Talk:History of India#History of Indian Subcontinent

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=1158814446 Recently] the Mauryan Empire map included in this article was changed from 50px to 50px. Both maps are labelled as the "Maurya Empire c. 250 BCE" but show significantly different extents; and both have gone numerous revisions over the years so that they are unlikely to bear much relation with the cited sources on their description page. Anyone know offhand which map (if either) is accurate? Pinging {{ping|RegentsPark|Fowler&fowler}} for sanity check. Abecedare (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

:No, I don't know which map is accurate. Krishnpriya123 (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Maurya_Empire,_c.250_BCE.png

File:Maurya Empire, c.250 BCE 2.png

:The one on the left is the one with support in the modern sources and therefore the correct one; the one on the right is the traditional one. We mention what the map on the left shows in words in the India page, "Politically, by the 3rd century BCE, the kingdom of Magadha had annexed or reduced other states to emerge as the Mauryan Empire. The empire was once thought to have controlled most of the subcontinent except the far south, but its core regions are now thought to have been separated by large autonomous areas," cited to the books of Burton Stein and Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund. The map on the left is also the main map in the Maurya Empire page and was the result of a consensus; someone changed it, probably very recently, and I had to revert it. That map has quite a few sources, including Monica Smith of UCLA whose work addresses this very issue. Also, historian David Ludden, now of NYU, but then of Penn, (and perennially the stepson of Betty White, who said in an interview, "Our son is a historian at Penn, who works on the agricultural history of South India. Go figure. :)) in India and South Asia has addressed this. We have cited Ludden in the sentence, "Early political consolidations gave rise to the loose-knit Maurya and Gupta Empires based in the Ganges Basin." in the lead of India. I have italicized the reference to the map on the left. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

::Forgot to ping {{re|Abecedare}} in my reply. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

:::I've copied the maps and aligned them; "left" and "right" were, on my screen, due to length of the lines, different from what I understand F&f to mean. The 'map with the holes' is the modern understanding, right? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

::::Yes. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

::::: Thanks F&F! Based on your input, I have undone the recent edit (pinging {{ping|Gauhar2806}} in case they wish to argue for the change they made).

::::: Interestingly, {{u|Avantiputra7}} had added a note to "Version 2" of the map in 2017, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Maurya_Empire,_c.250_BCE_2.png&diff=prev&oldid=258456986 saying] {{tq|This is the standard "textbook" map of the Maurya Empire. Historians are now arguing that the Maurya Empire did not include large parts of India, which were controlled by autonomous tribes. For such a map, see File:Maurya Empire, c.250 BCE.png}}. But the "outdated" map is nevertheless used on several articles on wikipedia, which may need a clean-up. Abecedare (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

{{od}}Let's set aside Bowman and Ahmad as dubious for the moment. To conclude this discussion quickly, I propose removing and incorporating portions of Someguy’s [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=1267922584 revision]:

• Re-wordings:

1. "The Delhi Sultanate was founded in 1206 by Central Asian Turks who were Indianized." to "The Delhi Sultanate, established in 1206 by Central Asian Turks, following the Khalji revolution, Indian Muslims gradually rose to prominence and eventually secured administrative authority within the Sultanate."
2. Flemmish's suggestion: "the only thing I would suggest is to change "from native Indian elites to Turkic and Pashtun [M]uslim elites" to "from native Indian elites to Turkic Muslim elites" to better align with what Asher&Talbot says (the term "Turkic Muslim" is actually used there, while "Pashtun" is nowhere to be seen)."

• Removals:

1. Dubious sources such as Ahmad, Bowman & Hunter.
2. Sayyid Dynasty as "Indianized".
3. "It turned from a turkic Monopoly to an Indianized Indo-Muslim polity".
4. "Indo-Muslim" from Delhi Sultanate subsection.

