This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: History Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance). Hinduism: Krishnaism High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Krishnaism (assessed as High-importance). Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

I have added a clean-up tag today as although this article contains a lot of information I feel it needs to be laid-out and written more clearly, as per Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we should transcribe the mane as Dvaraka throughout, in keeping with our usual convention of rendering Sanskrit names. dab (𒁳) 13:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article for this entry

* Dvaraka, Gujarat, a.k.a. Dwaraka

and lking to Dwaraka creates an indirect link back to the same Dab, which must not occur.
--Jerzy•t 03:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"On analysis and dating of the samples collected it was found that the samples were about 9000 years old, about the same time when the Ice Age ended. Some of the artifacts discovered dated as far back as 32,000 years." Is it oficial information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.43.21.4 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A German-American philologist and a Professor of Sanskrit

I wanted to write:

Michael Witzel who is A Philologist and a professor Of Sanskrit argues that the "ruins" are either natural rock formations or the result of faulty remote sensing equipment and that the "artifacts" recovered are either geofacts or foreign objects introduced to the site by the very strong tidal currents in the Gulf of Cambay. The side scan sonar equipment used to image the bottom of the Gulf may have been faulty, and the claimed supporting evidence is purely circumstantial.

Why was it rejected? I got his title from his own page so what the issue with the statement above!

ALSO Michael Witzel is Note as Controversial Figure, which is why i claim this before and you removed it for some strange reason?

 NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED June 5, 1996

Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services 0 During the 1994-95 school year, the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies was mired in turmoil.

"A former lecturer had filed suit against three professors and the dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences for unspecified damages, students had met to discuss a litany of complaints and the chair of the department had threatened to sue one of the students in retaliation for her role in the meeting.

The department chair, Wales Professor of Sanskrit Michael E.J. Witzel, was at the heart of the controversy."^[1]82.38.160.13 (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)VEDA[reply]

I take your point about him not being an archaeologist and will take a look at his chapter in the book. It would be a WP:BLP violation to call him controversial on the basis of an article in the Harvard student newspaper. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the refference to the Puranas (Dvaraka is not mentioned in Mahabharata alone) and the part of Harivamsa Purana to the text. In my opinion an important information about the city.--87.152.245.242 (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have enhanced this part and changed it's position in the text, which in my opinion fits better for an Encyclopedia. The city should in my opinion be described before telling historical events.--87.178.218.111 (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many additional details of the city told in the Mahabharata. Therefore I think, it would be good, to tell this details of the city before the histgorical events.--87.178.218.111 (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not cut and paste the Bhagavad-gītā onto this page. Ogress _smash! 21:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BenevolentSage: You not only avoided coming to the talk page, you also repasted the material a third time as well as ruining the formatting of the reference section. This is not appropriate. I advise you to revert your edits and discuss them on the talk page. We do not paste scripture onto Wikipedia pages as fact Ogress _smash! 03:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not posting "scripture" onto Wikipedia as fact, I am simply providing a description of Dvaraka as it appears in the Mahabharata. I am not claiming that it is fact or non-fact, but the "fact" does remain, that there is indeed a section on this page devoted to providing a description of Dvaraka that is almost entirely lacking in said description. Therefore, I added that necessary description, nothing more, nothing less. I provided a link/reference to the description as well, I didn't just take it out of thin air. If this wants to refer to itself as an encyclopedia, than it needs to be as accurate and detailed as possible. There are plenty of other Wikipedia pages out there with similar content and they are not constantly taken down for little to no reason! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenevolentSage (talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianEditor::

• cincinnatitemple.com is not a reliable source, especially not for history-related articles.
• Same goes for The Young Investigator's Guide to Ancient Aliens. See Ancient Aliens#Critical reception.
• The ASI link is a decent source, but the citation style used by you is not appropriate: it is not clear which part of the 246 pages are you referring to. A cursory glance suggests that the only relevant portion in the publication is S. R. Rao's article Further excavations of the submerged city of Dwarka.

And once again, Gulf of Cambay (Khambhat) is not where Dwarka is located: it is completely different from the Gulf of Kutch. So, please don't add descriptions of archaeological findings in Gulf of Cambay to this article. utcursch | talk 03:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of these points. Anything more details about archaeology belongs in articles relating to Dwarka and Bet Dwarka, which are identified sites. Doug Weller talk 10:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:No doubt the source says 1500 BC.

But at the same time S.A Rao says "Mudras" were dated back to 1600 BC.Iamgod12345 (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: You didn't reply buddy...Iamgod12345 (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamgod12345: Pings don't work if you don't sign your edit with 4 tildes (~~~~). You also can't fix them if you did them incorrectly. I'm going out now and may not be able to reply today, but I will asap. Doug Weller talk

@Doug Weller: Ok Cool Iamgod12345 (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've quoted Rao. We shouldn't try to interpret or second guess him. Doug Weller talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamgod12345: Please don't have us stating what Rao believes in Wikpedia's voice. The quotation is accurate and doesn't have us stating it as fact. We can't assume that everyone agrees with him that there was a city-state then, for instance. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Ok I am cool with that but what about renaming the page Iamgod12345 (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commented below. Busy now working on something else. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name of page is something which one cannot find on Google easily. Like this ^[1] So I recommend to change name of page from Dvārakā to Dvarka Iamgod12345 (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamgod12345: I have no problems with Dvārakā, Google ignores the accent marks. Dvarka redirects to Dwarka on Wikipedia, which is about a real place. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: So we should rename it to Dvarka (Submerged City). Iamgod12345 (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not many people would search for that. It already has been given 7 other names that can be used to search for it.[1] Doug Weller talk 19:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]