a) India from the Palaeolithic to the Decline of the Indus Civilization, –1500BCE, b) The Development of Indian Civilization, 1500 BCE–1200 CE, c) Early Muslim Period, 1200–1526, d) The Mughal Empire (1526–1761), e) Regional States 1700–1850, f) India and European Expansion, 1500–1858 g) British Imperial Power, 1858–1947, h) Republic of India, 1947–

In it, Vijayanagara does come under "Early Muslim Period." That doesn't mean that every part of India was under Muslim rulers, but that Muslim rulers and broad hegemony over significant swathes of the region. The Sikhs and Marathas come under "Regional States." The "History of South Asia" template does have regional kingdoms, but, I'm guessing, that fans of "Maratha Empire," might feel affronted to find it in "Regional Kingdom," although, in essence, that's what it really was, except for a brief period. Here's my suggestion: The Muslim Period could be split into "Early Muslim Period," and "Mughal Period," and "Regional Kingdoms" could be changed to "Regional States." Vijayanagara would go into "Early Muslim Period," whereas, "Marathas" and "Sikhs" could go into "Regional States." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS I take back what I said about splitting Muslim Period into Early Muslim and Mughal. The template has to be compact; it has histories of other countries of South Asia. So, my suggestion would be to keep Muslim Period as is, but change "Regional Kingdoms" into "Regional States" and move Marathas and Sikhs into Regional States. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing such as "Muslim period", stop pushing ur pro muslim POV. Sikh empire should be under regional empires as it is but Maratha Empire was a pan India empire with its rule in many parts of India. HotWinters (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early modern period refers to the time period from 16th to 19th century as mentioned here, whereas " Middle Kingdoms" refer to Kingdoms from post Maurya to 13th century. There is nothing such as MUSLIM PERIOD, unless some pro muslim fans might want to push there POV here. HotWinters (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Early modern period refers to the time period from 16th to 19th century as mentioned here, whereas "Middle Kingdoms" refer to Kingdoms from post Maurya to 13th century. There is nothing such as MUSLIM PERIOD, unless some pro muslim fans might want to push there POV here. HotWinters (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early Modern is not 1100 to 1800 as you seem to have made out on the Template. Muslim Period has historiographic precedent; Britannica has it, as I've already indicated. The Britannica article is written by collectively by Frank Raymond Allchin, Romila Thapar, Muzaffar Alam, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Percival Spear, and Stanley Wolpert, some of the best-known historians in the business. If they can use "Early Muslim Period" for the period 1200 to 1526, then obviously the later Muslim Period (or Mughal Period) is 1526 to 1800, which is what we have on Wikipedia. This has been in place for over four years. Best not to edit war with me. Let this be a warning, HotWinters. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim period is used as reference term by some authors but it is not a recognized period unlike recognized terms like Middle and early modern(1500-1800). stop pushing ur POV. HotWinters (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early modern period refers to 1500-1800 AD whereas Middle Kingdoms refers to 200BC-1200 AD. These are recognized terms. HotWinters (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Fowler&fowler has mentioned the name of Romila Thapar as a contributor to the Britannica article. Let me quote from her Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300, p.19 to show her view about the Hindu Muslim periodization of Indian history:

"In any case, political trends dominant in early twentieth-century India justified the separate religious nationalisms by referring to (among other things) the Hindu and Muslim periodization, endorsed by many Indian and non-Indian historians. Only a few questioned its validity. But such a periodization of Indian history is misleading in its emphasis, apart from being questionable in its assumptions. The religious affiliation of rulers was not the pre-eminent motivating factor of change in Indian history, as these categories would imply: it was among a number of factors."

