Talk:Ashoka/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ashoka. 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 https://web.archive.org/20120205221756/http://www.ballet.co.uk/magazines/yr_00/dec00/rr_rev_crt_1000.htm to http://www.ballet.co.uk/magazines/yr_00/dec00/rr_rev_crt_1000.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 12:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thapar's Penguin History misinterpreted

I have moved from the article to here the following two sentences added in this edit:

Romila Thapar notes that modern day historians question his conversion into Buddhism, in the aftermath of the Kalinga war. She argues that Ashoka curiously refrained from engraving his confession anywhere.

This is not an accurate paraphrase of the source. Thapar does not question whether or not Ashoka converted to Buddhism, only says that his conversion was more gradual than has been stated in the past:

The destruction caused by the [Kalinga] war filled the King with remorse. His earlier perfunctory interest in Buddhist teaching was rekindled and this time it became a central pursuit. It has been stated in the past that he was dramatically converted to Buddhism immediately after the battle ... But his was not an overnight conversion; he states in one of his inscriptions that only after a period of two and a half years did he become a zealous devotee of Buddhism.

References

--Worldbruce (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Ancient History Encyclopedia is not a reliable source

I have removed from the article two sentences added in this edit because the cited source does not fit Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Ancient History Encyclopedia is essentially a group blog, closer to Wikipedia than Encyclopedia Britannica. The author of its Ashoka article is not a professional historian, but an archaeology student who is also a freelance writer. The sources he used are two other articles from the same questionable source, an encyclopedia, a dated popular history, and one recent book from an academic publisher (which of these, if any, support individual statements is unclear because there are no inline citations and no inline attribution). The reliability of Ancient History Encyclopedia, and this writer in particular, have been discussed before at the reliable source noticeboard.

I have no objection to the statements being reintroduced if supported by reliable sources, although the sentence, "Archaeological evidence for Buddhism between the death of the Buddha and the time of Ashoka is scarce; after the time of Ashoka it is abundant", would be more appropriate in section Ashoka#Global spread of Buddhism than in Ashoka#Buddhist conversion. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Reason for revert

@Kautilya3 Does the line have to be controversial to require citation? Non-controversial content can be added to Wikipedia even without source? Please clarify. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this content was "added" recently, was it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

How's that relevant? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Highly relevant. For newly added content, you can demand sources. For the content that has been there a long time, tagging is the best course unless you seriously disbelieve it, made an effort to verify it and failed. The criterion for Wiki content is not sourcing, but verifiablity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Capankaismilyo, while it is true that unsourced material may be removed, it is not the case that it must be removed. You're removing large chunks of unsourced text, at least some of which can be easily sourced by a quick google search or by just looking to see if another wikipedia article has similar content that is sourced. Much better to search for a source or to tag the material with a cn and then come back later (much later) to see if a source has been added (that's why the cn tag has a date field). --regentspark (comment) 12:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Sanskrit

The name Asoka is given here in its Sanskrit form Aśoka or अशोक and Anglicized as Ashoka. There are two problems here. First the man did not speak or use Sanskrit in any of his inscriptions. All indications are that his language was a North Eastern Middle-Indic language or Prakrit. He himself would have pronounced it Asoka or असोक. The principle texts that record his life other than his own Prakrit inscription are all in Pāḷi, another Middle-Indic language, which also spells it Asoka. So the use of Sanskrit here is ahistorical and anachronistic. Secondly, the name Asoka was associated with him while he was still a kumāra or prince. Once crowned rāja (or lāja in his own language) he used the name Piyadasi (Pāḷi Piyadassi) or the epithet Devānaṃpiya. He was Prince Asoka or King Piyadasi, but never King Asoka. See for example, Harry Falk's article on the edict preamble at Panguraria: https://www.academia.edu/26962426/The_Preamble_at_Panguraria Jayarava (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point - you can try a move request. People may opposite it on WP:COMMONNAME grounds, though. A large number of scholars (including Henry Falk in the above link) use Aśoka or Ashoka in their writings. utcursch | talk 14:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ashoka

Ashoka is not how you spell his name. It should be either Asoka or Aśoka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.38.116 (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Aśoka Mynameispass (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Should the article be protected against anonymous editing?

