Talk:List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries

Removal of dubious entries

While this whole list is an anachronistic mess (a lot of which is itself a POV redaction of en:List of inventions and discoveries of the Indus Valley Civilisation and en:List of Indian inventions and discoveries), I have removed entries that clearly do not belong here.

• Stepwell: Great Bath, Mohenjo-daro, which is cited as the claim for this invention, is not a stepwell neither is it taken to be an influence on later actual stepwell designs (the cited source isn't RS as well).
• First University: University of ancient Taxila, despite its name, was not an actual university (which originated in medieval Europe) and the notes make it amply clear, including this here with the notes does not make it any better (also other en:ancient higher-learning institutions preceded it as well).
• Rain gauge: Copies content from en:Rain gauge and blindly replaces India with Pakistan. And while Chanakya taught at Taxila and is generally identified as the author of the Arthashastra, his origin from there is highly contested and neither would a mere mention of gauge in the Arthashastra imply an invention by Chanakya.
• Seven Stones: Linking terra cotta discs of IVC with the modern children's game is completely speculative as the ref itself notes "may be represented by terra cotta discs found in graduated sizes".
• Chess/Chaturanga: These being from the IVC is a fringe idea (even our GA article on chess does not support this), also both the refs do not support this (the latter mentions nothing about chess and the first is self-published which nonetheless explicitly rejects the hypothesis).
• Kabaddi: Is a folk sport with no definite origin, the modern form was standardized in the 20th century. Tall stories and speculations of ancient origin should not be here.
• Ayurveda: Charaka Samhita while important in Ayurveda did not originate the system nor was Charaka from Taxila (though he may have been associated with the "university" there).
• Cesarean section: see Chanakya above, the record is also from Magadha.
• Zero: Did not originate with the Bakhshali manuscript, despite being an early record of it, and the date of the manuscript is itself highly contested.
• Brahmagupta and related entries: Was not from Multan or Sindh, the sources citing these are either outdated or rely on outdated materia. These incorrectly linked en:Bhimalla with Multan or Sindh, the city is now known to clearly be in Rajasthan. Further see en:Talk:Brahmagupta#Sindh, en:Talk:Brahmagupta/Archive 1#Brahmagupta's Multan connection?.
• Religions: Religions are not inventions or discoveries and are never listed as such.
• Sitar: Its invention by Amir Khosrow is a myth, which nonetheless would place it exactly in Delhi even if taken to be true.
• Worm drive/Crank Handle/Draw bar: The source places these exactly within peninsular/South India, Delhi and western Indian coast respectively.
• Roller sugar mill: Non-RS source which nonetheless mentions nothing about its usage in modern-day Pakistan.
• Metal cylinder rocket: Not in source.
• Multi-barrel matchlock volley gun: Fathullah Shirazi mostly lived in Burhanpur and Agra.

I will be removing these from the list, though a whole revisiting of the article might be required considering the anachron and POV issues for other entries here. Gotitbro (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay. (And anyone should start a stub of the two other articles that user:Gotitbro, has mentioned.--Any of those would likely then become a main article, for this article.--I can see myself contributing to an already started, stub.) 2001:2020:359:8A64:9C57:41AB:16B8:A663 (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• The Sugar claim in IVC also appears dubious, cited to a chemistry handbook (not a history source) which mentions it only once in passing. According to en:History of sugar, sugarcane first reached eastern India in 500 BCE long after the IVC. As such evidence of sugarcanes has never been found at IVC sites.
• Gillidanda is also a folk sport with no known origins i.e. not an invention, as the article itself states, not sure what it is doing here either.

