Talk:Chandragupta Maurya/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Dr. Ranajit Pal" on Origins

Under the "Origins" heading, there is a large section of views of a certain Ranajit Pal, whose website strikes me as a very odd piece of, errm, "original research" (to put it politely). It'd be nice if someone with more knowledge on the topic than me could have a look at those passages. They should either be condensed into a summary or deleted altogether. Varana (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Varana: I agree totally. Ranajit Pal seems intent on rewriting practically the whole history of India and Persia. I have just gone through his website and found it full of accusations, suppositions and unsupported speculations. I will now have a look at this article and remove these speculations and give a reference to Pal's website for those who might be interested in some alternative views. Thanks for pointing this out. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Repair work on this article. Help requested

Further note to the above: I have just started editing the main page and removed all the academic titles as per Wikipedia policy as well as some of the discussions of Ranajit Pal's speculations (but left a link to his site in case any one is interested in his alternate views). However, I then started looking at some of the so-called "quotes" only to find that some of them seem to be completely made up (I have removed a couple of those), while others seem to be poorly rewritten versions - not the originals given at the place where the links take one to. I have started replacing them with the proper quotes from the English translation by Rev. John Selby Watson on the same site. However, this article on Chandragupta (and all the quotes and references in it) needs to be carefully checked - as someone has been really misusing the Wikipedia. I will try to get back to it soon - but it would be very helpful if others could also check and, where necessary, repair "quotes" and claims. We should probably also check other articles that are linked to it in case there has been similar vandalism on those pages. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear John Hill,

The current issue of the classics journal Scholia (vol. 15, pp. 78-101) carries an article by Ranajit Pal whom you characterize as a vandal. Prof. M. Witzel of Harvard calls Pal a hijacker which appears to be more appropriate. In this article Pal discusses some issues like the location of Palibothra which are of prime importance in world history. He maintains that Palibothra cannot be Patna because not a single artifact of any Maurya or Nanda king has been unearthed here. I believe that apart from elaborating the current academic position, even if one detests 'original research', it is the duty of the writer to point to the problems in the current theory. Why are no archaeological relics of Chandragupta known from anywhere in the world? Is this something that we should be silent about ? Pal maintains in his book "Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander" (p. 88) that Orontobates was Chandragupta who was Rantivarma of the Mudrarakshasa. According to him Diodotus of Erythrae was also Chandragupta. The book has been reveiwed by Jan-Mathieu Carbon of Corpus Christi college, Oxford University,( http://www.classics.und.ac.za/reviews/05-19pal.htm ) and also in the prestigious Bryn Mawr Classical Reveiw ( http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2007/2007-12-39.html ) . Also your exasperation is evident in that the sentence in the Wiki article "H.C. Raychaudhuri noted that the name Priyadarshi was adopted also by Chandragupta and as noted by W. W. Tarn," ends with a coma. The next sentence, "Robin Lane Fox has written that Sisines the Persian who is said to have met Alexander in Cilicia was in fact an ally of the latter." is also meaningless as it is without any context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda (talk • contribs) 01:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear John Hill,

I think the repair work was very damaging. Someone who probably reads little else than textbooks says he does not know enough to form an opinion but dislikes what was there and you oblige him by removing all that he does not like. This may also be vandalism. This gentleman is in good company. Ranajit Pal states in the website http://www.ranajitpal.com that Romila Thapar who is the co-recipient of the one million Dollar Kluge prize also admitted she did not know enough to comment on Pal's work. Coming back to the repair work again the sentence "H.C. Raychaudhuri noted that the name Priyadarshi was adopted also by Chandragupta and as noted by W. W. Tarn" is still incorrect and strange. Tarn had nothing to do with Priyadarshi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda (talk • contribs) 14:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction on death year

This article states 298 BC as likely death year; over at Megasthenes the year 288 BC is given. This contradiction should be resolved somehow. AxelBoldt (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct the Salutation of Emperor chandragupta Maurya to "The Great"

Chandragupta Maurya is considered "The Great" and this "The Great" must be added to his name. From India, there have been 5 greats. Astonishingly, out of 5 "The Greats", 4 were from the land of Magadh, the present day Bihar. The names are: Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka, Samudragupta, Vikramaditya... under these Emperors India was mightiest and known to world as "Golden Bird". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.45.114

indeed, but Chandragupta Maurya's name was never stylized as "Chandragupta Maurya the Great". utcursch | talk 05:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In a sorry state

This article is in a sorry state. A celebratory tone of Indian Nationalism runs all the way through it in defiance of wikipedia's neutrality policy. (This seems to be a more widespread problem in Indian history articles than in any other part of wikipedia I have seen). Religious tradition and historical fact are muddled. Implausible statements from ancient texts are accepted uncritically. Much of the English is poor. I don't have the knowledge to fix the article, but it needs to be fixed by someone, preferably with a firm understanding of and commitment to wikipedia's policies. Luwilt (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Maurya.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Maurya.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Repair Work Is Another Instance of Editorial Intransigence

The editor and his advisor Varana are strongly advised to read the paper by Dr. Ranajit Pal recently published in Mithras Reader III. The famous scholar Prof. Thomas McEvilley also acclaims Pal's work. Two important history websites, historyfiles.co.uk [1] and Historyhunters International [2] also attach great importance to his work. Pal is strongly critical of the SOAS-JNU version of Indology, but his arguments are recognized also by the University of Utrecht [3], one of the oldest and most respected universities of Europe. The prestigious Bryn Mawr Classical Review (University of Pennsylvania)[4] also acclaims Pal's work. The editor clearly needs to educate himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda (talk • contribs) 10:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Gdprasad (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Gdprasad: The authors on Maurya Empire have to show in literature proof that 'Sandracottus' really correaponds to 'Chandra Gupta Maurya' and not to "Gupta Chandra Gupta of Gupta Dynasty' or to any other Chandragupta, and that the assumption is not a mere guess, conjucture or speculation of the authors of referances cited.

Sandrokotos couldn't very well be Chandra Gupta of the Gupta dynasty, as he lived around 600 years too late. Bazzalisk (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Gdprasad (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC):In the literature of India there is no allusion anywhere to an invasion or inroad into India by foreign nations upto the time of the Andhra Kings; and the only person who bore the name of Chandragupta answering to the description of Sandracottus of the Greeks who flourished about the time of Alexander the Great in India, according to Puranas, was Chandragupta of the Gupta Dynasty who established the mighty empire of the Guptas on the ruins of the already decayed Andhra Dynasty about 2811 years after the Mahabharata War, corresponding to 328 B.C., but he is now placed in the 4th century A.D.,on the sole strength of this mistaken Greek Synchronism by our Savants of Indian History. God save us from our friends!

Ref: History of classical Sanskrit literature: By M. Krishnamachariar, Motilal Banarsidass Publisher, 1989 - 1124 pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdprasad (talk • contribs) 05:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Are there any portraits surviving?

It would be nice if there were.Ericl (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox 'Jain' religion inserted by blocked user

As brought to notice on WP:ANI in this thread, User:Rahul RJ Jain has attempted to stamp historical great rulers with his religion by citing very poor or no sources. In infobox he has inserted 'Jain' religion of the subject. But as lead section is too long, I can't edit to remove his insertion. I request to remove 'Jain' religion from infobox. Thanks. neo (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You removed the edit without explaining what is unreliable about the source. I am re-adding it as of now. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Article infobox was showing either Hindu or both Hindu and Jain religions since Jan 2009 until this edit. It was changed back to Hinduism. And since this edit by another user on 19 March 2013 you are trying keep Jainism religion in infobox. There are sources like these which state that Chandragupta was Kshatriya. Due to conflicting nature of info about his religion I propose to leave religion field blank and include info about Kshatriya and Jain relation in the article section with sources. Until consensus is made, I will leave religion field blank. neo (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Kshatriya is a caste, not a religion. There is no conflict at all. Reverting. Rahul Jain (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

And castes exist without religion? Your arrogance continues. You do whatever you want with articles, don't discuss, throw weird statements and claim on ANI that I don't even try to discuss. I am reverting. neo (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources clearly mention that Chandragupta Maurya was a Jain. Where are any contradictory source? All the Jain tirthankara were of Kshatriya Caste. The disciples of the last tirthankara were of Brahmin caste. Saying that one is a Kshatriya isn't contradictory to saying that one is a Jain. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Pls provide refs to prove that Kshatriya is Jain caste also. I am not finding any info on google and in this article. And even if such Jain caste exist, how do you know that my sources are mentioning Jain kshatriya and not Hindu kshatriya? When no admin or user is coming forward to resolve dispute, this is what happens. Reverting. neo (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

According to svetambara Jain tradition, the last tirthankara Mahavira's embryo was first in Devananda. However, Devananda was Brahmin by caste and the birth of tirthankara always happens in Kshatriya caste, so the embryo was transferred into Trishala, who was a kshatriya. Refer to any reliable text on Jainism, you would find it. Point being, caste system of Brahmin, Kshatriya etc. is related to India, not to any specific religion. Even in Buddhism, the list of Buddhas mention their respective caste of Buddha. Rahul Jain (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What Mahavira got to do with Chandragupta? Mahavira was born to Kshatriya-Brahmin, hence every Kshatriya and Brahmin person is Jain? Same sources also claim that mother of Chandragupta was Shudra. Are Shudras also Jains? You are hijacking all Hindu culture and naming it Jainism. And google don't show that Kshatriya is accepted caste of Jainism. Pls give refs which specifically state that 'kshatriya is jain caste'. Until then accept dispute and leave religion field blank. neo (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolute Straw man argument. Rahul Jain (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Section break