• Inclusions:

1. Tughlaqs as "Indo-Turkic"
2. Authoritative sources i. e. Eaton & Orsini/Sheikh.
3. "It was ruled by multiple Turk and, Afghan and Indian dynasties" I don't know why they even removed the term "Indian" from there, if the Indian dynasties ruled some part of the subcontinent.

{{u|Noorullah21}}, {{u|Someguywhosbored}}, {{u|Malik-Al-Hind}}, {{u|Flemmish Nietzsche}} and {{u|Mr.Hanes}}, I hope this would be the last time I'd ping you all here. Share your thoughts on this proposal and feel free to rephrase/challenge my proposal. Garuda ^Talk! 21:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment:“It was ruled by multiple…Indian dynasty”. The problem is that’s only one viewpoint. The only dynasty of possible Indian descent is the sayyids. But the problem is that it’s just as likely that they were Arabs. So what’s the point of adding that? Maybe you could make an argument for the Tughlaqs, but again, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Just because it exists there doesn’t mean it needs to be here. The supposed “indo-Turkic” is weirdly given more weight than the other sources in the origins section. Even though they were a lot more sources there, which didn’t use the term “indo-Turkic”, which brings up questions of notability.

:Moving onto the bigger issues. The indo Muslim problem. Satish chandra refutes this point. So mentioning it would be undue weight. He’s a specialist in this period. You only have one source that is recent and he’s certainly not as authoritative as Chandra.

:As for Flemmish’s suggestion, I don’t completely mind but I think it could be easily remedied by a source which does mention that the dynasty was also ruled by Afghans(which would be really easy to find since two Afghan dynasties did rule the dynasty). Kind of odd only mentioning Indians when two dynasties were ruled by Afghans proper.

:Nonetheless if your changes do get reverted, stop edit warring. As seen on the edit warring page, you’ve been given a chance because it appears that your taking a break and have stated that you will refrain from edit warring. Someone like say Flemmish or noorullah reverts you(or even me as I’ve old made 2 reverts so far), don’t revert back if you actually mean it. Let’s work through the process. Your report has been declined on condition as you’ve been already aware of the ctops warning. So stop and talk it though here before you make any changes. I’d probably be more open to your changes if you actually avoided reverting back and forward. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::

