Talk:History of India#Proposal

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

{{cait}}

: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.

: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)

{{caib}}

{{collapse llm top}}

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.

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)

{{collapse llm bottom}}

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

the "Balochistan" is misspelled too many times in this page, Seharazadpk (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I don't see the word "Balochistan" in the article anywhere. meamemg (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have fixed one instance of "Belochistan" to "Balochistan". The other "Baluchistan" is part of a quote, so didn't change that. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Balochistan is the post-colonial Pakistani spelling. During the British Raj, the spelling was "Baluchistan." See its entry in the Imperial Gazetteer of India(although it does acknowledge "Balochistan" to be the "more correct" spelling.) See [https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/reference/gazetteer/query.py?object=271&bookid=DS405.1.I34_V06&display_type=page_display#gsc.tab=0 here]. All in all, I'm not sure we can change spellings post facto (i.e. retroactively). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Fowler&fowler, I hope you are doing well. I wanted to discuss your recent revert of my edit. You mentioned that "the western and northwestern extents weren't clearly defined in the first place." However, many mainstream authors have indeed mapped the western and northwestern extent of the Mughal Empire, including notable scholars like [https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/reference/schwartzberg/query.py?display_type=image_display&object=186#gsc.tab=0 Joseph E. Schwartzberg], [https://books.google.co.in/books?id=QY4zdTDwMAQC&source=gbs_navlinks_s Burton Stein], and [https://archive.org/details/indiabeforeeurop0000ashe/page/116/mode/2up Catherine B. Asher]. This is why I removed the previous map based on Joppen's work. Initially, I considered creating a new map myself, but I decided against it since Avanitputra already has several well-crafted maps that align with Schwartzberg's findings with different stages of expansions. Hence, I kindly request you to reconsider your position on this matter. Thank you! Rawn3012 (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)