(just in case edit box limit exceeds) Reply to User:Rahuljain2307 dated 04:23 16 June 2013 post: I asked, sources also state that Chandragupta's mother was Shudra. Is Shudra Jain caste also? Your claim that if 'Hindu' word is not associated with Kshatriya then all Kshatriyas are Jain is not acceptable. Pls provide sources which make it clear that 'Kshatriya is Jain caste' and specifically write that 'Chandragupta Maurya belonged to Jain Kshatriya caste'. For detailed argument about origin, religion, caste of Chandragupta, pls see Ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya . Historians have made it absolutely clear that his origin, religion, caste is debated. Pls don't override historians to claim that Chandragupta was Jain. Allow to leave religion field blank and include all sides in article. neo (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter what caste was chandragupta's mother, or what lineage did she belong to. Whether he was Kshatriya, Shudra etc does not effect what religion he belonged to. I have mentioned sources that clearly state that he followed Jainism. If any contradictory claim exists, its your burden to bring the sources for it. Rahul Jain (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Castes are associated with religion. Kshatriya, Maratha, Yadav, Bramhin, Chamar etc are Hindu castes. You can't say that they are irrelevant and go on claiming Jain or Christian or Islam religion of them. I have given sources above and also there are many sources in Ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya which contradict your claim. As per this site of Archaeological Survey of India of Government of India and other sources mentioned in Ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya historians also identify Chandragupta with Greek King Sandrokottos. Pls provide sources which state that Greeks are also Jain. neo (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a well known fact that all the Jain tirthankara were of Kshatriya Caste. This completely contradicts your assertion that "Kshatriya, Maratha, Yadav, Bramhin, Chamar etc are Hindu castes". Mahavira was a Jain. His parents followed the teaching of Parshva, the twenty-third tirthankara. Yet he was a Kshatriya. This destroys your argument. What further proof you need to know that belonging to any caste is not same as being a follower of Hindu religion? Rahul Jain (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If some Hindu or Vedic Kshatriya person abandon vedic or hinduism culture, go on founding different religion or faith then all the Kshatriyas do not get automatically converted to his new religion or faith. By your logic Buddhists can also claim that Chandragupta was Buddhist because Gautama Buddha was born in Kshatriya family. And also there are sources which identify Chandragupta with Greek Sandrokottas. You need to give sources to prove that Sandrokottas was Jain. If not, considering all the facts, you should acknowledge that Chandragupta's religion is unclear and leave the religion field in infobox blank. neo (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Another straw man argument. I am saying that Kshatriya is a caste, not a religion. Being a Kshatriya does not make anyone Hindu, Jain or Buddhist. You need to demonstrate his religion in the source, not his caste. Historically, there have been Hindu-Kshatriya, Jain-Kshatriya, Buddhist-Kshatriya. Just saying that they are Kshatriya doesn't tell anything about their religion. Rahul Jain (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to prove his religion. Since very first day I am saying that his religion field should be left blank because of contradictory nature of sources which point out his relation to Kshatriya, Shudra, Greeks, Jainism etc. There is no unanimous consensus among historians about his religion. Only because some sources claim that he was Jain, you can't treat it as unanimous consensus of ALL historians to insert it infobox. neo (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Where is the contradictory source? Please provide any reliable sources which contradicts the claim that he was a Jain. Being a Kshatriya does not contradict that he is a Jain, I have already referred to people who followed Jain religion as well as belonged to the Kshatriya caste in my previous comments. Rahul Jain (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Section break 2

(just in case I need this) Reply to Rahuljain2307: Quotes from source [5]

According to the

Puranas he was the son of the last descendant of Bimbisara* by a Sudra woman, but the Jains 8 and the classical writers 4 unanimously represent his

father to have been a barber.

The Kalpasutra of the Jains mentions a Mauryaputra of the Kasyapa gotra, which shows that the Mauryas were regarded as high class

folk,* The Buddhist Divyavadana calls Bindusara and Asoka, a the son and grandson respectively of Chandragupta, as Kshatriyas. The Buddhist Mahavansa calls Chandragupta himself asa member of (he Kshatriya clan of the Moriyas, 8 who are represented by the Mahavansa^tika as a Himalayan off-shoot of the Sakyas. 4 The description of the Moriyasas a Kshatriya clan is confirmed by the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, a portion of the Pali canon and an early authentic work- It mentions the Moriyas as one of the Kshatriya tribes who claimed a portion of the relics of Buddha after {he latter's death. 5 This tradjtjon was also recorded in mediaeval inscriptions, which callthe Maurya family as a branch of the solar race 1 and Chahdragupta an abode of the

usages of eminent Kshatriyas.

Puranas mention his mother to be Shudra. Is Shudra Jain caste? Buddhist mention his caste Kshatriya. Historians and ancient texts are talking about 'Jain Shudra' and 'Jain Kshatriya'? Once again, pls give refs that Shudra and Kshatriya are exclusively Jain castes. neo (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The info about his Shudra, Kshatriya relation is already given in 'Early life' section. It needs refs but I can't edit that too long section. His Jainism connection is mentioned in 'Jainism and death' section. I don't think separate 'religion' section is needed to merge contents. But as I said religion field in infobox should be left blank because it seems he didn't follow any particuler religion whole life. Earlier vedic religion, hinduism and jainism were mentioned in infobox but anon IPs kept changing it. It is easy for anon IPs to vandalize it and creating dispute lateron. So better to leave it blank. neo (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hindu monarch

I have added back Hindu monarch --- Since only Jain versions mention that he converted to Jainism that too after abdication --- so it is clear that he was a Hindu monarch till he ruled. Jethwarp (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If someone wants to remove Hindu monarch category then he should also remove Jain monarchs in category at same time. Jethwarp (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

indian troll all over wikipedia. Nepal part of Mauryan Empire?? but Bhutan isn't??

'Can someone care to explain exactly how Mauryans annexed Nepalese territory when much of the Indo-Nepal border was impenetrable forest infested with malarial mosquitoes, a fact which even the British couldn't solve? and much of mid-western Nepal is still inaccessible even today, who made roads during those times? Also, rather than posting some drawings made by some indian troll, can someone come up with concrete archeological evidence to verify the claim that Nepal was a part of Mauryan Empire but Bhutan wasn't?? or has this something to do with present day indian foreign policy???' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpt muji (talk • contribs) 14:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Nanda Army

Why do we need so long quote kautilya3? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 13:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I said you should edit it rather than delete it. (You still don't seem to be reading edit summaries!) - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Lead is very big. Should it not be reduced? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Religion

Kautilya3 (talk) which source says Chandragupta Maurya ever converted his religion. It says he became Jaina Muni. It means he was always Jain. It is written in texts that Chandragupta Maurya saw 16 dreams, which spoke of changing times ahead because of which he abdicated his throne and took Jaineshwari Diksha. Chandragupta Maurya's guru was Bhadrabahu the last Shrutakevali. Chanakya was his adviser only. No where you find that Chandragupta Maurya changed his religion. This shows that Chandragupta Maurya was Jain from birth. Tiloyapannati says he was Jain from beginning. Ashvawiki (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The source that I cited in the religion field. I have to say I am disappointed with your responses, which represent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Religion (continued)

The source you cited doesn't mention Hinduism on page 41 Kautilya3 -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No, but it mentions that he converted to Jainism, whereas our fried said he had always been a Jain. What was his religion earlier? Unless there is particular information about a specific tradition, we assume that he belonged to the generic religion of India, which is called "Hinduism." (Don't blame me. That is all we can do about historical figures. If you ask me, we shouldn't use the religion field for historical figures at all.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, please note that your source was a WP:PRIMARY source, not allowed. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Was Hinduism even prevalent at all in the Chandragupta's period in Chandragupta's kingdom? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you read the Hinduism article and find out? Or the Arthasastra? - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Arthashastra doesn't mention Hinduism as a prevalent religion nor does Hinduism mention chandragupta. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 15:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ashvawiki: You have made unsourced POV claims about Chandragupta's religion 4 times today: [6], [7], [8], [9]. You don't seem to have bothered to check the source that I added, which says that he converted to Jainism. If you have a reliable WP:HISTRS source that says that he was a Jain from the beginning, please produce it now. Otherwise, you should self-revert. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Kautilya3)

Kautilya3 there is no proof that Chandragupta Maurya converted from Hinduism to Jainism. All the texts say that he became Jaina Muni. None of the texts say he converted his religion. It means he was Jain originally. Also the name of a Ganadhar of Tirthankara Mahavira was called Maurya. He was indeed descended from him.

Why don't you give proof that Chandragupta Maurya followed Hinduism before converting to Jainism. If you can't provide proof it means Chandragupta Maurya was originally lay Jain and later in his life he became Jaina Muni. Ashvawiki (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The last version that you reverted didn't say that he followed Hinduism earlier. It only said that he "converted to Jainism", which is as per the source. Your assertion that if I can't provide a source for Hinduism, it means that he was originally a lay Jain is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. It is not permitted on Wikipedia. To say that he was a Jain from the beginning, you need to produce a source that says exactly that. And, it has to be a WP:HISTRS. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It's quite interesting that when you Google Religion of Chandragupta Maurya, it says Jainism. Just informing! This could be a reliable source written by TK Tukol. Another one by Sangave is this.-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't see Sangave on Google Books. Please give a quote from it. And, remember that as per WP:NPOV, we have to represent all scholarly viewpoints. We should not represent minority views as if they were established facts. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chandragupta Maurya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060528034048/http://www.mssu.edu:80/projectsouthasia/history/primarydocs/Foreign_Views/GreekRoman/Megasthenes-Indika.htm to http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasia/history/primarydocs/Foreign_Views/GreekRoman/Megasthenes-Indika.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142613/http://46.1911encyclopedia.org:80/C/CH/CHANDRAGUPTA_MAURYA.htm to http://46.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CH/CHANDRAGUPTA_MAURYA.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Primary source removed

I have removed the following as PS is now added. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chandragupta Maurya. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plin.+Nat.+6.21
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150321164350/http://www.sdstate.edu/projectsouthasia/upload/Megasthene-Indika.pdf to http://www.sdstate.edu/projectsouthasia/upload/Megasthene-Indika.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Are the mentioned sources reliable??

