Jump to content

Talk:Maurya Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map Update

[edit]

Wikipedia shouldn't promote a self created map using proposed extents of empires. The existing map leaves is inconsistent and fails to fill in the political entities that exist in the time contemporary of the Maurya Empire. Joshua Jonathan stop gatekeeping. Rancid Boar (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The maps have the support of the majority of editors who have edited this page or taken part in the talk page discussions. Please don't accuse Joshua of something they are not doing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most academic sources use the complete map, not the one you wiki scholars are trying to portray. "Majority of editors" on Wikipedia isn't credible, this site is the only resource promoting the skeletal map. Every historical map is infered since the exact extant of the empire and boundaries were not defined. You have failed to provide a reasonable explanation of the entities that existed within the Maurya Empire. Instead of being content with a limited skeleton, why can't you editors fill in the map appropriatel? Rancid Boar (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the previous discussions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve noticed that there are inconsistencies with the current map, especially with the coordinates and western border. I agree with Rancid Boar who tried to bring awareness to this. If you look at the left part of the map you’ll see it is not consistent with the Joppen map, the map which is based on… not to mention that most academic maps of the Mauryans show it extends further west. And the Joppen map itself shows the border facing the Gulf of Oman ends precisely around the coordinates of (25.1815245, 61.5714517) while the current map shows this point ending much further east then it should be, thus the border should extend from the mentioned coordinate up to (28.7177855, 64.0532003), otherwise the map is not concise with the Joppen map which the creator said it’d based of. Even the geographic details shown on the Joppen map point to this. (Discopleasant (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
It is not described as based on a Joppen map. NebY (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the creator of the map said it is. By clicking the image and scrolling down it takes you to the edit history of the image, and in one discussion the creator of the current map said he made the map based entirely on the Joppen map. (Discopleasant (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Antiidistorian I believe you talked about this with the creator before. The map isn’t 100% accurate. There are many maps out there that have depict the Mauryan empire yet we use one that has to follow the Joppen map for some reason. I looked at the Joppen map and the Joppen map itself shows the borders of the empire ending precisely around the coordinates of (25.1815245, 61.5714517) in a bay known as the “Jiwani Bay”, yet the current-made map shows the borders ending much further east. Even the Joppen map shows the geography of the area where you can clearly see where the bay is. (Discopleasant (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Well-informed for a newbie. And which map exactly are you talking about, the 'holes-map' or the 'one piece' map? The 'one piece' map is based on Joppen, and shows the western border further west than the 'holes map'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 02:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t make personal attacks like you did to my talk page. And I’m referring to the one piece map. There’s a minor error in the current map that doesn’t align with the Joppen map, the details which I showed to Avantiputra7. I wanted to check with him first. Let’s continue the conversation here. (Discopleasant (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
India in 250 BCE Joppen

Just to be clear, this is the image the current full map is based on and it's extending into what's now Jiwani bay. Should we replace the current full map with the original Joppen map? it seems like the most accurate depiction. (Discopleasant (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

minor correction

[edit]

"strict-but-fair" change into "strict but fair" 103.110.48.13 (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jambudvipa

[edit]

I suggest to add Magadh Empire as well as empire of Jambudvipa in the native name section TuberGotTubed (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that (a) you need modern academic sources and (2) many such sources before you add the conventional long name parameter. If there are alternate names, you can always add them in the section title "Etymology". RegentsPark (comment) 05:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2024

[edit]

Iran should be added to the "today part of" subsection. Parts of modern-day Iran (Sistan and Baluchistan Province and Khorasan Province) were in the Mauryan empire.[1] JGallagher83 (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/mauryan-empire/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

[edit]

Iran should be added to the "Today part of" subsection.[1] 174.62.255.4 (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Hinduism"

[edit]

@PadFoot2008: infoboxes summarize the article; you're tipping the border of WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NB: even Brahmanism is hardly supported by the sources; rather the opposite. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is ironical! You are the one who is unilaterally, disruptively replacing Hinduism with Brahmanism all over the Wiki and when I revert your edits, you say that I am disruptive. PadFoot (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stick to scholarly sources, you push a Hindutva-narrative. "Hinduism" is not supported by the sources, and even "Brahmanism" is questionable. The long-standing version says "Brahmanism"; see, for example, 17 october 2023, or 23 november 2021. "Hinduism" was first added here, with a source (Sailendra Nath Sen, Ancient Indian History and Civilization) which says "During the Mauryan perid Brahmanism was an important religion." Nath Sen is outright contradicted by Bronkhorst and Omvedt, the other two sources for "Brahmanism." Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan, if it is the long standing version then I wouldn't revert any further. Also I don't "push" any narrative. You support the section of scholars that consider the term "Hinduism" to encompass the religions in India from the classical period onwards, while I see the scholars that consider "Hinduism" as encompassing the post-synthesis religions as well as Brahmanism and Vedism as being more plausible. If you are going to be making personal attacks on me, and claim that I support some weird stupid propaganda, then I do not know what to think of you anymore. PadFoot (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's even worse: you reverted this edit of mine, from 9 september 2023, edit-summary

correction after checking the sources; they say "Brahmanism," as expected; what we today call "Hinduism" just *started* to emerge at the time of the Mauryan Empire, partly as a Brahmanical response to the influence and popularity of Buddhism

Instead of checking the sources, you removed the quotes from those sources diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]