Gotitbro (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

First, don't "blank" articles on Simple Wikipedia just because they're unsourced or seem dubious to you. Do a bit of your own research first (many of our articles here are like that, translated from other wikis with no sources at all). A significant part of this article comes from the English Wikipedia article on inventions from the "Indian subcontinent," (as you've already noticed) and many of the entries here have sources cited over there, so check them out too. If you believe something doesn't belong or the sources aren’t reliable, gain consensus here on the talk pages. Consensus from English Wikipedia doesn't automatically apply here, and conversations between two editors on EnWiki isn't enough. If there are multiple theories or if it's unclear where an invention was made, add that information to the main article rather than removing things based on personal preference. There are already notes on this article marking certain things as "dubious" or "uncertain", and that's enough unless we reach a different consensus here.

Also, please use simple English when discussing on talk pages so more editors can join in, as not everyone here is fluent or speaks English as their first language. You're welcome to start discussions for each entry, either on their respective pages or here, before reverting everything again. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 09:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies on the editor who adds the content to the article. I think your statement just because they're unsourced or seem dubious to you was out of line. And as you pointed out yourself, if the inventions originate from the "Indian subcontinent", why are they represented in this article as "Pakistani" inventions? Chenzw  Talk  09:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Pakistan is part of the "Indian subcontinent"? which is a broader geographical term. That doesn't mean we can't have separate articles for specific regions within it. Also, the entries here are sourced, mostly from EnWiki during translation. When I said just because they're unsourced or seem dubious to you, I meant to highlight that we have many unsourced articles, but we don't just blank them. This particular article is sourced, the reliability of those sources is what's being contested here. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 09:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The content has been challenged by another editor, and it appears that some of the cited sources don't even support the claim(s) in the article. Just because something has an inline citation does not make it immune to removal.

There are a lot of issues highlighted here, but there's one problem in particular I would want to discuss first: please explain why the entry for Rain gauge is a complete copy of EN's en:Rain gauge, but with references to India all replaced with Pakistan. Chenzw  Talk  09:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

As I’ve mentioned before, I translated content from EnWiki's article on the inventions of the "Indian subcontinent," which includes inventions from modern-day Pakistan. Regarding the Rain gauge entry, I may not have simplified it enough, which is why it closely mirrors the EN version. The article, en:List of Indian inventions, refers to inventions from the Indian subcontinent, not just modern-day India. I replaced "India" with "Pakistan" because Chanakya (Kautilya), who is associated with this invention, is believed to have been born in modern-day Taxila (S: Mahavamsa Tika). The cited source (A History of Rain Gauges) mentions: The first known reference to rainfall measurement is in Arthashastra by Kautilya..., the Arthashastra of Kautilya is also believed by some to have been authored in Gandhara, modern Pakistan. I don’t think my change was problematic to be highlighted this way, but I’m happy to discuss any concerns about my edits. If the consensus is to remove or delete them, I have no issue with that. I just hope our discussions don't get personal. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 10:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

That's the same kind of anachronistic editing that has been mentioned at ST, and the same kind of editing that got you banned on EN. Pakistan did not exist at the time of the invention, and as you mentioned, the location of Gandhara is in modern-day Pakistan. Chenzw  Talk  10:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you meant by "and the same kind of editing that got you banned on EN"? To my knowledge, I wasn’t banned on EN for making "anachronistic edits." My block was more related to edit warring and later sockpuppeteering, and I hadn’t even edited these topics there. Can we have a productive discussion if you're going to make false accusations like this? Once again, I’m not claiming that Pakistan existed back then—just like many modern nations didn’t exist in the 2nd century BCE. The article is about the region of Pakistan. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 10:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