Is http://www.india-religion.net/ a relaible source????? Please verify???

No.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

This page depicts a wrong timeline without any citations. I found his timeline to be 321-297 BC from [this] page 84 written by A Sreedhara Menon, pinging ogress. There's no mention of his (after initiation as a jain ascetic) name Prabhachandra. Ref from book of Rice already cited in article. Pinging cpt.a.haddock Another suggested source https://books.google.co.in/books?id=WzEzXDk0v6sC page 41

Whoever this is, I'm afraid I did not receive or notice your ping until now. In any case, von Glasenapp is far too dated and there are newer sources available for most things related to the Mauryas.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata infobox for this article

I suggest reinstating this edit of mine, since it fetches only "sourced" info and ignores all other values. Further it will reduce vandals by IPs who keep adding Helena and Nandini. I have already sourced info on wikidata. Comments invited. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) Pinging @RexxS:, @Mike Peel:, @Pigsonthewing:, @Laurdecl: and @Pppery: -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

[From my talk page] The "wikidata fetch all" is not a mainstream template option and in more ways than one, its use simply makes the job of controlling "vandalism" even more difficult as the article can be edited outside Wikipedia (even by IPs). We'll then have to keep track of Wikidata vandalism as well. There'll then also be a new barrier of entry in that the editor will have to go to an entirely different site to fix errors (of which there are plenty) or to add sources. And afaik, syncs are not immediate and references are not catalogued correctly. Whatever the case, it's far too premature to roll this out and if I'm not wrong, there is no consensus on its widespread use across WP either. (And I see that the template is also being considered for deletion. It doesn't look like it will be though.)

Also, in the case of this article, the "Helena" edits are far fewer in frequency nowadays presumably because the serial which triggered such edits has ended.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Why was I pinged here? All I did was notice that Module:WikidataIB had some duplicate code and fixed it. I have no opinion regarding this. Pppery 20:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chandragupta Maurya/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ssriram mt (talk · contribs) 17:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The page is much far from GA simply on account of references and article struct.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Needs restructuring - it is not cogent.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Many statements have missing references
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	some claims are partially referenced
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No copyright issues with images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image alts are missing
	7. Overall assessment.	Fail

Would you please elaborate a bit on 2a 2b and 2c fails? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The very first para on biographical sources is without any reference. War, marriage section - external links are provided, but would need stronger references as most of the references are not direct (no mention of Maurya anywhere). Succession needs expansion and citation. Popular culture - needs references.Ssriram mt (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ssriram mt: Mookerji is used as reference in biographical section already. Did you miss that? War Marriage section has citations from no. 61 to no. 79. I could find only 1 External Link in the said para, which qualifies WP:RS. Would you please use {{Citation needed}} and {{better}} tag to mark the unsourced statements of para as I am unable to find them. There were only two unsourced statements in popular culture which have been removed. The only section left is Succession. Kindly correct me if I am wrong. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Reference and reference structure definitely needs a relook - because for most part the claims are around a single reference or not direct as mentioned already. Once it is all done, you may wish to go for a GOCE as well.Ssriram mt (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Maurya empire area

This article states that the empire's area varied between 5 and 11 million km^2. The upper figure, despite being cited is pure fantasy. 11 million km^2 is larger than China and Mongolia put together. 1812ahill (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed: unsourced text added by an IP[10]. utcursch | talk 14:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ancient India vs Magadh

The kingdom may have been Magadh, but the broader region is identified as Ancient India and that's what we should use. --regentspark (comment) 20:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

No primary sources at the time refer to an "Ancient India". It is common practice in other pages to use the primary term which in this case is Magadh. I know this hurts your Indian nationalist sentiments but let's try and be objective.MADHEPURA2018 (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

We're writing this encyclopedia in the present time so we only use contemporary sources. Primary sources are not used on Wikipedia except in certain circumstances (see WP:PRIMARY)--regentspark (comment) 10:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

And yet there are many secondary sources that describe him as a Magadhan king. Of course you will ignore that to further your agenda.MADHEPURA2018 (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed WP:Coatracking

The lead should summarize the main and primarily focus on the subject, Chandragupta Maurya. Per NPOV and WP:Lead guidelines, it is not the place to start plugging one side of the ancient history and much questioned historical sources. I have restored some sourced content as well. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Removed text

CC-BY-SA declaration; text in this section removed by me; I've left it here in case its removal breaks any references. Baffle☿gab 22:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

From header (removed because; off-topic for this article, which in not about the history of India.) Chandragupta Maurya was a pivotal figure in the history of India. Prior to his consolidation of power, Alexander the Great had invaded the northwest Indian subcontinent, then abandoned further campaigning in 324 BCE, leaving a legacy of Indian subcontinental regions ruled by Indo-Greek and local rulers. The region was divided into Mahajanapadas, while the Nanda Empire dominated the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Biographic sources The sources which describe the life of Chandragupta Maurya vary in details, and are found in Jain, Buddhist, Brahmanic (Hindu), Latin and Greek literature: Jain sources are Bhadrabahu's Kalpasutra and Hemachandra's Parisishtaparvan. Hindu sources are the Puranas, Chanakya's Arthashastra, Vishakhadatta's Mudrarakshasa, Somadeva's Kathasaritsagara and Kshemendra's Brihatkathamanjari. Buddhist sources are Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa, Mahavamsa tika and Mahabodhivamsa. Greek and Latin sources include those by Nearchus, Onesicritus, Aristobulus, Strabo, Megasthenes, Diodorus, Arrian, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch and Justin. From Early life (Removed because it's off-topic for this section) This contrasts with abundant historical records, both in Indian and classical European sources, that describe his reign and empire. The Greek and Latin literature phonetically transcribes Chandragupta, referring to him with the names "Sandrokottos" or "Androcottus". According to Radhakumud Mookerji Design of a peacock, on the railing of the Bharhut Stupa Design of a peacock, on the stairway balustrade of the Great Stupa at Sanchi The Greek sources are the oldest recorded versions available, and mention his rise in 322/321 BCE after Alexander the Great ended his campaign in 325 BCE. These sources state Chandragupta to be of non-princely and non-warrior ancestry, to be of a humble commoner birth. The Buddhist sources, written centuries later, claim that both Chandragupta and his grandson, the great patron of Buddhism called Ashoka, were of noble lineage. Some texts link him to the same family of Sakyas from which the Buddha came, adding that his epithet Moriya (Sanskrit: Maurya, Mayura) comes from Mora, which in Pali means peacock. Most Buddhist texts state that Chandragupta was a Kshatriya, the Hindu warrior class in Magadha and a student of Chanakya. The Buddhist texts are inconsistent, with some including legends about a city named "Moriya-nagara" where all buildings were made of bricks colored like the peacock's resplendent neck. The Jain sources, also written centuries later, claim Chandragupta to be the son of a village chief, a village known for raising peacocks. The Hindu sources are similarly from later centuries. They state that Chandragupta was a student of Chanakya (also called Kautilya) of humble birth. The Puranas composed after about the 3rd century CE mention that Kautilya was a Brahmin, praise Kautilya, mention Chandragupta but most are silent about his lineage or origins. A few Hindu texts state that he was born to a Shudra woman, alternatively in a peacock rearing family – a profession that is neither priestly nor warrior. An Ashokan pillar discovered and excavated in Nandangarh, suggests that a peacock was the emblem of Maurya dynasty and likely linked to the dynastic lineage. References Baffle☿gab 22:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Shudra

You written that chandragupt is Shudra according to puranik literature but i whant to ask you which puranik book read to write that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 13:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC) In your paragraph you written his orphan you write all False things about him . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 13:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Try a Google Books search for sudra-prayastv adharmikah. utcursch | talk 02:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chandragupta Maurya/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 14:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a fascinating article about a subject which, although I study history, I have not learned much about. I look forward to reviewing it. Here are some initial comments.

Lead

• Short, 1-2 sentence "paragraphs" are awkward to read and don't look very good. In addition, per WP:Lead, the lead should have no more than four paragraphs. So can we combine some of these short paragraphs? Display name 99 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'd like a little bit of detail towards the end of the lead about him becoming a monk. One of the most important purposes of the lead in a biographical article is to provide a chronological summary of the important things that happened in the subject's life, and so, there should be a discussion of this in the third or fourth paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Ancestry

• Same issue as with the lead. Combine the short paragraphs. Display name 99 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Are there any sections which can be further developed by adding new information? For example, do we know what the omen is that Justin speaks of? Display name 99 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• There are a lot of sometimes contradictory claims discussed here which were made by various historians over the millennia, which is fine. But scholars today often have access to more information and better materials than people did back then. So, do we have any information about what contemporary historians and scholars think about Chandragupta's ancestry, and whether some of these stories are more reliable than others? Display name 99 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

More later. Display name 99 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Continuing with the review...