@JimRenge: and others, i have seen a considerable amount of vandalism edits on this article. Is it possible to protect the article against anonymous or not-confirmed editors?--S Khemadhammo (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You can request semi-protection here. JimRenge (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@JimRenge:, thanks. I've requested so now.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

"who renounced it all"?

Was it Chandragupta Maurya "who renounced it all to become a Jain monk"? Or Ashoka (as I had understood)? Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: It was Chandragupta Maurya as detailed in his wiki. This statement should actually be qualified here with a note stating that this is only according to Jaina traditional sources.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ashoka. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328144411/http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html to http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Kanaganahalli photos

The current infobox image is more or less OR. It would be ideal to use photographs (like these) from the Kanaganahalli stupa excavation that actually represent Ashoka. If anyone knows how to get their hands on a non-copyvio version of these photos, please upload them to Commons and add it to this article. Thanks.--—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully someone can get a proper image from Kanaganahalli sometime... Great idea! In the meantime, there are a few depictions of Ashoka at Sanchi, which, dated to the Satavahana period, are only removed 2-3 centuries from the historical Ashoka. One of them shows Ashoka with two of his wives after he saw the poor state of preservation of the Pipal tree. Another shows Ashoka visiting the stupa of Ramagrama in his war charriot. I have added the stories and references on the image information at Commons.पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• 
  Ashoka and his two queens at Sanchi.
• 
  Ashoka's visit to the Ramagrama.
• 
  Ashoka and his Queen at the Deer Park.

@पाटलिपुत्र: These are great and the current choice for the infobox is gorgeous. Thanks! (Props also to Anandajoti.)—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: thank you. JimRenge (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

OR map

@Avantiputra7: Your previous map was more in keeping with the maps found in books such as Atlas of World History and Societies, Networks, and Transitions which are both RS, if not the greatest RS. The new one looks to be OR in comparison. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: Interestingly, that's the opposite of the critique my old map had received (a while ago - don't have the exact link handy). Apparently, some editor(s) thought it was too much on the side of synthesis or OR, and said a direct copy of the Kulke & Rothermund map would have been preferable... so I thought I'd just go ahead and do that. But I don't really have a strong preference for one or the other, though. If we're going with the old map, might want to shorten the references on its info page to just the ones you posted. Avantiputra7 (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Avantiputra7: My bad and my apologies. Based on your edit summaries and the file description, I was under the impression that you were basing the second map on the descriptions/hypotheses of K&R and Stein rather than an actual map. I'm still divided on this though. KANS sides with your old map. Charles Allen (not really RS) does too. I can't confirm Thapar or Lahiri, but based on a Google Books search, they might only provide the usual map marking the edicts and pillars. Let's hear what others have to say on this. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: No worries. I agree that input from other editors would be helpful. Avantiputra7 (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps of use;

• "Chandragupta founded the Mauryan Empire. His empire encompassed the whole of northern India and Afghanistan." -- Alfred S. Bradford, Pamela M. Bradford (2001). With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World. Praeger. p. 125

• "The vastness of the Mauryan empire, from Afghanistan in the north to Karnataka in the south and from Kathiawad in the west to Kalinga in the east (if not as far as north Bengal), is considered on the basis of the spots where Asoka's edicts were (...)" -- Bharati Ray, ed. Different Types of History: Project of History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization (Vol. XIV, part 4). Pearson Longman. p. 24

• "The Maurya Empire extended from Afghanistan in the north to the deep south in India except for the southern tip of (...)" -- Stanton, Andrea L., ed. (2012) Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: An Encyclopedia p. 41

• "By 300, Chandragupta ruled over an India that extended from modern Afghanistan to Burma and from the Himalayas to nearly the southern tip of the subcontinent." -- David W. Del Testa, ed. (2014) Government Leaders, Military Rulers and Political Activists p. 30

• "It has been already shown (Ch. II) that the empire of Candragupta extended from Afghanistan to Mysore and that of Ashoka was far greater in extent including all the Dekhan and South India upto the frontiers of the Tamil Kingdoms." -- V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar (1993) Motilal Banarsidass Publ., The Mauryan Polity. p. 197

• "He [Ashoka] controlled an empire (the largest until British rule) that ranged from Bangladesh in the east to Afghanistan in the north and included much of the southern part of the subcontinent." -- Denise Patry Leidy (2008) The Art of Buddhism: An Introduction to Its History & Meaning p. 9

• Saul, David (2009). The Mauryan Empire. In Sturgeon, Alison, ed. War: From Ancient Egypt to Iraq. Dorling Kindersley. ISBN 9781405341332) pp. 54-55. (basically confirms the story mentioned by sources listed above).