• Support:@Garudam seems to be right here, incorporating multiple views by scholars is always better, which follows the suggestion of Abecedare (shall I ping?) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khalji_dynasty/Archive_2#c-Abecedare-20230510184100-Someguywhosbored-20230510030200 here]. I would also tend to support their proposed changes. {{u|Someguywhosbored}} should adhere to their suggestions and WP:LISTEN instead of unnecessarily WP:STONEWALL and dragging the discussion. WP:FORUMSHOP to other talk pages is also not the way for a healthy discussion. Mr.Hanes File:Speech bubble icon.svg Talk 09:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• :The issue is that when there’s only 1 scholar who’s actually recent that came to this conclusion, it brings up questions of Wikipedia:Notability. Furthermore, we’ve had so many discussions in the past about the “indo-Muslim” topic.
• :Satish chandra is the only historian here who actually specializes in medieval Indian history. And he completely refuted this interpretation your bringing up. Which I’ve shown multiple times above.
• :
• :the only way something like this could work is if you say that one scholar “is of the opinion that the dynasty allowed Indian Muslims into positions of powers, but this view has been rejected and refuted by more authoritative sources such as Satish Chandra”. And than we can write a note that states satish Chandra is a specialist of medieval Indian history, unlike the sources Garudam is using. Even than, this page is just supposed to be a summary of Indian history. So honestly I see no reason for adding these changes.
• :so either no changes(my preference) or you mention the source but also state that it’s been refuted by those who are more authoritative. If you don’t mention satish Chandra, than this would be undue.
• :Anyway before we make certain changes, the article should first remove the mention of “indianized” in the body when no sources use that term.
• :im waiting until someone else will make those changes. But if nobody does, I’ll probably do it myself. Garudam stated he’s taking a step back(, that’s one of the conditions of his block being declined. As long as he doesn’t get further involved in this discussion, or make any more reverts, and actually take a break like he said, than it should be fine.
• :also I don’t think you understand what forum shopping is. Garudam was disruptively edit warring(despite ironically calling me out for the same thing). When someone edit wars, your free to take this to the administrators. Thankfully they made it clear that Garudam needs to step away from this conversation. If he comes back, than he’s violating that agreement which will likely lead to a pblock, per administrator daniel case. Garudam should have known better as he was alerted to ctops. Reporting him for edit warring was completely justified. And now once someone reverts him, he’s thankfully not allowed to revert it back. If you want to make changes, you first need to gain consensus first like I did when I went to remove the content. You haven’t really been giving me any adequate reason for adding it.
• :before any changes happen, we need to remove the “indianized”
• :and other parts of the content that we agreed shouldn’t be there. Even Garudam at least wants it to be reworded(despite my opposition). I’ll wait one more day. If nobody makes the change, I’ll do it myself. Someguywhosbored (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::"Satish chandra is the only historian here who actually specializes in medieval Indian history." No, other experts exist (Eaton, Jackson & Lal), Chandra's work is not empirical. Even so including their views with others is the best way to represent our encyclopedia. And what does Garudam's stepping back have to do with this, I could make the changes by myself if the consensus is reached. Please stick to the topic, your whole second para is just lengthening this proposal (RfC?). If you have more concerns please reply so, above this sub-topic but do not make changes in the article as the proposal discussion is ongoing, I just re-organised this proposal to make it more engaging and readable. Mr.Hanes File:Speech bubble icon.svg Talk 11:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::Again your misrepresenting the sources. Not even Garudam was making these claims. Eaton did not write anything about the Indian Muslims. He was talking about the sayyid dynasty which was a different conversation. Garudam actually agreed with me in the end on that point btw, that the it’s undue to refer to the sayyids as “indianized” because there’s other reliable sources like Eraly who believed the dynasty was of Arab descent.
• :::Also Jackson? When did he mention that the dynasty was indianized? He’s not part of the sources that claimed the dynasty allowed Indian Muslims into positions of power. Did I even remove him? What part are your talking about.
• :::The only thing your left with is K.S lal who while is a historian I believe, is quite an old source. See WP:AGEMATTERS.
• :::That leaves you with just chaurasia who is the only modern scholar cited that is actually a historian I think(again can’t find much info about his credentials but he’s probably okay). Nonetheless, that’s one source, which is being compared to satish Chandra. He actively refuted the supposed “indo-muslim” claim. And out of all these sources, he’s the only one who’s a specialist on medieval Indian history(see his wiki page) in particular and is renown for his books authenticity and reliability. He’s the most authoritative source here. So if your adding a claim like that, it just seems entirely undue.
• :::The one thing pretty much everyone including Garudam agreed on is that the content can’t be saying “indianized” like that. So we need to remove it. The only other option I can think of is my suggestion I just made. Basically mentioning the viewpoint but also clarifying that it’s been refuted by a more authoritative source.
• :::Anyway given that we pretty much all agreed the sources don’t actually say “indianized”(also a completely different dynasty). Including Garudam. So that should be removed pronto regardless. I’m sure even you would agree that “Indianized” would be inappropriate for that section when
• :::A. The sources don’t use the term “indianized”
• :::B. It’s a completely different dynasty
• :::I sure hope you would at least agree on that point considering everyone else did. So removing the “indianized” section, when pretty much everyone agreed that it doesn’t make sense is completely fine to do even as discussions are ongoing. The next step is talking about whether we should add the Indian Muslims part. Obviously I disagree, but we can have discussions on that. But prior to that, there’s nothing wrong with removing the indianized part of the text when pretty much everyone agrees that it’s wrong. Like I said, if you want to add the Indian Muslims viewpoint because you supposedly want to add “everyone’s viewpoint, than you need to be adding satish Chandra’s viewpoint as well. If your just putting one in, than it’s undue.
• :::So let’s remove the indianized part and than discuss about whether we should add Indian Muslims into the article or not. My proposal there is if you really want to add the Indian Muslim part, you need to also add the material that refutes it. Otherwise this whole “adding everyone’s viewpoint” makes zero sense if your ignoring one from a prestigious source. Otherwise no change.
• :::Your very well free to continue discussion, but if someone like me or another user deletes the “indianized” part. You adding it back would basically be disruptive because everyone agrees that the sources don’t follow the text there. Again, the Indian Muslims debate is an entirely different topic/issue. So why shouldn’t we remove content that doesn’t align with the sources cited? Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Also are you claiming the other sources were also specialists in medieval Indian history? If so, send a source. Otherwise satish Chandra is obviously more authoritative on that topic. Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::On a final note @Mr.Hanes. Like I said, I’m willing to make a compromise if you will also add satish Chandra’s refutation of it. So basically, let’s remove indianization as everyone agreed with. And if you want to add the Indian Muslims part, sure go ahead. Nobodies stoping you. Just make sure you also mention that this viewpoint was refuted by satish Chandra in the article, and cite both sources. I’ll probably also make my own tweaks to it. But for now, indianization part should be removed as everyone including Garudam agreed per his new proposal. Someguywhosbored (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Supporting the proposal, I think it provides a balanced approach here. Nxcrypto Message 14:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|History of India|answered=yes}}