And that is the use of sockpuppets to push pro-Pakistan edits. On ST we have already spoken about how the reference to Pakistan is not well-supported by academic consensus or reliable sources. Not to mention that at least some of the content here directly contradicts what has already been written on EN (e.g. rain gauge). I will also note that the section on agriculture contains entries from en:List of Indian inventions and discoveries, but rewritten to represent them as Pakistani inventions. By your own admission, sources did not say that they were Pakistani inventions. It is a violation of WP:SYNTH to draw the conclusion that they therefore are Pakistani inventions because the geographic areas in which they originated from are Pakistani. Chenzw  Talk  10:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Pro-Pakistan edits? Just because I contributed to Pakistani articles doesn’t make my edits pro-Pakistani. None of them were unconstructive. In fact, It was my wishful thinking that contributing constructively would prevent me from being blocked again, not knowing that constructive edits aren’t enough when you’re flagged for sockpuppeting. On ST we have already spoken about how the reference to Pakistan is not well-supported by academic consensus or reliable sources.; The topic we discussed on ST was different, there were no articles on EN about those subjects. But this case is different—the EN article en:List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries clearly states: ...as well as those made in the territorial area of what is now Pakistan prior to the independence of Pakistan in 1947. (Isn't this contradicting what you said here?) It also listed pre-1947 inventions made in the region of modern Pakistan until an editor blanked it. I get your point that the sources may not refer to them as "Pakistani," but can’t we mention them in the article by specifying that they were made during a certain period or empire in what is now Pakistan? – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 11:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say the edits are pro-Pakistani because you contributed to Pakistani articles. I am asserting that those edits are pro-Pakistani, and pro-Pakistani in a policy-violating fashion, because the edits are misrepresenting various things as Pakistani when in fact they are not supported by reliable sources, and especially because the main reason for representing them as Pakistani is because of their connection to the land that is now known as modern Pakistan (which is a violation of SYNTH). It is also particularly problematic that you have on some occasions copied existing content from EN to here, and contradict EN by outright replacing "India(n)" with "Pakistan(i)". The issue is not with the lack of simplification of EN content. And indeed, you cannot mention inventions in the article as Pakistani inventions solely because they were made in what is now modern Pakistani territory, for the same reason those monarchs discussed on ST cannot be deemed Pakistani monarchs. That is anachronistic editing. I am also saying that such edits are unconstructive because they are violating editorial policies, and at least one other editor other than me has also expressed concerns about them.

Since you bring up the EN article, and this quote on EN: ...as well as those made in the territorial area of what is now Pakistan prior to the independence of Pakistan in 1947., I want to draw your attention to the removal and the edit summary here, which also explains the removal - namely that none of the inventions were explicitly supported as "Pakistani inventions" in reliable sources, not to mention that Pakistan didn't exist back then. This quote at en:Talk:List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries sums up the main problem: If the same faulty logic that is used on this page was applied to other articles as well, everything invented and achieved by the Romans could be listed as Italian inventions. Chenzw  Talk  11:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

...and pro-Pakistani in a policy-violating fashion, because the edits are misrepresenting various things as Pakistani when in fact they are not supported by reliable sources... You're saying this about my edits on EnWiki and asserting it’s the reason for my block there. But I haven’t made any edits on EN that misrepresent anything as Pakistani that "isn't Pakistani". In fact, as I’ve mentioned before, I didn’t contribute to these topics at all on EnWiki.

And, Of course, I noticed the edit summary left by the editor for blanking the article, they claimed "There's already a consensus reached", but I don’t see any such consensus. The last relevant comment on the talk page was this: en:Special:Diff/1222238745.

EnWiki itself isn't a reliable source, so we’re not being "problematic" by contradicting it. EnWiki listed those inventions as originating from the subcontinent, not modern India. However, the wikilink was to modern India, which seems like a contradiction on EN itself, especially considering the cited sources there don’t make that distinction.

Also, repeating that Pakistan didn’t exist back then isn’t helpful. No one is saying that Pakistan existed in ancient times. The article simply lists inventions from what is now Pakistan. I get your point that they’re not "Pakistani" in a historical sense, but "Pakistani" isn't an ethno/geo term like Roman and Italians. The name itself is an acronym representing historical regions that make up modern-day Pakistan.