- LouisAragon (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2018 not good

67.8.138.173 (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 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. NiciVampireHeart 03:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Request to change the name from Ashoka to Ashoka the Great.

2405:204:E382:7D5F:9CE8:A435:CD45:3846 (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 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. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Chakravartin

What's the deal with the Chakravartin at the top of the info box? The linked article says that this is a sanskrit word meaning an ideal ruler. While Ashoka may or may not have been one, is it really appropriate to put "Ideal ruler" on top of an info box? --regentspark (comment) 17:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not appropriate on top of the info box. I have removed it. JimRenge (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2019

I would Like to Edit this Page Please. Anonymousiscoming (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected which means you need to be an autoconfirmed user to edit it directly (see Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Autoconfirmed_and_confirmed_users. You can also request changes to the article here and someone will make the edits for you. --regentspark (comment) 14:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Chakra

The reference to Dependent Origination in the discussion of the wheel is anachronistic and the expression "12 Laws of Dependent Termination" does not appear elsewhere in Buddhist literature in English (e.g., https://www.google.nl/search?rlz=1C1GCEB_en&biw=1680&bih=939&tbm=bks&ei=M9AMXajLNNLUgQast7S4CQ&q=%22Dependent+Termination%22+buddhism&oq=%22Dependent+Termination%22+buddhism&gs_l=psy-ab.3...767.1935.0.2078.9.9.0.0.0.0.95.520.9.9.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.woc-uviwjy4). It's just fancy, drawn from the speculations of a Sinhalese monk (http://www.sundaytimes.lk/110710/Plus/plus_10.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.187.56 (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Improper Sequence of Events : Kalinga war and Conversion to Buddhism

"Ashoka waged a destructive war against the state of Kalinga (modern Odisha),[8] which he conquered in about 260 BCE.[9] In about 263 BCE, he converted to Buddhism[8] after witnessing the mass deaths of the Kalinga War....."

263 BCE comes before 260 BCE and hence the reasoning for his conversion is inappropriately suggested. Souryavarenya (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge Padmavati

I propose to merge and redirect Padmavati (wife of Ashoka) to this article as it's only 1 line article. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 09:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Support per reason given.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

oppose no need 175.145.218.221 (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

oppose queens are generally notable, article quality isn't a reason for merge. GuzzyG (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

oppose per above. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

using "Ceylon" to identify Sri Lanka

in this article, it talks about how Sri Lanka got buddhism "Prominent in this cause were his son Mahinda (Mahendra) and daughter Sanghamitra (whose name means "friend of the Sangha"), who established Buddhism in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka).[42]" Here the "Ceylon" is not necessary. name "Ceylon" was used by British while sri lanka was one of their colony. It was neither used by Indians at that time nor by Sri Lankans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chathushkag (talk • contribs) 01:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Ashoka's birth date is wrong

He was born in 291 BC [User:Gopeshnetam7|Gopeshnetam7]] (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source. I notice that the current date is sourced. --regentspark (comment) 15:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions about character Radhagupta

I myself read ashokavadnam where I found Radhagupta was a son of prime minister and he helped Ashoka to kill his half brother Sushima. He and two more minister made charcoal in the place and Radhagupta told Sushima if he wanted to become king he had to kill Ashoka. In such Sushima dead. Kashish pall (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

John s.strong around page 210. I found the source which I described. Kashish pall (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism (263 BCE) after Kalinga War (260 BCE)? But 263 BCE comes before 260 BCE!

According to the present article, and some inaccessible sources that have been cited in this article, Ashoka converts to Buddhism in about 263 BCE. The Kalinga War takes place in about 260 BCE. This article on Ashoka states that his conversion to Buddhism happened after the Kalinga War. However, the mentioned dates state a different fact. 263 BCE is an year that comes before 260 BCE. So the events in 263 BCE must have happened before 260 BCE. This begs to question, did Ashoka really convert to Buddhism after the Kalinga War? Or are the dates wrong?