The Map being used for the Mauryan Empire is just one of the extent of the empire, why is the holed map given more preference than the solid mass one? even though majority sources depict it as a solid mass territory. Both should be included, there should be no preference. HindSindh (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template. Remsense ‥ 论 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::(Meaning here, there's literally a previous discussion earlier on this page about this. We don't really need two versions of a map ever. One is better, and that is the one that should be used, like every other polity from antiquity.) Remsense ‥ 论 17:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:::(Although irrelevant to comment here), the holed map is more de-facto centered I believe. Noorullah (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::Sock account, see [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HindSindh&diff=prev&oldid=1270470492 this]. Nxcrypto Message 18:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

{{mdf|1=User talk:Joshua Jonathan|2= Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)}}

:In response to the ongoing discussion about the identity of the “Hindush warrior, on the Tomb of Xerxes I, circa 480 BCE” depicted in the article’s image, I propose clarifying that the warrior is an Indian from the Achaemenid satrapy of Hindush, not an ethnic Persian. The current caption, “Hindush warrior, on the Tomb of Xerxes I, circa 480 BCE,” is accurate but may cause confusion for readers unfamiliar with the term “Hindush,” potentially leading to misinterpretation as a Persian soldier due to the Achaemenid context.

:The term “Hindush” (Old Persian: Hidūš) refers to an Achaemenid province in the lower and central Indus basin (modern-day Sindh and southern Punjab, Pakistan), as evidenced by the DNa inscription at Naqsh-e Rostam, which lists Hindush as a distinct satrapy alongside Gandhara and Sattagydia (Thapar, Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, Oxford University Press, 1961, p. 7). Herodotus further describes Indian soldiers from this region in the Achaemenid army under Xerxes I, noting their unique attire: “The Indians wore garments of tree-wool, and carried bows of reed and iron-tipped arrows of the same” (Histories, Book 7, Chapter 65, translated by A. D. Godley, Harvard University Press, 1922, p. 343). This aligns with the relief’s depiction of the Hindush warrior, who wears a dhoti-like garment and a turban, consistent with Indian cultural styles of the 5th century BCE.