Early life

• For the meeting between Alexander and Chandragupta, the word "supposed." Does that mean that we don't know for sure whether it truly happened? And if we don't know whether this is true, than we cannot rely on it to tell us when he "must" have been born. You'd also have to clarify this for the "Meeting with Chanakya (Kautilya)" section. Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Link Alexander. Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• The stuff about him being brought up by a cowherd is all part of the legend, correct? Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Meeting with Chanakya (Kautilya)

• "Dhana Nanda, the reigning Nanda king of Pataliputra" Consider a comma at the end of this section. Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not sure where the Nanda dysnasty came from. I know practically zero Indian history but am having difficulty understanding what India was like during Chandragupta's early life. That isn't good. Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• You don't need to introduce Justin as "the Roman historian" because you have already identified him. I'd like more details about his encounters with a lion. Everything in these sections seems to have some kind of connection with legend. How much, if any of it, do contemporary historians consider reliable and why so? This also goes for "Meeting with Chanakya (Kautilya)." The problem basically is that just about every paragraph in the article starts out with "This text says this" or "This text says that." Most of the time, there isn't anything to tell us whether these are true or not, which is confusing, especially when the texts don't fully agree. My advice to you is that if there is doubt, you should include what contemporary historians have to say about each theory. If there is a virtual unanimous consensus among modern historians that something did actually happen as a certain text or texts say, you can simply say that a certain thing happened without the caveat that it's from a particular text. I understand that it is important that major primary sources make it into the article, but you might want to create a separate section where you talk about them so that they don't get in the way of the rest of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Again, you don't have to keep introducing Justin and Plutarch. Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Building the empire

• Consider replacing "the" with "an." There has been more than one empire in history. On that note, you also might want to state the name of the empire that Chandragupta built in the title so that people are reminded of what it's called. Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• The information in the caption about Chanakya is uncited and only appears in the caption. If it's important, it should appear in the main text of the article with a citation. Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Link guru in the text. Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not entirely clear on what gave Chandragupta the standing where he could begin to recruit a powerful army. And why did he do it? Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• The first paragraph out to be in its own subsection, in my view, because it describes things which aren't in any of the others. Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Do we have any more information on these campaigns? The detail here seems pretty light. Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Eastward expansion and the end of Nanda empire

• Again, more content that doesn't seem to get into a lot of detail. Is this really all that we know? Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• "The conquest was fictionalised in Mudrarakshasa, a political drama in Sanskrit by Vishakadatta composed 600 years later – probably between 300 CE and 700 CE." If the drama is mostly fictionalized, you should move it down to the "In popular culture" section. The purpose of the narrative portion of the article should be to tell us about what actually happened, and throwing in sentences about dramas that aren't based on actual history just distract the reader. Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Numerical figures in ancient accounts are often suspect. Chroniclers would deliberately exaggerate. So, how well to the figures of Plutarch and Pliny conform to modern estimations? You need to be basing the article off of contemporary historians' interpretations of the different, often-conflicting primary sources. That's not what you've done so far in this article. You've simply told us what the primary sources state but it's not always easy to know which to believe. Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

That's all for now. Looking ahead, I see major problems with this article. The entire (brief) "Succession" section is uncited. There's a "Citation needed tag," which, by the way, you should have taken care of before nominating this article. Articles on important historical subjects, such as Chandragupta, should also, in my strong opinion, have a "Legacy" section, in which we summarize how the person or thing is remembered. There is no such subject for this article. I'm thinking of not passing the review and giving you the chance to work on these things outside the pressure and time-frame of a GA review, which ideally, isn't supposed to last more than a few weeks at most. Please let me know whether this is what you'd like me to do. Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review, that's what I was looking for. I would like to accept your suggestion of taking some time to improve upon the article and retry later. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 12:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I decided to fail it. Good luck improving it. If you plan on nominating it again, I suggest you take it to WP:Peer review first. The editors over there can offer you some helpful advice without actually passing or failing you. Display name 99 (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Article changes

Hello dear Sir/Mam. I quite misunderstood your message, sorry for editing again and again. There are few controversial points which i would like to highlight in CHANDRAGUPTA MAURYA. 1.) He was a HINDU ruler i.e. He spent most of his life as hindu. During the famine of 12 year that occured in magadh and his inability to help people, he left his throne for his son Bindusara and then adopted jain religion and fasted until death. You can verify this from here: Asha Raj Kumari (1996). Ancestry and achievements of Chandragupta Maurya, in Prajñā-bhāratī. K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute. pp. 112–113. OCLC 655222361. or from here: https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/ncert-notes-chandragupta-maurya-rise-of-mauryan-empire/. i can quote much more sources if required. Or from here: https://www.thedivineindia.com/chandragupta-maurya-sculpture/image/59. His sculpture which your are naming as duplicate image is installed in a Hindu Laxminarayan temple, so that justifies he was a hindu ruler first. My point is that, he is a very grand ruler of india, therefore people of other community are using unauthentic sources and books to justify that he belonged to their community. If you would see the history of that page around 2014-15 or before, you would know the reality. so i request you to modify the religion column as HINDUISM and JAINISM(in later stage of life) or whatever you find appropriate.

2.) He was also known as "sandrocottus" as in megasthenes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megasthenes) book "INDICA", as megasthenes was his embassador.

3.) i would also like to change the introductory paragraph, it should relate to his achievement, rather than adopting jainism and fasting to death.

4.) update the cover photo as the one mentioned( the sculpture of chandragupta maurya in birla temple) and that shravana belgola(current image) should be used in the later part.

i respect all religion, but its equally important that wikipedia should be remain an authentic source, it shouldnt misguide people. hope it helps. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Originalhero (talk • contribs) 10:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Your English is quite difficult to understand in places, and your points are a little disjointed and confusing. Wikipedia isn't a place to right great wrongs WP:RGW, so if your intention is to give one particular religious point of view prominence over another this isn't the place to do it. This article has been developed over a long period by a process of consensus of all views.

Nevertheless, if you think there are inaccuracies, you can propose corrections or additions below, in a "change X to Y" format, clearly laid out, with reliable sources for each point, and editors here will discuss whether or not they agree with the change(s). You will need to be patient (something you have been the opposite of so far) - discussion can take some time. Thank you. -- Begoon 11:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The sculpture you mentioned about is just a modern one in laxminarayan temple that doesn't mean that he was a Hindu ruler. In the byjus link you provided, it mentions that he embraced Jainism also nowhere it is mentioned that he was a Hindu ruler. Anyways byjus is not a reliable source Rishabh.rsd (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree partially with Originalhero that the current lead is not appropriate to do justice to his achievements, rather seems like dedicating too much emphasis on his conversion to Jainism and how he dies. A person like Chandragupta had much more to talk about his overall life before we discuss about how at the end of his life, he converted to Jainism and fasted to death. By the way, there is not as per 'conversions' to Dharmic religions like Jainism, Buddism and Hinduism similar to Abrahamic religions. Neither the Jain text claimed that he 'converted', rather it emphasizes he became a disciple of Acharya Bhadrabahu to renounce everything. You guys spent 4 lines in the first paragraph to describe how he followed Jain path in the last phase of life of renounciation, rather than discussing first his achievements of kingmenship and administration through the advice of Great Acharya Chanakya with whom he spent his most of his life from learning to building the greatest empire of India to administration. Come on, he is not Buddha or Mahavira, neither he is remembered for his renouncement of life and Jain way of fasting to death rather for his valor and achievement to unite India to its greatest empire under the tutelage of Chanakya. Moreover, lot of Hindu Puranas (e.g., Bhavishya Purana) mentioned him as a follower of Vedic life. Do you think the lead does justice to this? I am not against writing Jain stories, but over emphasizing it and de-emphasizing Hindu teachings of Arthasashtra written by Chanakya to his whole life is nothing but creating bias towards one religion and seems like written from a Jain's perspective, which is against neutrality point of view. So, Originalhero is right in the sense that Chanakyas contribution should be acknowledged first before his so-called 'conversion' to Jainism after retirement. Sanjoydey33 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Ms Sarah Welch. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

K3: Just went through the edit history over the last 12 months or so. We need to return parts of this to the last better sourced version which was closer to the remarks of Sanjoydey33. Originalhero: as others mention, we can't rely on those websites as they are not WP:RS. We do need to explain the Hindu links as the older versions of this article did, but carefully because there are several views on this and WP:NPOV is a core content guideline of wikipedia. Give me a day to recheck and keep/restore parts. We can then discuss your additional comments if any. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I am reading through more sources including particularly the Jaina literature, e.g. of Harisena, the inscriptions in Karnataka etc in light of additions/changes/edit warring in past months. The article and some of the image captions need some revisions/cleanup. I expect to make those revisions next week, maybe sooner. Then do a bit of copyediting and tidy up. Sorry I am slow. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Content removals by Rizhwickh

I'm opening this section for Rizhwickh to discuss the content removals which they have been making. They are now past WP:3RR, so, as an alternative to a report being filed at WP:ANEW, which will unfortunately otherwise be necessary, I've asked them to self revert and try to reach consensus here. -- Begoon 14:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Begoon for starting this thread, as the IPs/Rizhwickh edit war is getting disruptive. Rizhwickh: please explain your concerns in light of wikipedia's NPOV and other content guidelines. Your edit comment such as "a few miscreants earlier with an agenda of pov pushing" is not helpful. I have read through over a dozen sources, of which I have cited some already (no need for WP:OVERCITE). The Digambara Jain Shravanabelgola stories are clearly inconsistent and in dispute in published sources. It is disputed by Svetambara Jains, plus mainstream Indian scholars and non-Indian scholars. Per NPOV, we can summarize the disputes and the sides, but we can't take a side. Please discuss, collaborate and let us try to reach a consensus in light of the cited sources and the community-agreed content guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Vedic propaganda won't last long.Jazorbon (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, Jazorbon, with your first edit ever. Chandragupta Maurya is not from the Vedic era, and I do not understand how your edit warring is related to any propaganda. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

GOCE copyedit request for Chandragupta Maurya

• Referring to the subject by one of their names: The WP:MOS states that the subject should be referred to by their surname in subsequent mentions, but as Chandragupta is royalty his first name can be used throughout except in area where there is dispute over his identity. Does that sound alright?