There are two possibilities here:

1. Ashoka did convert to Buddhism before the Kalinga War. However, the epiphany dawned upon him after the War and he took upon the religion more seriously. He changed the course of his actions, became Dharmashoka, and all that. Just that he probably had converted to Buddhism before the war.
2. Or, Ashoka converted to Buddhism after the War, and in that case the dates are clearly wrong. The wording needs to be changed to reflect that the dates are wrong. It should account for the fact that 263 BCE (Buddhism) comes before 260 BCE (Kalinga War). So if his conversion happened after the War, then the dates are definitely wrong.

We should also look into the sources cited here. Are they reliable? Are they open to all? At the current stage, one cannot go through the sources. Therefore it is not clear how the source has been cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MycrofD (talk • contribs) 03:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC) (My apologies for having not signed this earlier. MycrofD (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC) )

The lead needs to be re-worked entirely. The dates are estimates of different authors, and shouldn't be mentioned as facts in the lead. As mentioned in Ashoka#Kalinga war and conversion to Buddhism, the chronology of Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism isn't crystal clear. utcursch | talk 21:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

In this blog about Ashoka it is clearly mentioned that he follow only one religion Buddhism but this is not so true because for ex if i have a great interest in Buddhism and i read a lot and also do a lot for Buddhism like Giving donation or promoting Buddhism because of its certain principles but that is not my religion ,i only have interest in that religion this isn't mean that i follow buddhism This is same as in the case of Ashoka after the war of kalinga ,might Ashoka have develop some interest towards Buddhism and also he started promoting Buddhism but this does not mean that he became Buddhist We read in many scriptures that he is the devotee of lord Shiva and how after the war of Kalinga he stop worshipping Lord Shiva and start worshipping Lord Buddha this doesn't make sense for this to proof we should have some hard proof about Ashoka religion There is some thing from which we mighy say that he is a follower of Hinduism and have some interest in Buddhism 1) Satyamev jayate - It is inscribed in the Devanagari script at the base of the Lion Capital of Ashoka and in an adaptation of the Lion Capital of Ashoka which was erected around 250 BCE at Sarnath, Varanasi in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh Satyameva Jayate" is a part of a mantra from the Hindu scripture Mundaka Upanishad. 2)Aksoka never given direct donation for any Buddhism cultural programmes or monastries From these two points we should conclude that Ashoka actually follow Sanatan Dharm or Shaivism and have a little interest towards Buddhism PARTH SHRIVASTAVA (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edit request is not clear. Please suggest edits on the form "Please change X to Y" citing reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Invalid SBN

The Standard Book Number of the last entry in the bibliography (Thapar 1980) seems to be invalid; neither Special:BookSources/0-19-660379 6 nor Special:BookSources/19-660379 6 lead anywhere, and the book's WorldCat entry does not mention any (I)SBN. Should we remove the identifier? Glades12 (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't find the ISBN for the 1980 edition online either. But it is used in the text so we can't remove it. I'd leave the ISBN in for now (@Fowler&fowler: in case they have a copy).--RegentsPark (comment) 19:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Actually, that source is used only once in the lead paragraph. It is based "verbatim" on Thapar's 1961 book. But Thapar has now dissociated herself with that view (that the edicts defined the boundary of the geographical extent). See Coningham, Robin; Young, Ruth (31 August 2015). The Archaeology of South Asia: From the Indus to Asoka, c.6500 BCE–200 CE. Cambridge University Press. pp. 411–. ISBN 978-0-521-84697-4. See also the second map in the Maurya Empire page. It has the alternative, and modern, view. It mentions the historians that hold this view, including Thapar. The reference is to Coningham's book, but it gives the name of the historians and you can search their name along with "Mauryas" "autonomous areas" or somesuch. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This is an SBN, not an ISBN. The SBN (linked above) is an older identifier that contains nine digits; ISBNs contain ten or thirteen. Glades12 (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Karnataka?