- Joy1963^Talk 16:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be her personal view, but she, as a historian of early India, has nonetheless collectively written a very long Indian history page in Britannica that has precisely such a periodization. As the foremost traditional tertiary source in the English speaking world, Britannica is often used on Wikipedia as an example. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, its you who is pushing his "personal view" here, there is no such recognized term as "muslim period". HotWinters (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Another contributor to the Britannica article, as mentioned by User:Fowler&fowler is Sanjay Subrahmanyam. In his following works on Indian history, he has used the term early modern India:

1. Merchants, Markets and the State in Early Modern India, Oxford University Press, 1990
2. Penumbral Visions: Making Polities In Early Modern South India, University Of Michigan Press, 2001

• He also mentioned the name of Muzaffar Alam. Alam has also mentioned the term early modern India in his work. (The Languages of Political Islam In India, p.8

Are these examples also their personal views only? Joy1963^Talk 17:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, Joy, why are you wasting my time? I've read those books. I know that they use Early Modern. That is not the point. They have still collectively signed off on a tertiary source history page (as editors do on a wikipedia article) that has Early Muslim Period as a periodization. Obviously, it didn't bother them enough to withdraw their contribution. (In any case, when Subrahmanyam, writes about early modern Mysore (please see the historiography section in my FA Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), he is talking about the seventeenth or eighteenth century. Our esteemed editor, HotWinters, on the other hand, has Delhi Sultanate (1206–1526) under early modern. I've told him to read the first line of Early modern period, but he goes on editing the template undeterred and uninformed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And guess who has written Britannica's Early Muslim Period Section? It is Muzaffar Alam. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on fowler, who are u kidding here, rather than being a self claimed expert(on almost everything) why don't u read the period classification, there is nothing such as MUSLIM Period...and btw the first line of Early modern period says, "In history, the early modern era of modern history follows the late Middle Ages"...exactly what I am saying that Early modern period follows "Middle kingdoms of India". HotWinters (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "middle" in Middle kingdoms of India is not the same as the "middle" in Middle Ages. The first period begins after the decline of the Mauryas in late 3rd century BC, the second begins after the fall of the Roman Empire in 479 AD. The first ends with the decline of the Cholas around 1250 AD the second ends around 1500 AD. As the Early modern period page says itself, early modern is 1500 to 1800. How did you squeeze 1200–1526 into it? Edit warring perhaps? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, we can replace Middle kingdoms of India with Middle Ages, to be followed by Early modern period, though considering ur prejudice, I doubt that will be liked by you. HotWinters (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:) No, as the first line of the Middle ages page says, "The Middle Ages (adjectival form: medieval or mediæval) was a period of European history from the 5th century to the 15th century." Can't apply to India. I think you would be better off, HotWinters, taking time off Wikipedia and reading an Indian history text or even a general history text, instead of changing longstanding text across the board in your compromised state of preparedness. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per User:Fowler&fowler's desire and parameters of mentioning unconventional categories of timeline we will end up having even more categories like "Maratha Period", for example used by government of India here or "Sikh Period" for exmple mentioned here. HotWinters (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And why not to add "Mauryan Period" as a category used in fowler's favourite Britannica here. HotWinters (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• May be I am again wasting time of User:Fowler&fowler, an expert on the subject but when the WP:PSTS clearly states the wikipedia policy as "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." I still can not understand when reliable secondary sources are using the term pre modern period and not muslim period, still the tertiary source should be given more importance.

Joy1963^Talk 18:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the rest of that link you quoted from. Under "tertiary sources" it says, "Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other." What is a heading in a template? It is the ultimate summary. There are many secondary sources that use "Muslim period" and some that use "Early Modern" (or other more generic ones). It is tertiary sources that will give a summary. Tertiary sources are peer-reviewed for balance and WP:UNDUE. They use "Muslim" or "Islam" or "Islamic" to describe the period. Here are some other examples:

• Encyclopedia.com (formerly Columbia Encyclopedia), begins its post-Gupta and pre-British period (in its article on India), "In the 8th century, the first of several Islamic invaders appeared in the northwest; between 1000 and 1030, Mahmud of Ghaznī made 17 forays into the subcontinent. The first Muslim sultan of Delhi was Kutbuddin (r. c.1195–1210), and Islam gradually spread eastward and southward, reaching its greatest territorial and cultural extent under the Mughal (or Mogul) dynasty. ..."
• Websters Collegiate Encyclopedia says in its lead on India, "Muslim invasions began c.AD 1000, establishing the long-lived Delhi sultanate in 1206 and the Mughal dynasty in 1526."
• CIA Factbook describes the post-Gupta and pre-British period as: "Islam spread across the subcontinent over a period of 700 years. In the 10th and 11th centuries, Turks and Afghans invaded India and established the Delhi Sultanate. In the early 16th century, the Emperor BABUR established the Mughal Dynasty which ruled India for more than three centuries." (same profile used by US Department of State.
• The Library of Congress Country Profile on India, begins its post-Gupta and pre-British period with, "Islamic influence in South Asia emerged around 711 as Arabs conquered part of Sindh (now in Pakistan), and by the tenth century Punjab came under the control of Turkic ruler Mahmud of Ghazni. ..."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HotWinters, Please note the following:

• the lead of the History of India page says, "Muslim rule in the subcontinent began in 712 CE when the Arab general Muhammad bin Qasim conquered Sindh and Multan in southern Punjab in modern day Pakistan, setting the stage for several successive invasions from Central Asia between the 10th and 15th centuries CE, leading to the formation of Muslim empires in the Indian subcontinent such as the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire."
• The much more widely used template: Template:Part of History of India, which appears in all India-history related pages, including History of India, has similar headings.

Why don't you change the History of India lead and the "Part of History of India" template and wipe off all vestiges of "Muslim" or "Islam," and also advertise yourself to a larger Wikipedia community, instead of wasting your energies on this obscure talk page? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I forgot, the lead of the India page itself will soon carry this sentence: "Islamic invasions from Central Asia began in the early second millennium and Muslim rule rose to its height under the Mughal empire in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries." (There is consensus for this sentence, although, they are still working on the British era sentence. See this section of the Talk:India page.) HotWinters, why don't you post there as well and remove the "Muslim" and "Islamic?" India is a widely read page, and would give your views maximum publicity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your deep urge to add the word MUSLIM anyway clearly reflects your pro Muslim POV...The whole urge to paint the history of India in terms of religion is taking this template no where...your latest gimmick of creating a separate category for "Period of Muslim Dominance" is clearly reflecting your communal mind, and how you want to push in ur personal view on history. Many subjective periods can be created like Sikh period, Maratha Period, Vijaynagar period etc. Use the recognized terms. HotWinters (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And btw fowler, I am not putting up any views here unlike you, who want to write the history of India in colors of religion rather than the way it should be. HotWinters (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you have unilaterally changed a template that has used the periodization, "Muslim period," for the last five years, without reaching consensus for your edits on this page. Shouting louder, Louder, and LOUDER, is not the way to achieve your ends, nor is facilely repeating Wikidogma. You need to show that a preponderance of scholarly sources on South Asian history use the periodization, "Early Modern," for the period 1100 AD – 1800 AD, instead of the "Muslim Period." You are a long way short of achieving that end. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have a better idea, why don't we get rid of the heading altogether (whether "Early Modern" or "Muslim Period"). There are only six or seven political entities listed there anyway. I'm sure the template can withstand that expansion. Let me try now. It might be a good solution. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the topic Portuguese India to the list.I totally forgot to comment on my edit.Please excuse me for that. Thank you. Nijgoykar (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Maitraka
• Gajapati Kingdom
• Maha-Meghavahana Dynasty
• Maukhari —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.232.98 (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone clarify what is the event in 1803 which ended the Mughal Empire, or is it supposed to be an approximate year? I couldnt find anything on the Mughal Empire page either. Shaad lko (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See [2]. I'm willing to protect if it continues. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]