A potential solution would be renaming the article to List of inventions and discoveries from Pakistan. This wouldn’t assert them as "Pakistani" and would allow us to mention within the article that these inventions were made during specific periods in history, long before the creation of modern Pakistan. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 12:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cyber.Eyes.2005: Even that does not fit in well with the additions you have made. I explicitly removed only those items which have no tenable link to the modern-day territories of Pakistan, if I was to apply wholesale anachronistic removals the pre-modern inventions would also have been removed, which I nonetheless avoided at this point. Just becuase India/Indian subcontinent/South Asia is mentioned in sources/elsehwhere does not automatically mean that these items were pioneered in modern-day Pakistani territory or even existed there in the first place.

You still have not addressed the extensive rationales provided for each removal in the list above, I specifically made separate edits for each removal so any dispute could be rationaled individually but your wholesale revert of all of those without any valid reasoning on the Talk or the ES while falsely claiming "blanking" does not address any issue that has been raised. Gotitbro (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Reiterating why items were removed:

Rain gauge is obviously falsified since the source does not mention Pakistan nor does a mere mention in the Arthashastra make it an invention of Chanakya (whose origins from Taxila are nonetheless disputed [preferring one POV over another isn't what we do] and wouldn't warrant a listing here even if he pioneered them which he didn't). The same thing goes for C-section.

The consensus at enwiki for disputing the Multan/Sindh origin of Brahamagupta wasn't between two editors (read also the archive linked above). Those confusions in non-specialist sources result from the fact that en:Bhinmalla was erred by early Arab writers to be in the territory controlled by them near Multan and ergo in Sindh. en:Takao Hayashi specializes in the history of Indian mathematics and his article at Britannica clearly mentions the origins of Brahmagupta to be in Bhinmalla. We should not be repeating the mistakes of outdated and non-specialist sources on wiki projects.

You also don't address that religions are not inventions, Judaism/Christianity aren't anymore Israeli/Palestinian inventions than Islam is a Saudi Arabian; simply not how these things work.

And just because something happens to exist in a region does not make these an invention thereof, i.e. Gillidanda/Kabbadi/Seven Stones.

Charaka wasn't from Punjab, simply teaching at Taxila does not make him a native of the region. Though more importantly Ayurveda did not originate from him.

Sugar never existed in the IVC, no material proof exists for it and subsequent research has proven a much later adoption in eastern India and the rest of South Asia. A single-word mention in a citation not even directly dealing with the topic does not make it so.

Another false claim is of the sitar, its association with Khusrow is "myth" and even if he was the inventor he lived in present-day north India mostly in Delhi, not sure how your dubious territorial anachronism would even work here.

Worm drive/Crank Handle/Draw bar were another false addition as the source explicitly locates these in southern/western India.

Zero isn't a thing that can be pinned down to a single manuscript (whose dating is highly disputed); its origins antecedate usages in the region and even if its modern formulation was taken into account they would trace back to the Guptas in Patna (Aryabhata) and Ujjain (Brahmagupta, yes he mostly worked at Ujjain despite being from Bhinmalla). Chess is again traced back to the Guptas its origins in IVC were dubiously claimed (see your own refs which are nonetheless non-RS).

The Great Bath, Mohenjo-daro is not a stepwell, nor can it be retrofitted as such to claim the origins of later [mostly 1st-millenium] step-wells to it.

Roller sugar mill, Metal cylinder rocket, Multi-barrel matchlock volley gun: none of these are explicitly stated to be from modern-day Pakistani territories in your own sources (quite the opposite actually especially the latter whose inventor Fathullah Shirazi never lived there).

First University, I think this is clear enough. Universities were pioneered in Europe and any such retorspective claims before them are simply untenbale.

There are already notes on this article marking certain things as "dubious" or "uncertain", and that's enough unless we reach a different consensus here.

Then these shouldn't be here at all, Wikipedia does not exist to air every fringe view on the planet, just because something is verifiable [i.e. can be linked to any dubious source] does not mean its true. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for truthful NPOV information not what you are claiming it to be. Gotitbro (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I've added a {{Dubious}} tag based on this discussion, and Cyber.Eyes.2005 being blocked. Batrachoseps (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)