:The Tomb of Xerxes I at Naqsh-e Rostam features reliefs of soldiers from various satrapies, each labeled by their regional identity (e.g., Persian, Median, Elamite, Hindush). The Hindush warrior is explicitly identified as such, distinguished from Persian soldiers, who are depicted with long robes and fluted hats and labeled as “Pārsa” (Singh, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India, Pearson, 2008, p. 256). Upinder Singh notes that these reliefs represent the Indian population of the Indus Valley under Persian rule, not ethnic Persians (Singh, 2008, p. 256). Additionally, Indian troops from Hindush served in Xerxes I’s invasion of Greece (480–479 BCE), including at the Battle of Plataea, where they formed a significant corps alongside Bactrians and Sakae (Herodotus, Histories, Book 9, Chapter 31, Godley translation, 1922, p. 97).

:Similar depictions of Hindush tribute bearers at the Apadana Palace in Persepolis, bringing Indian goods like gold and textiles, further confirm the Indian identity of the satrapy’s inhabitants (Allen, Ashoka: The Search for India’s Lost Emperor, Little, Brown, 2012, p. 45). The Achaemenid Empire’s multi-ethnic structure allowed regional subjects like the Hindush to retain their cultural identities while serving the Persian king, as evidenced by the distinct attire of the Hindush warrior compared to Persian or Median figures.

:Anticipated Counterarguments and Resolutions:

:# Counterargument: The warrior could be considered Persian because he served in the Achaemenid army under Xerxes I.

:#* Resolution: While the Hindush warrior was a subject of the Achaemenid Empire, his designation as “Hindush” and his Indian attire (dhoti, turban) indicate his ethnic and regional identity as an Indian from the Indus Valley, not a Persian. Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy prioritizes primary sources like the Naqsh-e Rostam inscriptions and Herodotus, which distinguish Hindush from Persian identities (Wikipedia:Verifiability). Singh’s analysis of the reliefs confirms this distinction (Singh, 2008, p. 256).

:# Counterargument: The term “Hindush” might be ambiguous, and cultural overlap between Persians and Indians could blur the warrior’s identity.

:#* Resolution: The DNa inscription clearly defines Hindush as a geographically and ethnically Indian satrapy (Thapar, 1961, p. 7). While Achaemenid rule introduced cultural exchanges (e.g., Kharosthi script), the warrior’s attire and label as “Hindush” align with Indian traditions, not Persian ones, as Allen notes in his discussion of Persepolis reliefs (Allen, 2012, p. 45). The reliefs’ purpose was to highlight the empire’s diverse subjects, not to homogenize them.

:# Counterargument: The caption is sufficient, and further clarification is unnecessary for general readers.

:#* Resolution: While the caption is technically correct, adding a brief note to clarify “Hindush” as an Indian region enhances reader understanding and prevents misinterpretation, especially given the Persian context of the tomb. Wikipedia’s goal is to provide clear, accurate information (Wikipedia:Manual of Style). A revised caption like “Hindush warrior (from the Indian Indus Valley satrapy), on the Tomb of Xerxes I, circa 480 BCE” maintains brevity while addressing potential confusion.

:Proposed Action: The current caption is accurate but could benefit from a minor clarification to emphasize the warrior’s Indian identity. I suggest revising it to:

Hindush warrior (from the Indian Indus Valley satrapy), on the Tomb of Xerxes I, circa 480 BCE.

This revision aligns with primary sources (Naqsh-e Rostam inscriptions, Herodotus) and scholarly consensus, ensuring clarity without altering the image’s context. If editors prefer keeping the original caption, I recommend adding a brief note in the article text or image description to explain that “Hindush” refers to an Indian satrapy, not a Persian one.

:I welcome feedback, additional sources, or alternative wording to achieve consensus.

:References:

:* Thapar, Romila. Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas. Oxford University Press, 1961, p. 7.

:* Herodotus. Histories, translated by A. D. Godley. Harvard University Press, 1922, Book 7, Chapter 65 (p. 343); Book 9, Chapter 31 (p. 97).

:* Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India. Pearson, 2008, p. 256.