In introduction it claims Karnataka was not part of Mauryan Empire, yet there are 7 Edicts of Ashoka in the state extending to Chitradurga District, more than in any other state. Karanataka should be removed from introduction. Tamil Nadu and Kerala is however correct, as there are no Mauryan inspections or edits there. 117.198.117.21 (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Religion Buddhism

Hi @Joshua Jonathan: can I have your opinion on this addition of POV comment into the article by @Dhawangupta:. I have reverted his addition and He is restoring it back without creating a consensus first. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It's indeed not what Bentley notes. But, if I remember correctly, some scholars doubtif Ashoka converted to Buddhism at all, or 'simply' promoted dhamma' in a generic sense. See also Ashoka's policy of Dhamma. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I think Dhawangupta is not trying to dispute Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism, but the timing of the conversion (before or after the Kalinga War) and the statement which implies that Ashoka converted to Buddhism immediately after the Kalinga War, saddened by the death and destruction caused by the war. As mentioned in the section Ashoka#Kalinga war and conversion to Buddhism, a Minor Rock Edict suggests that he became a Buddhist upasaka more than two years after the war. Plus, based on the Sri Lankan tradition, some scholars suggest that he had already converted to Buddhism before the war. utcursch | talk 15:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan and Utcursch: Thanks for responding. He is not disputing the timing. Based on his edit diff, he seems to be adding a redundant attribution. There is no dispute that he had converted to Buddhism. So I had reverted it calling it unnecessary. If Dhawangupta feels it is important to attribute the info about his conversion then I believe he needs to make his case here on the talk page, instead of edit warring.--Walrus Ji (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

utcursch Thanks. You have understood my edit. And, it is in line with the present historical understanding. I suggest again to Walrus Ji to read the article and sources mentioned, as I already asked in my first undone of the revert.Dhawangupta (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan and Utcursch: What version of the lead do you support. I mean should I self-revert and restore Dhawangupta's "attributions" or leave the lead as it is right now (where it simply says "he converted to Buddhism") and leave the finer details/disputes to be addressed in the Kalinga war section. I understand Dhawangupta's justification but I feel there is no need to self revert. If others think that attribution helps then I may self revert following consensus. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe mention the war bit first, and then the Buddhism bit, and specify that according to modern scholars, this conversion was gradual. utcursch | talk 19:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, Utcursch, and Walrus Ji: My objection is to the statement - "He converted to Buddhism after Kalinga War." On the contrary, according to Sri Lankan sources, he was already a Buddhist. Some scholars, due to miscalculation of dates, have assumed that, if he was already a Buddhist, he wouldn't attack Kalinga. Hence, he must have converted later. This assumption is atleast disputed, if not out rightly false. Hence, I corrected the statement to "According to an interpretation of his Edicts, he converted to Buddhism after Kalinga War." I exhort Walrus to self-revert, since he couldn't give proper justification for reverting me. Thanks. Dhawangupta (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, Utcursch, and Dhawangupta: Considering the discussion so far. is the version below acceptable to you? Changes in block.Walrus Ji (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ashoka waged a destructive war against the state of Kalinga (modern Odisha), which he conquered in about 260 BCE. According to an interpretation of his Edicts, he had waged Kalinga War out of a desire for conquest and which reportedly directly resulted in more than 100,000 deaths and 150,000 deportations. He converted to Buddhism after witnessing the mass deaths of the war. He is remembered for the Ashoka pillars and edicts, for sending Buddhist monks to Sri Lanka and Central Asia, and for establishing monuments marking several significant sites in the life of Gautama Buddha.

@Joshua Jonathan, Utcursch, and Walrus Ji: He waged a war against Kalinga is not disputed. However, his conversion to Buddhism after or before Kalinga war is disputed. Hence, I propose following:

Ashoka waged a destructive war against the state of Kalinga (modern Odisha), which he conquered in about 260 BCE. He had waged Kalinga War out of a desire for conquest and which reportedly directly resulted in more than 100,000 deaths and 150,000 deportations. According to an interpretation of his Edicts, he converted to Buddhism after witnessing the mass deaths of the war. He is remembered for the Ashoka pillars and edicts, for sending Buddhist monks to Sri Lanka and Central Asia, and for establishing monuments marking several significant sites in the life of Gautama Buddha. Dhawangupta (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Mis-interpretation of Cattle Slaughter Ban

Article says "However, he did not prohibit common cattle slaughter or beef eating.[180]". Bu source is very clear that all animal slaughter were banned, but cattle was not preferentially treated/specifically prohibited. Exact opposite of the sentence. The sentence should be changed to "However, he did not specifically prohibit common cattle slaughter or beef eating.[180]" to be consistent with the source.