Sounds good. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• [...] renounced his empire and became a monk in the Jain tradition. Can I switch it and say "Jain monk" instead?
  •  Performed without input. Revised to "Jain monk".

Sure Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Greek rulers such as Seleucus I Nicator avoided war with him, entered into a marriage alliance instead, and retreated into Persia. This sentence currently says that more than one Greek ruler did all those things with Chandragupta, not just Seleucus I Nicator.
  •  Performed without input. Switched it around to specify Seleucus.

Seems good Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Chandragupta's reign, as well the dynasty that followed him, was an era of economic prosperity, reforms, and infrastructure expansion such as irrigation, roads and mines. Emphasis added. Can the emphasised fragment be removed from the lead? It seems like extra detail that doesn't need to be up there.
  •  Performed without input. Removed emphasised fragment.

Yes, it wasn't needed. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• A memorial to Chandragupta Maurya exists on the Chandragiri hill along with a 7th-century hagiographic inscription, on one of the two hills in Shravanabelagola, Karnakata. Seems like too much detail; just mentioning it's Chandragiri hill should be enough; yes?
  •  Performed without input. Removed extra detail.

Can we keep inscription and hill? Rest can be removed. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Already done.

• They predominantly mention the last Nanda king, born to a queen after her affair with a barber, one who assassinated the king and came to power by a coup. Lot of detail; can it be trimmed down to "They predominantly mention the last Nanda king, who usurped the king before him"?
  •  Performed without input. Switched to proposed statement.

Looks good Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Brhatkathakosa describes the legend of Bhadrabahu in its story 131, and in it there is a mention of a Chandragupta. I'm assuming "a" is there as there is dispute over the identity of the Chandragupta mentioned?
  •  Performed without input. Removed indefinite article.

It talks about same Chandragupta. Can it please be trimmed but kept? Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done.

• However, the story makes no mention of the Maurya empire, and mentions that his disciple Chandragupta [...] Emphasis added. Did you mean Chanakya?
  •  Performed without input. Replaced "his" with "Chanakya".

Sounds ok Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Patilputra names: Kept "Patilputra" as the name.

Ok Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• First they failed, but later through alliances, they won the Nanda kingdom; eventually, they won and [...] Red text excised. Was too wordy, but I think the new text should be fine, yes?

Sounds nice Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Chanakya saw the boy making decisions [...] Awkwardly phrased.
  •  Performed without input. Rephrased.
• Alternate names for Chandragupta: I think mentioning the alternative (e.g., Sandrocottus) once and then reusing his name should enough, yes?
  •  Performed without input. Removing alternate names.

Sure Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• An alternate version states that it was Chanakya who was publicly insulted by the Nanda king. Shouldn't it be the other way around: Chanakya publicly insulted the Nanda king?
  •  Performed without input. Switched around.
• The Buddhist Mahavamsa Tika and Jain Parishishtaparvan records Chandragupta's army unsuccessfully attacking the Nanda capital. Parishishtaparvan recites the story [...] Blue text added.
• After Alexander ended his campaign and left, counseled by Chanakya, Chandragupta's army conquered the Nanda capital Pataliputra around 322 BCE. Ambiguous subject. Chanakya counseled Chandragupta, right? Not Alexander?
  •  Performed without input. Switched around.

Sounds good Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Seleucus and Chandragupta waged war until they came to an understanding with each other and contracted a marriage relationship. What does a marriage relationship include? I'm guessing it's not our understanding of the word marriage.

Marriage meant that seleucus gave his daughter to Chandragupta in marriage. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Revised statement to include Seleucus' daughter.

• Chandragupta's state also started mines, manufacturing centres, and networks for trading goods. Emphasis added. Can this be changed to "empire"?

Sure Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done.

• According to Kaushik Roy, the Maurya dynasty rulers beginning with Chandragupta were "great road builders". Thinking of removing "beginning with Chandragupta" as he was the first ruler, which makes it redundant.
  •  Performed without input. Removed proposed fragment.

Ok Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• With a depleted treasury, exhausted merit, and insufficient intelligence [...] Emphasis added. What kind of intelligence are we talking about here? Gathering intel "intelligence" or smart "intelligence"?
  •  Performed without input. Left "intelligence" ambiguous.
• The evidence of arts and architecture during Chandragupta's time is mostly limited to texts such as those by Megasthenes and Kautilya. Excised "Arthashastra", as otherwise it implies Kautilya and Megasthenes wrote it together.
• Frederick Asher of the University of Minnesota [...] I added where Asher studies from a Google search; is this the right Asher?
  •  Performed without input. Kept as is.
• Chandragupta was a follower of "ascetics with the wrong view of religion" (non-Jain), ascetics who "lusted for women". Are these two separate types of ascetics or the same?
  •  Performed without input. Conflated the two together.
• Removed Parishishtaparvan recites that Chanakya realized his mistake when he overheard a woman scolding a kid for being dim-witted by going for the centre of a dish and getting burnt, rather than starting out by eating the cooler edges. Was getting too detailed and would have required synthesis.

Looking forward to your responses! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: Went ahead and made some changes.

Thanks a lot for your help. These changes will bring in the required quality into the article. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for answering these, Capankajsmilyo. Are you able to answer the last 4? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: Went ahead and addressed changes without additional input. Considering request complete at this point. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

MansoBoricua edits

@MansoBoricua:. You continue to add relatively poorly sourced content without discussing the material on the talk page and don't even do a good job of that. For example, you're changing the years of his rule that is well sourced to an inferior source (two books on the Jain religion, neither of which are history texts) and you're not even using that source correctly (source says 320-293BCE not the 312 you're adding). You've then changed the title field without attribution or explanation, added an unsourced alternative name for Chanakya, changed the correctly labeled "Ancient Greek" and "Latin", which refer to the languages, to links that refer to the nations of antiquity, replaced Indo-Greek, the correct and precise term, with hellenistic (which refers to all of Greece), etc. etc. Your edits are poorly sourced, incorrect, and unhelpful. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chandragupta Maurya/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 15:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome

Dear @Capankajsmilyo: I will be your reviewer for this, the third GA nomination of the article Chandragupta Maurya. I see you nominated the article on 31 July 2020. It is a shame you had to wait so long. I see that you are an extremely experienced wikipedian, whereas I am almost a novice. It is an honour to help you. I see the article is rated B at present. I applied the Rater script to your article, which calls ORES which rates your article "B or higher" with a confidence of 96.6%. This sounds all very positive. I know nothing about Indian History and have the advantages and shortcomings of a fresh look. I start reading now. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

First observations

I have read the article and I start to see what problems there are and why the article has twice failed GA. I find it difficult to read. There is this man Bhadrabahu who appears out of nothing and is mentioned quite a few times. He needs to be introduced in a proper way. The structure seems not to be entirely chronological. Strict chronology in the body as in the lead would be desirable but perhaps there are major obstacles making this impossible. I could of course limit myself to fixing the form of the article the quite frequent grammatical problems and and so forth. However, I feel that the real problems are deeper seated. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Capankajsmilyo: It is more than a week since I started the review. I heard nothing from you. I suppose you are very busy in real life. It could also be that, after a wait of 3 months, you have lost interest in this your GA nomination. Could you let me know? Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I fail this nomination for lack of response by the nominator.Johannes Schade (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Johannes Schade: I have just become aware that this article was proposed for a GA. Although you failed it for lack of response from the nominator, there are many other reasons for failing it. It is not straightforward about the sources it is using. A few I have just noticed are much older than the year to which they are being cited. I will make some more observations by listing them in a section below (when I find time). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect dates might be enabling OR on this page

Radha Kumud Mookerji's biography of Chandragupta was first published in 1943 by the University of Madras; it recorded his Sir Charles Meyer lectures delivered at the university two years earlier. Mookerji was an early nationalist historian of India. His first book was published in 1912, or thereabouts, and he died in 1963. Obviously, he could not have published the edition (1988) cited in this article. Most likely it is the result of the kind of dubious practice Motilal Banarasidas have been engaged in for a long time. In any case, that book cannot be used reliably in this article. It is too old, it is too full of nationalist rhetoric. Chandragupta in the view of today's historians had barely laid the foundations of a rule that was later expanded under his grandson's reign to briefly become a loose-knit empire. Please drastically reduce the dependence on this book, and cite him as Mookerji 1966 (originally published 1943) and not Mookerji 1988 (originally published 1966). We don't date books by reprints; otherwise, I could be using Defoe, 2021 as a modern source on the Plague. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Religion (#3)

Ref edit 1, 2 @User:William_M._Connolley What way to do it would you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhawangupta (talk • contribs) 11:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@User: Dhawangupta please check I have added other sources which say he was a Jain. And please discuss on talk page why are you removing the sentence that according to Jain sources he renounced and performed sallekhna in the lead. Thank you.

