Fowler&fowler (talk | contribs) →Religion: Reply Tag: Reply |
→Religion: re |
||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
::::::::So, exactly what Smith and Keay say at greater length, and the article now says. I doubt archaeologists (quoting a mathmetician) are exactly the best sources, but since everyone seems to agree on this ....[[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC) |
::::::::So, exactly what Smith and Keay say at greater length, and the article now says. I doubt archaeologists (quoting a mathmetician) are exactly the best sources, but since everyone seems to agree on this ....[[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::Johnbod, I suggest that you not compulsively attempt to argue with me about this, especially not make facile comments. Kosambi ''was'' a mathematician, but he was also a ''numismatist'' and a ''historian'' of early India. Neither Keay (who has written garbage on anything half-buried in India) nor Vincent Smith whose book I have read (all three volumes) in much greater detail and for much longer than you ever will are now reliable. Just look at that disastrous lead that you apparently have been watching without protest for so long. Chuck out those sources; otherwise, when I have time I eventually will. [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 16:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC) |
:::::::::Johnbod, I suggest that you not compulsively attempt to argue with me about this, especially not make facile comments. Kosambi ''was'' a mathematician, but he was also a ''numismatist'' and a ''historian'' of early India. Neither Keay (who has written garbage on anything half-buried in India) nor Vincent Smith whose book I have read (all three volumes) in much greater detail and for much longer than you ever will are now reliable. Just look at that disastrous lead that you apparently have been watching without protest for so long. Chuck out those sources; otherwise, when I have time I eventually will. [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 16:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::I don't think there's much doubt on who is the compulsive arguer here! I haven't been watching the lead at all, or I think ever read it. God knows why this article is one of the 31,932 on my watchlist. I have just been looking at the narrow religious issue. What provoked your facile comment on Keay? [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::[https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bfm%3A978-81-322-3676-4%2F1.pdf See here] [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 16:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC) |
::::::::::[https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bfm%3A978-81-322-3676-4%2F1.pdf See here] [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 16:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 17:00, 18 March 2021
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MansoBoricua edits
@MansoBoricua:. You continue to add relatively poorly sourced content without discussing the material on the talk page and don't even do a good job of that. For example, you're changing the years of his rule that is well sourced to an inferior source (two books on the Jain religion, neither of which are history texts) and you're not even using that source correctly (source says 320-293BCE not the 312 you're adding). You've then changed the title field without attribution or explanation, added an unsourced alternative name for Chanakya, changed the correctly labeled "Ancient Greek" and "Latin", which refer to the languages, to links that refer to the nations of antiquity, replaced Indo-Greek, the correct and precise term, with hellenistic (which refers to all of Greece), etc. etc. Your edits are poorly sourced, incorrect, and unhelpful. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Chandragupta Maurya/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 15:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Welcome
Dear @Capankajsmilyo: I will be your reviewer for this, the third GA nomination of the article Chandragupta Maurya. I see you nominated the article on 31 July 2020. It is a shame you had to wait so long. I see that you are an extremely experienced wikipedian, whereas I am almost a novice. It is an honour to help you. I see the article is rated B at present. I applied the Rater script to your article, which calls ORES which rates your article "B or higher" with a confidence of 96.6%. This sounds all very positive. I know nothing about Indian History and have the advantages and shortcomings of a fresh look. I start reading now. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
First observations
I have read the article and I start to see what problems there are and why the article has twice failed GA. I find it difficult to read. There is this man Bhadrabahu who appears out of nothing and is mentioned quite a few times. He needs to be introduced in a proper way. The structure seems not to be entirely chronological. Strict chronology in the body as in the lead would be desirable but perhaps there are major obstacles making this impossible. I could of course limit myself to fixing the form of the article the quite frequent grammatical problems and and so forth. However, I feel that the real problems are deeper seated. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Dear @Capankajsmilyo: It is more than a week since I started the review. I heard nothing from you. I suppose you are very busy in real life. It could also be that, after a wait of 3 months, you have lost interest in this your GA nomination. Could you let me know? Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I fail this nomination for lack of response by the nominator.Johannes Schade (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dear @Johannes Schade: I have just become aware that this article was proposed for a GA. Although you failed it for lack of response from the nominator, there are many other reasons for failing it. It is not straightforward about the sources it is using. A few I have just noticed are much older than the year to which they are being cited. I will make some more observations by listing them in a section below (when I find time). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Religion
Ref edit 1, 2 @User:William_M._Connolley What way to do it would you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhawangupta (talk • contribs) 11:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@User: Dhawangupta please check I have added other sources which say he was a Jain. And please discuss on talk page why are you removing the sentence that according to Jain sources he renounced and performed sallekhna in the lead. Thank you.