:* Allen, Charles. Ashoka: The Search for India’s Lost Emperor. Little, Brown, 2012, p. 45.

:CorrectorEdicts (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

hello! I recently came across the :History of India article and below the "Magadha" section was "the Hindush soldier, from the tomb of Xerxes I" which was wrongly written as "Indian warrior" considering he was a "soldier of the Persian empire" from the "Indus valley" not a "Soldier of Magadha" from the "Ganges valley"

I need advice as I don't want to do something which might be wrong, thanks. Qaiser-i-Mashriq (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{yo|Qaiser-i-Mashriq}} it was added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_India&diff=993002400&oldid=993001964 here], by User:पाटलिपुत्र. I think he can explain more. Meanwhile, I've changed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_India&diff=1282881630&oldid=1282625356 diff] {{tq|Indian warrior of the :Achaemenid army, circa 480 BCE, on the :Tomb of Xerxes I.}} into {{tq|Indian warrior, on the :Tomb of Xerxes I, circa 480 BCE.}}Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|Qaiser-i-Mashriq}}, Joshua Jonathan. The warrior is labelled as Hiduya 𐏃𐎡𐎯𐎢𐎹 (h-i-du-u-y) in Achaemenid script [https://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/iran/airan/apers/aperst.htm][https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions/dne/] on the Xerxes and Darius tombs ([https://www.iranicaonline.org/uploads/files/Clothing/v5f7a014_f1_300.jpg]). This term is translated as "Indian" by Lecoq 1997 [http://www.elamit.net/depot/resources/lecoq1997ocr.pdf p.225] and Encyclopedia Iranica ("Then the enumeration turns southeast, naming Drangians, Arachosians, Sattagydians (Thataguš), Gandharans, and Indians" [https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/naqs-e-rostam]). According to Lecoq, these lists do not strictly represent Achaemenid satrapies, but rather a list of the people contributing troops to the Achaemenids ("On ne sait pas exactement ce que représentent ces listes de peuples: Il ne peut s'agir, en tout cas, de divisions administratives, à finalité fiscale, de satrapies." [http://www.elamit.net/depot/resources/lecoq1997ocr.pdf p.135]). Beyond this, I do not know for certain whether this figure necessarily represents a man from Hindush (then Achaemenid territory), or a mercenary from the lands beyond to the east. Maybe there are more sources on that, but I am not aware of them. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The name "Hindush/Indus" had not developed it's pan south Asian meaning yet, it was specifically referring to the Hindush satrapy of the Persian empire, just like how a soldier from "Macedonia" then don't mean from the "Macedonia" of today but contemporary"Greece" because those places share name only Qaiser-i-Mashriq (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::: {{tps}} I agree with {{U|Qaiser-i-Mashriq}}. These are depictions of tribute payments, and only the Persian provinces paid tribute. The picture is showing the tribute payments from Hindush, not Magadha. This is ridiculous, {{U|पाटलिपुत्र}}! I have seen dozens of mistranslations of even Herdotus, let alone Xerxes! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I've moved the picture upwards, to the Mahajanapada-section, and changed "Indian warrior" into "Hindush warrior." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The sentence in the "Ashoka" section of the article states: "His campaign against the Kalingans in about 260 BCE, though successful, led to immense loss of life and misery. This led Ashoka to shun violence, and subsequently to embrace Buddhism." This wording suggests that Ashoka’s conversion to Buddhism was a direct result of the Kalinga War’s devastation. However, primary epigraphic evidence and scholarly analysis indicate that Ashoka had already become a Buddhist lay follower (Upāsaka) at least 2–3 years before the Kalinga War (c. 260 BCE), challenging the causal link implied in the current text.