See User_talk:पाटलिपुत्र#Chandragupta_Maurya, and indeed the body of the article, Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I see that there is a clear dispute regarding the validity of the traditional Jainism account, but is there any dispute against Chandragupta Maurya not being a Hindu? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know there is an actual dispute about the Jainism, but it needs not to be stated as a plain fact. Nobody knows, or ever will. Equally, apart from his close relationship with Kautilya, there is no evidence of Hinduism, but it is not unlikely he followed it. But we don't know. Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: There was apparently no Hinduism to speak of at the time of the Mauyras. This recent reference work (The Oxford History of Hinduism: Hindu Practice, p.68 by Johannes Bronkhorst, Oxford University Press, 2020) only gives Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivikism as the primary religions under the Mauryas, with Brahmanism struggling in disfavour in the northwest. Your only remaining source is an old 1966 ([11]) source by a non-historian (D.D. Kosambi) saying Chandragupta was "a Hindu king": this is probably not WP:RS anyway, and dates from a time when such a statement regularly just meant he was "an Indian king" (see Hindus): this proves nothing about him being a follower of Hinduism or not. The other source you have been using repeatedly ([12][13]) was actually about another king, the 5th century CE Chandragupta I of the Gupta Dynasty and the legends on his gold coins (Chandragupta Maurya DID NOT have gold coins with legends anyway). You are yet to find a WP:RS positive statement claiming that Chandragupta Mauyra was indeed "a follower of Hinduism". Without such a statement by reputable sources, claiming his religion as Hinduism is not possible on Wikipedia. It is also mind-boggling that you would knowingly delete properly referenced sources about his probable and well-known affiliation to Jainism in later life [14]. Not the way to go. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Source is mentioned on infobox which say he was Hindu. Your attempts to redate Hinduism have failed elsewhere as such you should avoid rehashing this argument and  your personal dispute with this other subject is irrelevant here. Chandragupta being a Jain is just a traditional Jaina claim and isn't taken seriously by the scholars, where as I haven't seen any dispute if he was not a Hindu. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Your "Hindu king" claim ([15]) is bogus, coming from a non-historian (D.D. Kosambi), writing at a time (1966) when "Hindu" was often just used as a general term to mean "Indian" (see my previous post). I don't think you will find any solid source claiming Chandragupta Maurya was a "follower of Hinduism", except maybe in Nationalist Hindutva and sectarian publications. For a summary of religions under the Mauryas, have a look at the Historical Dictionary of Hinduism p.255 by Jeffery D. Long, which clearly states that the Mauryas followed Sramana traditions (Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivikism...), while rejecting Brahmanism, and that Hinduism would only be a later development, a fusion of Brahmanical and Sramana traditions, favoured by the rise of the Guptas in the 4th century CE. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The idea of CM ending his life as a Jain is taken seriously, and tentatively accepted, by mainstream historians: Smith, Vincent. The Oxford History of India (rev 4th ed. 1981), is quite sympathetic to the Jain traditions: "the only direct evidence throwing light ....is that of Jain tradition. ...it may be that he embraced Jainism towards the end of his reign. ...after much consideration I am inclined to accept the main facts as affirmed by tradition .... no alternative account exists." Oldest inscriptions C7th. Page 99. Then Keay, John (2000), India: A History, s also sympathetic, though "Scholarly doubts, of course, remain ...." pp 85-86. He says inscriptions and reliefs at the "death-site" go back to the C5th. Neither mention a previous religion, though even according to the Buddhist account his minister Chanakya/Kautilya was a brahmin.

But an infobox is no place for uncertain matters such as this. I have removed the "religion" line, and it should not be re-added. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I just noticed this. I have my grandfather's copy of Vincent Smith's three-volume OHI, 1920. Smith had already retired from the ICS at the time of publication, so it is unlikely that the book was published in later editions during his life. There are Indian publishers who bring out dubious "editions" of books that are out of print. Motilal Banarsidass and many others in Old Delhi are well-known for this practice. OUP India might be doing the same, but Smith himself could not have revised it in 1981. I don't know if he has a WP page; it might confirm it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

He actually died in 1920. See Vincent Arthur Smith. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It's an OUP Delhi paperback "Fourth edition, edited by Percival Spear", different parts revised/rewritten by him, Sir Mortimer Wheeler (the early periods of course), A. L. Basham, & J. B. Harrison (of SOAS - he did "India in the Muslim Period"). Nothing odd in this, surely? Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the words,

"Once the fact that Chandragupta was or became a Jain is admitted, the tradition that he abdicated and committed suicide by slow starvation in the approved Jain manner becomes readily credible. The story is to the effect that when the Jain said Bhadrabahu predicted a famine in northern India which would last for twelve ars, and the prophecy began to be fulfilled, the saint led twelve thousand Jains to the south in search of more favoured lands. King Chandragupta abdicated and accompanied the emigrants, who made their way to Sravana Belgola ('the White Jain tank') in Mysore, where Bhadrabahu soon died. The ex-emperor Chandragupta, having survived him for twelve years, starved himself to death. The tradition is supported by names of the buildings at Sravana Belgola, inscriptions from the seventh century after Christ, and a literary word of the tenth century. The evidence cannot be described as conclusive, but after much consideration I am disposed to accept the main facts as affirmed by tradition. ..."

are precisely those of Vincent Smith 1923, second edition, (Ancient and Hindu India) sitting in front of me (which is a 1937 "Oxford at the Clarendon Press" reprint of the 1923 second edition). It is a minimally edited version of the edition of 1920 (mostly only corrected for errors) by S. M. Edwardes. (I don't have any issues with your reference to Smith in a talk page discussion, but if we are to use him, especially to quote his (1920/23) observation "I am disposed ..." or infer something from it in the article, then we must make clear that the observation dates back to 1920. (OUP, India, is not very rigorous in its "revisions.") Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

PS I think (though I'm not sure) the OUP India 1988 "fourth edition" is a straightforward reprint of the 1958 third edition published by Oxford/Clarendon. Percival Spear died in 1982. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

They list loads of "reprints" as well, so 4th edition must mean something. They have only "Preface to the third edition" , so it may be light touch, but no doubt changes were made, especially for recent periods - the last page takes you up to the 1975 emergency, so you are not correct there. Lots of people submit ms within 2 years or so their death. Change the ref to your edition if you like. Is there anything much different in more recent sources? Keay, a solid populariser, suggests not. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the words are Vincent Smith's not Percival Spear's, even if he edited the light revision. Spear's specialty was British India; he would not have deigned to give an opinion on the Mauryas. I think the point I am attempting to make is that OHI is no longer a reliable history. There are, however, quite a few modern scholarly history books on India which this article should be using:

• Coningham, Robin; Young, Ruth (2015), The Archaeology of South Asia: From the Indus to Asoka, c. 6500 BCE – 200 CE, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-84697-4
• Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8;
• Fisher, Michael H. (2018), An Environmental History of India: From Earliest Times to the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-107-11162-2
• Kulke, H.; Rothermund, D. (2004), A History of India, 4th, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-32920-0
• Ludden, D. (2002), India and South Asia: A Short History, One World, ISBN 978-1-85168-237-9
• Robb, P. (2001), A History of India, London: Palgrave, ISBN 978-0-333-69129-8
• Singh, U. (2009), A History of Ancient and Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century, Delhi: Longman, ISBN 978-81-317-1677-9
• Stein, B. (2010), Arnold, D. (ed.), A History of India (2nd ed.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6
• Wolpert, S. (2003), A New History of India (7th ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-516678-1

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

So what do they say? Stein p. 65 mentions Jain monasteries "established with the support of" CM. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Well that's for you guys to explore and carefully write. And if these books do not discuss Ch Maur's Jainism in any great depth then that topic does not have historical heft. The inscriptions and texts on which the interpretation of his adoption of Jainism is based are from after the mid-first-millennium CE (i.e. more than 800 years later in a generally ahistorical culture). So, we are talking iffy things. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

When I have time, I'll look for some sources. More anon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that would be nice! I don't see why it's just "you guys" who should do it. I'm not sure I've ever edited the article. Keay & Smith agree that there is only a Jain story & then inscriptions from some ?6 or 7 centuries later, so you can forget about "any great depth", on this or pretty much any aspect of CM's life. All the same, this is the only information we have and it is considered fairly credible, so it has "heft". Unless your researches come up with anything else. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll try, but I'm generally very reluctant these days (even depressed) about editing South Asia-related pages, especially India-related ones, where the level of general obsession with India's shining pre-Muslim antiquity continues unabated, probably has worsened in these Hindu majoritarian times, or should I say, anti-Muslim majoritarian. Coming back to CM, the South Asian sources are from much later; the western (Magesthenes) are contemporary but have their own issues. I think the best approach is to use Coningham and Young's (see the list above) language and brief political biography as a template:

"... historian D. D. Kosambi noted that whilst the latter's (Alexander the Great's) expedition “passed completely unnoticed in Indian tradition ... [t]here was an immediate, unexpected by-product of the utmost importance: it hastened the Mauryan conquest of the whole country” (1965: 138). Indeed, after Alexander's death at Babylon in 323 BCE, a vacuum occurred within South Asia, as powerful governors and warlords focused on the mastery of the Greek and Achaemenid satrapies further west. The Seleucid Ambassador Megasthenes later recorded that this vacuum allowed Chandragupta to organise a confederation of disaffected leaders to oust the remaining Macedonian-appointed governors occupying the Punjab and rule in their place. Then pursing an eastward campaign, Chandragupta steadily assimilated the city-states on the peripheries of the Kingdom of Magadha and, having had Dhana Nanda assassinated, expelled the Nanda dynasty from the throne of Magadha in 321 BCE. Now firmly established within the Gangetic heartland of Magadha, western Classical sources recorded that by 303 BCE he had campaigned against the eastern provinces of Seleucus Nikator (r. 305-281 BCE) as the latter was engaged in his own struggle for supremacy amongst Alexander’s surviving generals. When Seleucus attempted to re-establish his hegemony over the eastern satrapies in 305 BCE, later western Classical historians recorded that he was defeated and exchanged sovereignty of those satrapies for s00 war elephants which he used against his Macedonian rivals in the west. Jain tradition recorded that Chandragupta renounced his worldly authority and wealth and retired to Sravana Belgola in the Deccan as an ascetic (Thapar 1961:17). Chandragupta was succeeded by his son Bindusara ... (p 411)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

