Talk:Magadha

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vcama11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

[Untitled]

is there a reason to believe that Sri Lankan scriptures are more reliable than Puranas, when estimating the length of Sisunaga dynasty.

Topic disconnect to this link's text

Page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Maharashtra links to this page as if were discussion of an Empire, but this is very out of context, since this region is on the opposite coast. Don't know what the deal is, but someone has head up ass.

Era inconsistency

There's currently and inconsistency on this page re. BCE/CE v.BC/AD edit styles. All the transcluded templates use BCE/CE, but the article text uses BC/AD. I'm a little surprised to see this style here. I wouldn't be right to change the templates against consensus. Is there any consensus for a change to the article text? --Steven J. Anderson 10:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fairy Tales, not History

This article states : "The ancient kingdom of Magadha is mentioned in the Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas. It is also heavily mentioned in Buddhist and Jain texts. The earliest reference to the Magadha people occurs in the Atharva-Veda where they are found listed along with the Angas, Gandharis, and Mujavats. Two of India's major religions started from Magadha; two of India's greatest empires, the Maurya Empire and Gupta Empire, originated from Magadha."

This is disgusting. It is painful to find a Wiki article that stoops so low. According to Wheeler and others the urbanism of Bihar area cannot be pushed beyond the period of Bindusara. Therefore it is a fatal mistake to associate ancient references in texts with this area. Why is there no mention of Palibothra which according to Sir William Jones was Patna? Is there any epigraphic evidence that supports the notion that present day Bihar was Magadha before the Ashokan era? Why does this article keep mum on that no relic of Ashoka has ben found at Patna, that no relic of Chandragupta has been found at Patna, that no relic of any Nanda king has been found at Patna? All the statements are supported by textual references which have no anchor. There are references to the Shishunaga dynasty but what links them to Bihar? Ranajit Pal ("Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander" New Delhi, 2002) states that Magan which has a very ancient history was ancient Magadha and that the Sisunaks of Magan were the Sishunagas. Patali, and Kohnouj in eastern Iran were not only ancient cities, it was here that Alexander the Great found Indians and defeated them. Jones' so-called discovery of Palibothra at Patna is supported by R. Thapar and D. Chakrabarti of Cambridge on the basis of the Chinese reports. But does anyone in India reckon that these were written a thousand years later when the face of India had changed greatly? [1].[2][3] Ashoka is the first to mention Magadha and he does not do that in nay edict in Bihar which later became Magadha. Even R. Thapar expresses concern about the absence of any edict of Ashoka at Patna which is branded as his capital. The famous archaeologist A. Ghosh admits that Pataliputra is known mainly from the texts, not archaeology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda (talk • contribs) 03:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

first picture on top right is strange

Why is that picture boardered against afghanistan? in those days it was one land and afghanistan was culurally and historically parat of ancientn India. its the same land. Same people. there are hindu and buddhists discoverings in afghanistan (maybe more before the irraval of Islam then Here ground. So why is there a line against India then? It should be together then here ground. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Confusion in the infobox

The top-most infobox, headed "Kingdom of Magadha", is extremely confusing. It gives dates of 1200 BC–321 BC but the article takes us right through to 550 CE, with one or two gaps. I think we need to make our minds up whether this article is about the kingdom or about the region known as Magadha, and split things accordingly. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Magadha. 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/20140306041858/http://www.lumbinitrust.org:80/articles/view/214 to http://www.lumbinitrust.org/articles/view/214

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced info

@KashKarti: did you bother to read my edit-summary, when stating "Unexplained removal of sourced content"? I've re-inserted your sources, but note that adding two sources to the lead does not solve the problems with the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Please don’t use an impolite tone with me. Thanks. And noted. Will gather some more sources and try to rewrite certain sections when free.KashKarti (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay; apologies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Is the article in a better state now? What more should I add? ThanksKashKarti (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the list of Mauryan rulers; it was WP:UNDUE, and confusing. Not sure about the list of important persons; it's quite Buddhism-centered. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

We can do:

why is there a magadha? Aderaer (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• North India in 540 BCE.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of photos

@Joshua Jonathan: Hi, the photos are not formatted properly and are too wide for the article. They should be in the thumbnail form.KashKarti (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. This revert screwed things up. Text which was originally added diff by another user, using the same phrase in their edit-summary. I've []Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shalivahan2|opened an SPI]]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Hi, thanks for removing the unformatted images. If possible, could you restore this info in the lead again please? https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Magadha&diff=1056990385&oldid=1056985821 Thanks.KashKarti (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Ror Dynasty

Not matching this dynasty 2402:3A80:1BD5:43B1:FBAA:CF7A:8620:D81B (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Bifurcation of this article

I think this article should be bifurcated into two – one about the "Kingdom of Magadha" and the other about the region "Magadha". The lead line of this article does not correspond to the kingdom mentioned in the infobox. This would also lessen the load and remove the confusion from this article. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Nah,same way how “Prussia” exists, “Magadha exists. 2409:40C1:4026:D26E:256D:A7D3:677:C0F8 (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Removing disputed origin empires

I have removed Gupta empire from the list as their origin is disputed and probably they were from Prayaga Dooblts (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems you don’t understand properly. The inclusion of Guptas in this article merely indicates that they were the sovereigns of Magadha, not that they had their origins in Magadha. You can include information on their origins within this article. Ixudi (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)