The Maski Minor Rock Edict, dated to approximately 263–262 BCE, explicitly states that Ashoka had been a Buddhist Upāsaka for over two and a half years at the time of its issuance. This places his initial affiliation with Buddhism around 265–264 BCE, before the Kalinga War. Romila Thapar notes that the Maski Edict undermines the traditional narrative of a post-Kalinga conversion, suggesting Ashoka’s Buddhist leanings began earlier, with the war intensifying his commitment to non-violence (Thapar, Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, Oxford University Press, 1961, p. 30). Upinder Singh similarly argues that epigraphic evidence points to a gradual adoption of Buddhist principles predating the war, with later edicts reflecting deeper engagement (Singh, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India, Pearson, 2008, p. 333).

The Bhabra Edict, addressed to the Buddhist Sangha, demonstrates Ashoka’s familiarity with Buddhist scriptures, such as the Vinaya and Dharma texts, suggesting a longer period of engagement than the post-Kalinga timeline allows. Charles Allen argues that the Bhabra Edict reflects a pre-Kalinga commitment to Buddhism, bolstered by Ashoka’s family ties through his wife Devi, a Buddhist from Vedisagiri (Allen, Ashoka: The Search for India’s Lost Emperor, Little, Brown, 2012, pp. 105–106). Ananda Guruge further supports this, citing the Mahavamsa and epigraphic records to argue that Ashoka’s Buddhist connections, particularly through Devi, predated the war (Guruge, Asoka, the Righteous: A Definitive Biography, Central Cultural Fund, 1993, p. 45).

While the Kalinga War, as described in the 13th Major Rock Edict, significantly shaped Ashoka’s policies of non-violence and Dharma propagation, the current wording inaccurately implies he embraced Buddhism only after the war. The traditional narrative of a dramatic post-Kalinga conversion, derived from later Buddhist texts like the Ashokavadana, is considered by Thapar to be a hagiographic embellishment that prioritizes moral storytelling over historical accuracy (Thapar, 1961, pp. 31–32).

I propose revising the sentence to reflect the epigraphic and scholarly evidence, while maintaining NPOV and acknowledging the war’s impact:

Proposed Revision:

Ashoka’s campaign against the Kalingans in about 260 BCE, though successful, led to immense loss of life and misery. While Ashoka had already become a Buddhist lay follower by around 263 BCE, as indicated by the Maski Minor Rock Edict, the war’s devastation deepened his commitment to non-violence and Buddhist principles, as reflected in his later edicts.

This revision aligns with primary sources (Maski and Bhabra Edicts) and reliable secondary sources, ensuring verifiability and historical precision. Below, I address potential pushback to strengthen the proposal.

Anticipated Pushback and Resolutions:

