Talk:Gandhara grave culture

Bogus speculation

It appears that some belligerent editor has been adding some bogus speculation and POV pushing content into this article. I have tagged the relevant material. Citations to reliable sources need to be given PROMPTLY or else they will be nominated for deletion or simply (oh, and justifiably) removed.Grathmy (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit wars by sock puppet

To whom this may concern,

An IP hopper is making some serious nonconstructive edits on several Wikipedia articles, among which one is this. What this user does is delete any mentioning of Pakistan, deletes the History of Pakistan template and replaces a specific region (ie. Punjab, Sindh) with a vague, obsolete term "Indian subcontinent". The first bone of contention is why this user has an issue with Pakistan claiming its history. I don't see this user going to the Mauryan Empire and removing the History of India template. Clearly a bias is present.

The second issue is how this user is replacing specific regions with Indian subcontinent. This would be like replacing Texas with North America. It makes zero sense to me. I've tried several times to contact the user, but he or she seems to be using some program which prevents me from posting on his or her talk page. The user is also using several IDs at once which I am noting down here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

The other articles he is creating havoc on include: History of Sindh, Ror dynasty, Gandhara, Gandhara grave culture, Riwat,

Not only would I like to report his or her deconstruction edits, I'd also like to have his or her actual IP address banned for using several different user IDs at once. Thank you. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, this falls under pre-history. (2600:1001:B025:D62C:1C23:8806:4DE9:D0F0 (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gandhara grave culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908052820/http://pubweb.cc.u-tokai.ac.jp/indus/english/3_1_05.html to http://pubweb.cc.u-tokai.ac.jp/indus/english/3_1_05.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908052731/http://pubweb.cc.u-tokai.ac.jp/indus/english/3_1_01.html to http://pubweb.cc.u-tokai.ac.jp/indus/english/3_1_01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Genetic section's new data

@Revirvlkodlaku: After the deleting by you of my previous contribution, arguing that it should not be too technical in order to make easier to understand for the readers, I reworded it, to a simpler format, but you still consider it to be modified and explained, at least that's what I understand of your observation. Here is my last edit:

Narasimhan et al., 2019 reported 132 individuals from Swat: Out of the 98 from Iron Age two were R1a-Z94. Out of the 23 from Historic times three samples were R1a-Z93 and one R1a-Z94. They also reported 7 medieval samples, 3 not labeled, and 1 Late Bronze/Early Iron Age individual bearing R2a.

Can you tell me what's your opinion or a better way to explain your position.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B., I'm of the opinion that the kind of genetic detail you wish to include in the article is much too granular and technical for the average reader, and I don't think it belongs here. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: Well, this is a section for genetic data, or not? And the paragraph above mentions Narasimhan 2018 paper, and the one I mention is the following one. I do not think it's irrelevant or too much complicated, as Wikipedia itself has articles explaining each of the haplogroups I mentioned. Anyway I can include the links to other Wikipedia's articles regarding this, or a more detailed explanation.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B., the paragraph that includes the Narasimhan paper does not mention haplogroups. While you are right that haplogroups themselves are explained in their own article on WP, that's not quite the same as going into detail about them on an unrelated page. People who wish to learn about haplogroups have the option to do so on the relevant page, but in most other contexts, I think the information you wish to include here is excessive. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)