So, exactly what Smith and Keay say at greater length, and the article now says. I doubt archaeologists (quoting a mathmetician) are exactly the best sources, but since everyone seems to agree on this ....Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod, I suggest that you not compulsively attempt to argue with me about this, especially not make facile comments. Kosambi was a mathematician, but he was also a numismatist and a historian of early India. Neither Keay (who has written garbage on anything half-buried in India) nor Vincent Smith whose book I have read (all three volumes) in much greater detail and for much longer than you ever will are now reliable. Just look at that disastrous lead that you apparently have been watching without protest for so long. Chuck out those sources; otherwise, when I have time I eventually will. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt on who is the compulsive arguer here! I haven't been watching the lead at all, or I think ever read it. God knows why this article is one of the 31,932 on my watchlist. I have just been looking at the narrow religious issue. What provoked your facile comment on Keay? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

True. I shouldn't have presumed that you had read the lead. Apologies for that. Instead of prolonging this interchange, which I doubt will go anywhere, I'll try to disabuse the lead a little of its delusions if by nothing else than by posing the contrasting historical viewpoints. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

See here Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Chandragupta Maurya is not the founder of the Mauryan Empire?

@Fowler&fowler: You seem to be pushing for a version of the introduction which claims that Chandragupta Maurya did not found the Mauryan Empire, but that the political entity he ruled only became an empire under Ashoka: per your own edit summary: "He founded a power based in Magadha which during the regin of Asoka became an empire". As far as I know, this goes against mainstream scholarship, and is WP:OR, or WP:SYNTH at best. Can you explain? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Please read the quotes in the four sources, in particular Burton Stein (cited 509 times on Google Scholar and Bose and Jalal's Modern South Asia, cited 1056 times on Google Scholar Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I read again, and none of your sources say as you claim in your own edit summary, that "He founded a power based in Magadha which during the regin of Asoka became an empire". The closest would be Sugata Bose who says that "The Maurya empire reached its apogee under the reign of Ashoka (268–231 BCE)", but that's still very far from claiming that Chandragupta is not the founder of the Empire. Please retract yourself or justify. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I've been writing history, broad scale history, on Wikipedia for a very long time. I know how to paraphrase judiciously. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: If you cannot produce mainstream sources that specifically back up your claims, then your "judicious paraphrasing" is just pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, in addition to being fallacious. There's no need to spend time on something so obvious and basic: please revert yourself and let's move on. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I have split the text into simple sentences each cited to a major historian of India, sometimes two. There is no doubt that the sources are mainstream. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

name in sanskrit

would it not be more appropriate to put his name in devanagari for the sanskrit translation? Its quite uncommon to put it in latin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josepherino (talk • contribs) 00:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It has to do with MOS:INDICSCRIPTS a result of scripts snowballing on India-related pages, reflecting today's ethnic and sub-national compulsions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Chandragupta

His name means protected by the moon, so his name is not that? 68.46.116.217 (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done - you have not cited WP:reliable sources to support your claim - Arjayay (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Caste of Chandragupta mourya

According to Buddhist chronicles Chandragupta described 'Cowherd of princely race. ChunakhAnkhen(National Information centre) featured Chandra gupta as Chandra Gop. These two solid proof that caste of chandragupta mourya as An Ahir Or Yadav. Vrishn (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like it! The view of most modern historians is that the concept of caste had not really developed in his day. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

No Buddhist scripture says that. You are so mis informant person. Hari Mauryaa (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Uttarviharapattkatha theramhind is written by Samrat Ashoka son himself in srilanka so it is most probably authentic information about Mauryans. Let's see what begining Verses of this Scriptures says:-

Uttarviharapattkatha theramhind is written by Samrat Ashoka son himself in srilanka so it is most probably authentic information about Mauryans. Let's see what begining Verse of this Scriptures says:- Hari Mauryaa (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

उत्तरविहारट्ठकथायं-थेरमहिंद

मोरिय नगरे चन्दवडूनो खत्तिया राजा नाम रज्ज करोति मोरिय नगरे नाम पिप्पलियावनिया गामो अहोसि । तेन तस्स नगरस्स सामिनो साकिया च तेसं पुत्त पुत्ता सकल जम्बूद्वीपे मोरिया नाम ति पाकटा जाता। ततो पभुति तेसं वंसो मोरियवंसो ति बुच्चति, तेन युत्त

मोरियानं खत्तियानं वंसजातं ति ।

मौर्य नगर में चन्द्र वर्द्धन राजा नाम के क्षत्रिय राज्य कर रहे थे। मौर्य नगर में पिप्पलिवन नामक एक गाँव था। तब उस नगर गाँव समीप शाक्यों के पुत्र-पौत्र सकल जम्बुद्वीप में मौर्य (मोरिय) नाम से प्रसिद्ध हुए। तत्पश्चात उनके वंश का नाम मौर्य वंश (मोरिय) पड़ा।

चन्द वड्डनो राजस्स मोरियरज्ञ सा अहू । अग्ग महेसी धम्ममोरिया पुत्ता तस्सासि चन्द्रगुप्तो 'ति ॥ मौर्य राजा चन्द्रवर्द्धन कि महारानी धम्ममोरिया बनी। उन दोनों से उपन्न पुत्र चन्द्रगुप्त नाम से जगत में विख्यात हुए।

आदिच्चा नाम गोतेन साकिया नाम जातिया ।

मोरियानं खात्तियानं वंसजातं सिरिधरं,

चन्द्रगुप्तोति विहुगुप्तो नि भातुका ततो ॥ आदित्य गोत्र शाक्य जाति (जन्म) मीयं वंश के क्षत्रियों में श्रीमान चन्द्रगुप्त राजा हुये तथा उनके भाई विगुप्त प्रज्ञा सम्पन्न । Hari Mauryaa (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Buddhist Text Ashokavadana

says -

मौर्याधिप्पे जातो, बिन्दुसारेण जातिको, सक्यकुलात्तमा जातो, बुद्धे भावितवादनो ।

Translation:

"Ashoka, born in the Maurya clan, was the son of Bindusara. Belonging to the Sakya lineage, he ruled after studying the teachings of the Buddha."

Further tipitaka confirm- Hari Mauryaa (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

तिपिटक -दीघनिकाय : ३. महापरिनिब्बानसुत्तं

अस्सो खो पिप्पलिवनिया [पिप्फलिवनिया (स्या० ) ] मोरिया - "भगवा किर कुसिनारायं परिनिब्बुतोति । अथ खो पिप्पलिवनिया मोरिया कोसिनारकानं मल्लानं दूतं पाहेसुं - “भगवापि खत्तियो मयम्पि खत्तिया, मयम्पि अरहाम भगवतो सरीरानं भागं, मयम्पि भगवतो सरीरानं धूपञ्च महञ्च करिस्सामा "ति । “नत्थि भगवतो सरीरानं भागो, विभत्तानि भगवतो सरीरानि । इतो अङ्गारं हरथा" ति । ते ततो अङ्गारं हरिंसु [ आहरिंसु (स्या० क० ) ] |

पिप्पलीवन के मौर्यो ने सुना कि कुशीनार में बुद्ध की मृत्यु हो गई है तब उन्होंने दूतों को यह कहते हुए भेजा: "बुद्ध शाक्य छत्रिय वर्ण के थे और हम भी शाक्य क्षत्रिय हैं " कृपया हमें भी भगवान बुद्ध के पवित्र अवशेष प्रदान करें। बुद्ध के शिष्यों ने उत्तर दिया : "धन्य (बुद्ध) के पवित्र अवशेषों के और कण नहीं बचे हैं," आप आग की राख ले। Hari Mauryaa (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

further kalidaasa confirm..

"सुखं च सन्तोषं च विवेकं च नियोजयेत् । तस्मात् काश्यपवंशजो नृपो चंद्रगुप्तमौर्यः ॥

Transliteration: sukham cha santosham cha vivekam cha niyojayet tasmaat kaashyapa-vamshajo nripo chandragupta mauryaḥ

(Reference: Kalidasa's Malavikagnimitram, Act V)

Translation: Let us remember the noble Kshatriya king, born in the Kashyapa lineage, Emperor Chandragupta Maurya, who defeated the mighty Nanda dynasty and brought peace and prosperity to his people. Hari Mauryaa (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

you idiot person claim that he was Ahira 🤣... Let's see what Shastras says about Āhīras. Why you guys request me to answer on Caste like things. .. This is last question which I am gonna reply which based on Caste/dynasty.

AS I AM NOT INTERESTED IN READING CASTE BASED HISTORY IN SHASTRAS….

----

First of all we have to understand that in our Shastras Ābhīra word is used for “Ahiras' as Ahira is local Hindi word for Sanskrit Abhiras..

Yadavas and Ahiras are different clans —

यादव-त्राण-कार्त्रे च शक्राद् अभीर-रक्शिणे गुरु-मातृ-द्विजानां च पुत्र-दात्रे नमो नमः (Garga Samhita 6:10:16)

English Translation : To You, who protected the Yādavas, who protected the Ahiras from King Indra, and returned to Your mother, guru, and a brāhmaṇa the sons they had lost, I offer my respectful obeisances.

