Talk:Rigvedic rivers

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rigvedic rivers article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hinduism Mid‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism 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.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Nepal

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

South Asia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The word "Sindhu" is a "masculine word" that represents a "male river". So, it's not appropriate to include- Shutudri, Parushni, Ashikni, Vitasta, Vipasha, Sarasvati, Sushoma etc as "Sapta Sindhu". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmmapala (talk • contribs) 04:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarasvati river

The article says: A minority opinion ascribes the loss of prominence of the Sarasvati to the drying up of the Ghaggar-Hakra.

I think it is difficult to find an appropriate wording here, but the wording seems a bit misleading. For example Kenoyers "Ancient Cities of the IVC" and Possehls "Indus Civilization" use the term Sarasvati river for the Ghaggar-Hakra troughout the book, also when talking about the drying up of the ancient Sarasvati. Others like Jane MacIntosh, Allchin and Max Müller and others also accept the identification of the Sarasvati with the Ghaggar-Hakra. Maybe a better wording would be that the identification of the two rivers is a matter of dispute. --Rayfield 12:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated comment

Recent study of the land forms as well as archeological excvatiosn of sites along the Ghaggar - Hakra (see the Wikipedia article) supports the view that the Ghaggar was indeed a mighty river in Vedic times, strengthening the case for the identification this river with the ancient saraswati. The wording of the article should be changed to reflect the presumption that this is the case.

What about the river Danu?

In the Rigveda I.32 Danu is the mother of Vritra and a river, which was strucked by Indra. It seems that the "Tuatha de Danann" (means: the people of Danu, possibly eaqual to the Danavas of the Rigveda which got the same meaning) of the Irish Celts (which are Indo-Europeans) refer to this river which seems to be eaqual to the greek Eridanos. This river is identified by the german scientist Kai Helge Wirth based on the equal named constellation which shows the course of that river with the northern german Eider. This is now a small rivulet but was in ancient times a big stream as Ovids Metamorphoses shows. At that time rivers like the Rhine, the Elbe, the Weser and the Themse where it's inflows which must have made it a big stream. It seems that Indra's beating of the river Danu endet that condition of the Eridanos. That took place at the end of the iceage because it is also said that Indra by beating Danu and her Son Vritra freed the rivers, which then could flow freely (because they where no more covert with ice). Of course this is OR but I wanted to inform you about that and the river Danu should be mentioned in the article.--87.152.226.89 (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The italian scientist Giuseppe Maria Sesti takes the name Eridanos back to the sumerian "Aria-Dan" which he explains as "Powerful River", but which in my opinion also (maybe beside that) can mean "River of the Aryans".--87.152.226.89 (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sapta Sindhava, not Sapta Sindhu

Sapta Sindhava is the nominative plural (dropping the final "s" in conformity with the convention of dropping final visarga when expressing Sanskrit words in foreign languages). Sapta Sindhu, in the singular, is ungrammatical.

The use of the singular form is a common solecism in English. I have only seen the plural used in Sanskrit and it appears to be the most common form in modern Indian languages and in English in India.

One might argue that the nominative singular should be used in English, and plurals formed in English (on the model of "viruses" rather than "viri"), but then we would have to say the Seven Sindhus. An explanation would be required to link this English form with the correct Vedic Sanskrit form. This option is at odds with the long-established usage in English both in India and overseas.

I therefore find the form Sapta Sindhu indefensible, and will proceed to substitute Sapta Sindhava, सप्त सिन्धव, for Sapta Sindhu, if no one offers any other thoughts.

Also in the second citation, the translation, or transliteration, is given into Sindhi. This makes no sense. We are discussing Rig-vedic rivers. Sindhi

Nakashchit (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally used to Sapt Sindhu, but you have a valid point. Thanks for enlightening about the correct usage in plural terms. Never too late for us to learn. I support your changes. 2404:E800:E61E:452:7D9B:33C0:E303:C435 (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaggar-Hakra identification with Saraswati supported by recent work

Following up on Rayfield's comments above, recent study of the land forms as well as archeological excvatiosn of sites along the Ghaggar - Hakra (see the Wikipedia article) supports the view that the Ghaggar was indeed a mighty river in Vedic times, strengthening the case for the identification this river with the ancient saraswati. The wording of the article should be changed to reflect the presumption that this is the case.Nakashchit (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

@Kautilya3: You reverted me here and posted an invalid caution message on my talk page here. Can you quote me the source which you were referring to in your edit summary ? LearnIndology (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you for violation of NPOV, which is exhibited by the fact that you deleted one sentence for being unsourced while almost the entire article is unsourced!

MOS:LEAD: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.

WP:LEADCITE: The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus.

So, if you want to challenge it, please explain how the sentence is not supported by the discussion in the body. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting unsourced content is not violation of NPOV, it is fundamental right of every editor. Your comment "I warned you for violation of NPOV, which is exhibited by the fact that you deleted one sentence for being unsourced while almost the entire article is unsourced!" is absolutely illogical and flawed. Please go through your comment again, maybe you will realize that. And can you tell that which source as of this version[1] supports the claim: "It encompasses the regions from Gandhara to Kurukshetra." Remember that WP:V and WP:OR are also content policies. LearnIndology (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a BLP to exercise drastic cuts: unreferenced content may not be removed at sight but tagged and attempted to be sourced. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, take a good look at WP:FAILV. It says - Material that fails verification may be tagged with ^{[failed verification]} or removed. LearnIndology (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May is the keyword. Your removal, in light of your past behavior, did breach NPOV. I have added two sources that attest to the accuracy of the removed line. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]