1. Pushback: Editors may argue that the traditional narrative, based on Buddhist texts like the Ashokavadana or Mahavamsa, supports the post-Kalinga conversion and is widely accepted.
2. * Resolution: While the Ashokavadana and Mahavamsa provide valuable cultural context, they are later hagiographic texts (composed centuries after Ashoka) and are less reliable than contemporary primary sources like the Maski Minor Rock Edict. Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy prioritizes primary sources and scholarly interpretations over narrative traditions (Wikipedia:Verifiability). Thapar explicitly notes that the Ashokavadana’s account is “embellished” for Buddhist moral purposes (Thapar, 1961, p. 32). The Maski Edict, as a direct inscription from Ashoka’s reign, takes precedence, and scholars like Singh corroborate its timeline (Singh, 2008, p. 333).
3. Pushback: Editors may claim the current wording reflects a “consensus” view and that changing it requires overwhelming evidence.
4. * Resolution: The proposed revision does not reject the Kalinga War’s significance but clarifies the timeline based on epigraphic evidence, which is the gold standard for historical accuracy. The Maski Edict’s dating (263–262 BCE) is well-documented, and multiple scholars (Thapar, Singh, Allen, Guruge) support an earlier Buddhist affiliation. Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy encourages representing significant scholarly views proportionally (Wikipedia:NPOV). The current wording overemphasizes the Ashokavadana narrative at the expense of primary evidence, which the proposed revision corrects.
5. Pushback: Editors may argue that the Bhabra Edict or family ties (e.g., Devi’s influence) are speculative or insufficient to prove pre-Kalinga conversion.
6. * Resolution: The Bhabra Edict’s content, referencing specific Buddhist texts, suggests a depth of engagement consistent with prior familiarity, as Allen argues (Allen, 2012, pp. 105–106). While Devi’s influence is partly derived from the Mahavamsa, Guruge cross-references it with epigraphic evidence, such as Ashoka’s donations to Buddhist sites pre-Kalinga (Guruge, 1993, p. 45). These sources complement the Maski Edict’s explicit timeline, forming a robust case. If editors demand more evidence, I can provide additional references, such as John S. Strong’s analysis of Ashoka’s early Buddhist ties (The Legend of King Aśoka, Princeton University Press, 1983, p. 207).
7. Pushback: Editors may suggest the revision complicates the narrative for general readers.
8. * Resolution: The proposed revision is concise and accessible, clearly stating Ashoka’s pre-Kalinga Buddhist affiliation while acknowledging the war’s impact. It enhances accuracy without sacrificing readability, aligning with Wikipedia’s goal of providing fact-based, reliable information. If editors prefer simpler phrasing, I’m open to refining the wording, such as: “Ashoka, already a Buddhist follower by 263 BCE per the Maski Edict, deepened his non-violent principles after the Kalinga War (260 BCE).”

Conclusion: The proposed revision ensures historical accuracy by prioritizing primary epigraphic evidence over later textual traditions, supported by reputable scholars. I welcome feedback, additional sources, or suggestions to refine the wording to achieve consensus.

References:

• Thapar, Romila. Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas. Oxford University Press, 1961, pp. 30–32.
• Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India. Pearson, 2008, p. 333.
• Allen, Charles. Ashoka: The Search for India’s Lost Emperor. Little, Brown, 2012, pp. 105–106.
• Guruge, Ananda W. P. Asoka, the Righteous: A Definitive Biography. Central Cultural Fund, 1993, p. 45.

CorrectorEdicts (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is pretty much an LLM response you have pasted here. And LLMs are well known to hallucinate. And it is also a waste of time to read through this entire thing when half of as many words would do the work if the proposal has any actual substance. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::are the references provided wrong though or the arguments for that matter? whether or not this is a LLM response, what you forgot is that this is not a discussion on whether LLMs are known to hallucinate or not. talk on the evidences for the topic if you have anything to say on it. even let me edit it for you, if it helps you with discussion. CorrectorEdicts (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You just fed the above comment to a LLM and asked it to shorten it, didn't you? If you had edited it yourself, you wouldn't have removed page ranges from references to shorten the above text. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::still no discussion on the topic itself. you're just a spammer aren't you? lol CorrectorEdicts (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Take me to WP:ANI if I am a spammer. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 09:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

{{requested move/dated|History of South Asia|protected=History of India}}

:History of India → {{no redirect|History of South Asia}} – The article covers all the Indian subcontinent, not only the present country of India. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, India remains the common name for the historical region despite the new modern meaning. [https://www.britannica.com/place/India/History The Britannica article] has the same scope. And not that they're all RS, but the entire first page for "history of India" on my google search refers to this topic rather than limiting the term to the modern state. CMD (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• If this is about the whole region, I support. I'm not sure whether it is supposed to be about the whole region or not. Please note that History of Pakistan also exists. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The article does not cover the history of the present (post-1947) country of India. Nor does it cover, beyond the extent to which they interacted with India, the histories of Afghanistan, Bhutan, the Maldives, Nepal, or Sri Lanka, all by some definitions part of South Asia. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, per both. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yeah, oppose, but what about "History of the Indian Subcontinent"? That's the language used in the {{about}} template.

:Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::"History of the Indian Subcontinent" was discussed in an RfC and in a RM without a consensus to move. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)