Hindi Translation: जिन्होंने यादवों की रक्षा की, जिन्होंने राजा इंद्र से अहीरों की भी रक्षा की और अपनी माता, गुरु और ब्राह्मण को उनके खोए हुए बेटों को वापस दिलाया, मैं आपको आदरणीय प्रणाम करता हूँ।

• Brihad Dharma Puran also state that both are different clains —

वदुरा एक अहीर पिता और यादव मां से उत्पन्न हुआ था। (४)

Vadura was descended from an Ahira father and a Yadava mother.(४)

(Brihad Dharma Puran Adhyay 57 : Sloka 4)

----

Ahiras is a sinful clain —

अन्ध्रा हूनाः किराताश् च पुलिन्दाः पुक्कशास् तथा अभीरा यवनाः कङ्काः खशाद्याः पाप-योणयः (Sanatakumara Sahmita — Sloka 39)

Hindi Translation : अंध्र, हुण, किरात, पुलिंद, पुक्कश, अहीर , यवन, कंक, खस और सभी अन्य पापयोनि से उत्पन्न होने वाले भी मंत्र जप के लिए योग्य हैं।

English Translation: Andhras, Hūnas, Kirātas, Pulindas, Pukkaśas, Ahīras, Yavanas, Kaṅkas, Khaśas, and all others born from sinful wombs are also eligible for Chanting .

आभीर जमन किरात खस स्वपचादि अति अघरूप जे । कहि नाम बारक तेपि पावन होहिं राम नमामि ते ॥ (Ramcharitmanas 7:130)

Hindi Translation : अहीर , यवन, किरात, खस, श्वपच (चाण्डाल) आदि जो अत्यंत पाप रूप ही हैं, वे भी केवल एक बार जिनका नाम लेकर पवित्र हो जाते हैं, उन श्री रामजी को मैं नमस्कार करता हूँ ॥

English Translation : Ahiras , Yavan, Kirata, Khasa, and even Chandala become pure by taking your name, O Rama. I bow to you.

किरात-हूणान्ध्र-पुलिन्द-पुक्कश आभीर-कङ्क यवनाः खशादयाः ये’न्ये च पापा यद्-अपाश्रयाश्रयाः शुध्यन्ति तस्मै प्रभविष्णवे नमः (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam or Bhāgavata Purāṇa 2:4:18):

Hindi Translation : किरात, हूण, आन्ध्र, पुलिन्द, पुल्कस, अहीर , कङ्क, यवन और खश तथा अन्य पापीजन भी जिनके आश्रयसे शुद्ध हो जाते हैं, उन भगवान् विष्णु को नमस्कार है ॥

English Translation : Kirāta, Hūṇa, Āndhra, Pulinda, Pulkaśa, Āhīra, Kaṅka , Yavana, Khaśa and other communities habituated to low-class acts can become purified by taking shelter of the devotees of Bhagavān. Therefore, I offer my obeisances unto the almighty Śrī Viṣṇu.

----

How Ahiras come to existence —

ब्राह्मणादुग्रकन्यायामावृतो नाम जायते । आभीरोऽम्बष्ठकन्यायामायोगव्यां तु धिग्वणः ॥ १५ ॥ (Manusmriti 10:15)

Hindi Translation उग्र कन्या (क्षत्रिय से शूद्रा में उत्पन्न कन्या को उग्रा कहते हैं) में ब्राह्मण से उत्पन्न बालक को आवृत, अम्बष्ठ (ब्राह्मण से वैश्य स्त्री से उत्पन्न कन्या) कन्या में ब्राह्मण से उत्पन्न पुत्र अहीर और आयोगवी कन्या (शूद्र से वैश्य स्त्री से उत्पन्न कन्या) से उत्पन्न पुत्र को धिग्व्रण कहते हैं।

English Translation : The ‘Āvṛta’ is born from the Brāhmaṇa on the ‘ugra’ maiden, the ‘Ābhīra’ on the ‘Ambaṣṭha’ maiden and the ‘Dhigvaṇa’ on the ‘Āyogava’ maiden.

----

The story why Āhīras become most sinful-

In the entire Mahabharata, Lord Shri Krishna is never referred to as an Āhīras . Nor any of his descendants referred to as Āhīras.

The description of the Āhīras in the Mahabharata is as follows , this verse is from the incident when Arjun sets out to rescue the residents of Dwarka who are drowning after Lord Krishna leaving Earth. There, their deliberation takes place , Āhīras attack on Yadavas and raped their womens —

ततस्ते पापकर्माणो लोभोपहतचेतसः आभीरा मंत्रयामासः समेत्याशुभदर्शन का " ( Mahabharata: Mausalparva: Adhyay 7 Shlok - 47 )

Hindi Translation : लोभ से उनकी विवेक शक्ति नष्ठ हो गयी, उन अशुभदर्शी पापाचारी अहीरो ने परस्पर मिलकर हमले की सलाह की।

English Translation : Due to greed, their power of discernment was lost, and these sinful and ill-omened Aheers advised each other.

प्रेक्षतस्तवेव पार्थस्य वृषणयन्धकवरस्त्रीय जग्मुरादाय ते मल्लेछा समन्ताजज्नमेय् ।। ( Mahabharata: Mausalparva: Adhyay 7 Shlok - 63)

Hindi Translation: अर्जुन देखता ही रह गया, वह म्लेच्छ डाकू (अहीर) सब ओर से यदुवंशी - वृष्णिवंश और अन्धकवंश कि सुंदर स्त्रियो पर टूट पड़े ।

English Translation : Arjuna remained watching, and the Mlecchas (Āhīras) attacked from all sides on the beautiful women of the Vrishni and Andhakavansh.

Note - In the same chapter, the Dacoits are also called Āhīras. If the Āhīras had a connection with the Kshatriya clan, it would have been written in the Mahabharata. But the Kshatriyas, due to their intellect and time, became overwhelmed and started to perform Mleccha karma. Because whenever the Kshatriyas have committed atrocities, they have been called "atrocious Kshatriyas" in the scriptures, not Dacoits or Mlecchas. If the Āhīras were Kshatriyas, then their varna would have been mentioned in the same way. But always they're mentioned in negative ways. Due to change in time many people from Āhīras community started using “Yadava” title which cause the very gradual increase in “Yadava” title using population. During British Era there was too many intercaste marriages between Yadavas and Āhīras which help them in diffusion of two clains.

Remember Gopas reference to a person who is “Gadariya” involved in cattling, Yadavas are Gopas as they involved in cattling but Āhīras are not .

For more detail read—

Brāhma Puran chapter 103

18. Thereafter Dasyus who hurled lumps of clay and who struck with their staffs rushed at those womenfolk whose husbands had been killed. They attacked them in their thousands. Turning back, the son of Kuntī spoke to the Ābhīras laughingly:

19-24. “Return, O unrighteous ones, if you are not desirous of dying”.

25-26. Arjuna thought—“It was really Kṛṣṇa’s strength whereby the various kings were conquered by me through volleys of arrows”.

Even as the son of Pāṇḍu was watching with wide open eyes, those excellent ladies were abducted(raped) by Ābhīras. Others went away as they desired.

13-14. The ladies whose husbands had been killed in the battle-field were being led by Arjuna who had the bow in his hand. On seeing them led by Arjuna, robbers felt greedy. The Ābhīras (cowherds)who were very haughty, who committed sinful deeds and whose minds were afflicted by covetousness gathered together and consulted one another.

• Click on this link to read this Brahma Purana chapter online 👇

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/brahma-purana-english/d/doc216260.html

----

अन्त्यजा अपि नो कर्म यत्कुर्वन्ति विगर्हितम् ।

आभीरास्तच्च कुर्वंति तत्किमेतत्त्व

या कृतम् ॥ ३९ ॥

(Skanda Purana: Nagarkhand: Adhyaya 192 Sloka 39)

Hindi Translation: अन्यज जाति के लोग भी जो घृणित कर्म नहीं करते अहीर जाति के लोग वह कर्म करते हैं।३४

English Translation : Such despicable activities as even Śūdras eschew, these Āhīras do not hesitate to carry on. What is it that you have done now!

आभीरैर्दस्युभिः सार्धं संगोऽभूदग्निशर्मणः । आगच्छति पथा तेन यस्तं हंति स पापकृत् ॥ ७ ॥ (Skanda Puran : Khanda 5 :Avanti Kshetra Mahatmyam : Adhyay 24 : Sloka 7)

Hindi Translation :उस जंगल में अहीर जाति के कुछ लुटेरे रहते थे। उन्हीं के साथ अग्निशर्मण की संगति हो गयी। उसके बाद बन के मार्ग में आने वाले लोकों को वह पापी मारने लगा।

English Translation : Agniśarman came to be associated with Āhīras robbers. That sinner began to kill whoever came that way. Hari Mauryaa (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• user:Johnbod is correct. Although caste, which had its origins in the Indo-Aryans hegemony in the upper subcontinent, had taken root by 400 BCE, it was in a simplified hierarchical form, which the India page describes as: "hierarchy of priests, warriors, and free peasants, but which excluded indigenous peoples by labelling their occupations impure," Pastoral groups, which later became aheers or gwalas, had not really become a part of the settled urban economy. Given that there are almost no records except those of Megasthenes and the edicts of Asoka the Great (which lay outside subcontinental awareness, until James Prinsep, the great linguistic genius of East India Company rule, deciphered them in the 1830s) many histories of Chandragupta are mythological or legendary ones. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)