2405:201:D00E:9823:EC58:FD2D:AC70:1A97 (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Adi

The source does not state that all animal slaughter was banned. It states that the king discouraged injuring living beings, and banned slaughter for ritual sacrifice. As mentioned in the "Dharma" section of the article, according to Ashoka's own inscriptions, animals were killed for food in the royal kitchen. utcursch | talk 19:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Why mix up sources? source 180 is specifically states that "Buddhism took a stand against cruelty and animal sacrifice but did not single out common cattle for special consideration". So if he allowed slaughter of all animals for eating, why cattle is mentioned? Should be changed to some thing like "animal slaughter was allowed for consumption". He did not prohibit any meat eating, don't understand why only cattle is mentioned?

2405:201:D00E:9823:B8A7:2F:8741:9F30 (talk)Adi — Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

title change

can we change the title to ashoka the great . it sounds more fitting

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2021

Ashoka converted to Buddhism after Kalinga war to he converted prior 2 years to Kalinga War.

Also add how his decision to kill all Jain's lead to the death of his only sibling and that he killed all his stepbrothers prior to ascending to throne Don't know128800 (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

I need to make some improvements in the fluency of English 117.217.3.79 (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. —Sirdog (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2021

202.89.69.23 (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add that , Samrat ashok was belong to the shepherd community i.e. Gadariya community

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Kushwaha Maurya Shakya Saini

गुजरात के कच्छ प्रान्त से जुड़े गांधीधाम में एक सक्रीय संगठन के रूप में प्रभावशाली रूप से निरंन्तर आगे बढ़ रहे है। और हम अपने सक्रिय प्रयास के बल पर अपने अस्तित्व को और मजबूत करते जा रहे है। एकत्व इस मजबूत प्रयास से हम सभी बंधुओं तक पहुच रहे है और उन्हें सशक्त बना रहे है।

हमारा उद्देश्य..!

हमारे समाज के उत्थान में हमारे बहुत से महान विभूतियों का अमूल्य योगदान रहा है, जिस प्रकार से हमारे वंशजो ने हमारे समाज को इस उचाई पर ले कर आया है, अब हम सभी का भी दायित्व हम सभी एक जुट हो कर अपने समाज को एक नई दिशा प्रदान करना है। अपने समाज से जुड़े सभी जरूरत मंद भाइयो और बहनों का हर सम्भव मदत पहुचा कर उन्हें सशक्त बनाने का प्रयास किया जा रहा है — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajkushwah2004 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2021

Askoka had already patronized Buddhism years before the Kalinga Massacre in the Kalinga War. Thus, the Kalinga Massacre didn't changed Ashoka's mind to convert into Buddhism from Hinduism. Ashoka was an expansionist man. Thus he couldn't accept an independent region near his Empire's capital Patliputra. Thus, he attacked the Kalinga region and annexed it. Askoka was a vicious, cruel, an expansionist and mass murderer by nature, and no Hinduism let him to kill about 100000 warriors in the Kalinga war. Ancient Indian Facts (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

 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. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong but the section is in need of a rewrite. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Edits of सत्यशोधक

@सत्यशोधक: The issue with your edits is not whether or not he was a Jain. Rather, your sources are weak. The 1877 book review and a blog are not considered WP:RS. Also, your edit summary with "simply implies" is WP:OR. Find recent scholarly sources and you won't have a problem. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Locked

Have relations deteriorated so much that people need to be locked out? Please unlock. If you can't do that could some lofty admin at least fix the link loop in the first para, as Piodasses currently merely redirects to this article. Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.228.44 (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing this out. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I've also unprotected the page. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality questioned

Under the section, "Violence after Conversion", the book by Danvers is cited to question whether Ashoka did actually persecute non-Buddhists.

However, each chapter of Danvers' book give an essay in favor ("pro") of each claim made and one against ("con"). This article only cites the "con" essay, which maintains that Ashoka did not use violence; it does not mention the "pro" argument made in the book for Ashoka's (possible) violence.

Such an ommission smacks of bias to me.Mwidunn (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Ashoka the Great

Would be nice if you changed the page heading to "Ashoka the Great" rather than just "Ashoka". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varenxvkx (talk • contribs) 22:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

No way, per WP:HONORIFICS and WP:COMMONNAME. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

What's the problem? Varenxvkx (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Minor edits

The person who edited this page, most probably has no idea of Indian history. What does "north Indian tradition" mean? The sources/traditions are not even mentioned. Ashoka the Great and other Mauryan emperors ruled even southern India, so I don't know what sense does it make to call it "north Indian tradition". Please change it. 223.184.31.198 (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Read the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Ashoka 'the Great'

Why is the heading of the article not 'Ashoka the Great'? why doesn't it include 'the Great' like it does for other great emperors of the world? Please move it to 'Ashoka the Great'. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varenxvkx (talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

No, we should not move it to 'Ashoka the Great'. Ashoka appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable/academic English sources. JimRenge (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Ofcourse the sources would not use 'the Great' title always for Ashoka the great like all other emperors. There are many emperors who are called just by their name in common sources but their wikipedia article title does have 'the Great' after their name. Please move it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varenxvkx (talk • contribs) 17:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

As I have mentioned before WP:COMMONNAME is the relevant English Wikipedia policy for naming of articles, and Ashoka appears to be the common name in reliable/academic English sources. Please feel free to ask experienced editors for advice at the WP:TEAHOUSE if you need more info. JimRenge (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Summary of main points as a section?

I'm not familiar with Ashoka, so was wanting to find out more about him.

I found the total structure incredibly hard to read or understand as there is a lot of information and events but almost everyone is refuted by multiple different sources.

Is it possible we could add a summary section of the key events that are not under dispute?

I feel like having read this, I can't really recall any details or a summary of his life due to this. 202.89.159.171 (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC) THERE IS A SUMMARY SECTION YOU CAN JUST REPLACE THE "EN" OF WIKIPEDIA WITH SIMPLE! IF YOU STILL DON'T GET IT YOU CAN GO TO YOUTUBE AND SEARCH SIMPLE WIKIPEDIA AND IT'LL TELL YOU HOW TO OPEN IT. :)

The lead is supposed be a summary of the article body. The current lead needs to be updated to accurately summarize the article body. utcursch | talk 08:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

No mention of kalingan princess

In the Kalinga war section, there is no mention of how a princess changed his mind in local traditions that I have heard and how she despite losing her father and all male members stood up to war with him. After defeat in the Kalinga wars, women began to take up arms. Though I know that this is not totally accurate, but the mention of women and female warriors is indeed necessary. 2405:201:D021:E0DB:283D:8A30:C80E:83B4 (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources to back up "what you've heard" are indeed necessary too. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 08:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

yeah you should also have proof of your points aswell Personn.303 (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Go a bit more detailed?

Include how the Mauryan empire had set the stage up for the golden age and the Gupta empire. 2001:16A2:676A:DE00:810A:F1E0:3484:1849 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

scholars' views about Ashoka are irrelevant puffery?

Is this really irrelevant puffery? Many people's information about Ashoka is quite limited. Why are even scholars' views about Ashoka being considered irrelevant puffery by a Wikipedian? 2402:8100:3018:174A:E145:31A1:D2F7:B92 (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks like puffery ... and "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." per WP:ONUS. JimRenge (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's puffery. To put it bluntly: 'mine is bigger than yours', reducing the contingencies of history and the complexities of personalities to a simplistic ranking, picked-out by an editor, but 'justified' by giving scholarly sources. This may have some relevance for American presidents, but not for figures dimly lighting up from a distant past. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

in religion it's only mentioned buddhism but in body of this article, there is a subtopic i.e. conversion to buddhism which means he must have followed other religion before buddhism. Kindly mention it. @ Joshua Jonathan 121.46.85.111 (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Change the name ASHOK from every where to ASOK

hello his name is asok you have to change the name because you are the one eho making this name famous his actual name should be written here his name was asoka so please dont use different name ashoka is famous because people dont know the real name and from their the misinformation spread really fast i hope you understand because then people think that this name is Sanskrit language name its pali name so please Mohit atulkar (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Also the Mauryas, Muras, or rather Mors, were Jats, and hence Scythian or East Iranic in origin. Consequently, Ashoka, Chandragupta and all other emperors of the Mauryan dynasty were undoubtedly Jats by origin. EjazCharr (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The mauryan were Shakya from the origin they were the moriya from the piplivan they also made the angar stupa Mohit atulkar (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Ashoka in English

According to the Pronouncing Dictionary of Proper Names 2nd ed. as well as my own experience, Ashoka is almost always pronounced /əˈʃoʊkə/ in American and British English. However, this is not the case in Indian English and Ashoka was certainly not pronounced like this in his own day. According to the Manual of Style, "When a foreign name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and foreign-language pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first. If the native name is different from the English name, the native transcription must appear after the native name." I have done this, but I hope to open a diagloge here so that more fruitful discussion can occur than in the short edit summaries. Hwamplero (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit summary, yes you can actually pronounce it. There's an IPA guide, it's not that difficult. If anything, at the very least, you can pronounce the O as in 'awe' or 'for', rather than the O in 'go'. See, you don't even need to try too hard! Pronouncing it as the diphthong OU (ओउ) is completely unnecessary and utterly wrong. Rolando 1208 (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

And that's in the Manual of Style, Rolando? Please stick to the guidelines. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

No it's not Joshua, but you forgot about ONUS: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion Rolando 1208 (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The vowels are fine imo. It is the ɕ that will cause issues for many English speakers and can be anglicized in different ways. My reason for including an English IPA was that 'sh' can sometimes be pronounced as /s/ such as in the Indian state Odisha. As for the English pronunciation being wrong, unfortunately that is just how some words get anglicized even if it is awful. If it makes you feel any better (or worse lol) many many American city names are horribly mispronounced Native American names so its not just India this happens to. Hwamplero (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Juggling with guidelines, Rolando? The Manual of style is quite clear in this respect. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

ONUS is quite clear, have you read it? While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Rolando 1208 (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@SKAG123 You might wanna see this. Rolando 1208 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but Odisha is the exception, hence why the IPA is actually necessary, just like with Kiribati (great edit there btw).

Regarding the Native Americans, a lot of the correct pronunciations get lost or aren't well know. Besides, there are so many languages to keep up with it. Quite different with Sanskrit.

Also anyone checking the article on Ashoka is presumably interested in in Buddhism and/or the History of Bharat. They're most likely interested in pronouncing Sanskrit sounds somewhat accurately, at the very least they'd be curious enough to know what ɕ is. If not, "Ashouka" doesn't add anything to the table. The people who can't read IPA, well, that's how they're gonna pronounce it anyway. Rolando 1208 (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

After some reflection, I think that I will work on creating wiktionary pages instead. If people want the English pronunciation, they can go there. I think the with place names, it is more important to have an English pronunciation if it is like a state of India or something like that, but for historical things, I will leave things with the native pronunciation only. EXCEPT the Maratha Empire which I have heard too many times as /məˈɹɑθə/ and thus deserves an English IPA and even a respell. I will let the rest of the articles go. Hwamplero (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Dhanyawad. I actually think your edit for Maratha is sensible. Anglophones would probably see the t with a small h and confuse it with a θ. Cheers mate, have a good week. Rolando 1208 (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the pronunciation. Rolando 1208 has been on a crusade to remove English pronunciations from quite a large number of articles, and there's no obvious justification for it other than them being non-native terms. People still need to know how to pronounce them. Theknightwho (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

People can read the Sanskrit IPA. You're gonna have to give me a better reason than this. Rolando 1208 (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rolando 1208 Sanskrit IPA is not helpful for an English-speaker that doesn't know anything about Sanskrit. [ɐˈɕoːkɐ] contains three phonemes that don't exist in standard English, and although /əˈʃoʊkə/ might use close approximations, it's obviously useful for an English-speaker to know what those approximations actually are. Theknightwho (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)