- See User_talk:पाटलिपुत्र#Chandragupta_Maurya, and indeed the body of the article, Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- I see that there is a clear dispute regarding the validity of the traditional Jainism account, but is there any dispute against Chandragupta Maurya not being a Hindu? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know there is an actual dispute about the Jainism, but it needs not to be stated as a plain fact. Nobody knows, or ever will. Equally, apart from his close relationship with Kautilya, there is no evidence of Hinduism, but it is not unlikely he followed it. But we don't know. Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I see that there is a clear dispute regarding the validity of the traditional Jainism account, but is there any dispute against Chandragupta Maurya not being a Hindu? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- See User_talk:पाटलिपुत्र#Chandragupta_Maurya, and indeed the body of the article, Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Aman.kumar.goel: There was apparently no Hinduism to speak of at the time of the Mauyras. This recent reference work (The Oxford History of Hinduism: Hindu Practice, p.68 by Johannes Bronkhorst, Oxford University Press, 2020) only gives Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivikism as the primary religions under the Mauryas, with Brahmanism struggling in disfavour in the northwest. Your only remaining source is an old 1966 ([1]) source by a non-historian (D.D. Kosambi) saying Chandragupta was "a Hindu king": this is probably not WP:RS anyway, and dates from a time when such a statement regularly just meant he was "an Indian king" (see Hindus): this proves nothing about him being a follower of Hinduism or not. The other source you have been using repeatedly ([2][3]) was actually about another king, the 5th century CE Chandragupta I of the Gupta Dynasty and the legends on his gold coins (Chandragupta Maurya DID NOT have gold coins with legends anyway). You are yet to find a WP:RS positive statement claiming that Chandragupta Mauyra was indeed "a follower of Hinduism". Without such a statement by reputable sources, claiming his religion as Hinduism is not possible on Wikipedia. It is also mind-boggling that you would knowingly delete properly referenced sources about his probable and well-known affiliation to Jainism in later life [4]. Not the way to go. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Source is mentioned on infobox which say he was Hindu. Your attempts to redate Hinduism have failed elsewhere as such you should avoid rehashing this argument and your personal dispute with this other subject is irrelevant here. Chandragupta being a Jain is just a traditional Jaina claim and isn't taken seriously by the scholars, where as I haven't seen any dispute if he was not a Hindu. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Your "Hindu king" claim ([5]) is bogus, coming from a non-historian (D.D. Kosambi), writing at a time (1966) when "Hindu" was often just used as a general term to mean "Indian" (see my previous post). I don't think you will find any solid source claiming Chandragupta Maurya was a "follower of Hinduism", except maybe in Nationalist Hindutva and sectarian publications. For a summary of religions under the Mauryas, have a look at the Historical Dictionary of Hinduism p.255 by Jeffery D. Long, which clearly states that the Mauryas followed Sramana traditions (Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivikism...), while rejecting Brahmanism, and that Hinduism would only be a later development, a fusion of Brahmanical and Sramana traditions, favoured by the rise of the Guptas in the 4th century CE. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- The idea of CM ending his life as a Jain is taken seriously, and tentatively accepted, by mainstream historians: Smith, Vincent. The Oxford History of India (rev 4th ed. 1981), is quite sympathetic to the Jain traditions: "the only direct evidence throwing light ....is that of Jain tradition. ...it may be that he embraced Jainism towards the end of his reign. ...after much consideration I am inclined to accept the main facts as affirmed by tradition .... no alternative account exists." Oldest inscriptions C7th. Page 99. Then Keay, John (2000), India: A History, s also sympathetic, though "Scholarly doubts, of course, remain ...." pp 85-86. He says inscriptions and reliefs at the "death-site" go back to the C5th. Neither mention a previous religion, though even according to the Buddhist account his minister Chanakya/Kautilya was a brahmin.
- But an infobox is no place for uncertain matters such as this. I have removed the "religion" line, and it should not be re-added. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: I just noticed this. I have my grandfather's copy of Vincent Smith's three-volume OHI, 1920. Smith had already retired from the ICS at the time of publication, so it is unlikely that the book was published in later editions during his life. There are Indian publishers who bring out dubious "editions" of books that are out of print. Motilal Banarsidass and many others in Old Delhi are well-known for this practice. OUP India might be doing the same, but Smith himself could not have revised it in 1981. I don't know if he has a WP page; it might confirm it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- He actually died in 1920. See Vincent Arthur Smith. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's an OUP Delhi paperback "Fourth edition, edited by Percival Spear", different parts revised/rewritten by him, Sir Mortimer Wheeler (the early periods of course), A. L. Basham, & J. B. Harrison (of SOAS - he did "India in the Muslim Period"). Nothing odd in this, surely? Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the words,
- "Once the fact that Chandragupta was or became a Jain is admitted, the tradition that he abdicated and committed suicide by slow starvation in the approved Jain manner becomes readily credible. The story is to the effect that when the Jain said Bhadrabahu predicted a famine in northern India which would last for twelve ars, and the prophecy began to be fulfilled, the saint led twelve thousand Jains to the south in search of more favoured lands. King Chandragupta abdicated and accompanied the emigrants, who made their way to Sravana Belgola ('the White Jain tank') in Mysore, where Bhadrabahu soon died. The ex-emperor Chandragupta, having survived him for twelve years, starved himself to death. The tradition is supported by names of the buildings at Sravana Belgola, inscriptions from the seventh century after Christ, and a literary word of the tenth century. The evidence cannot be described as conclusive, but after much consideration I am disposed to accept the main facts as affirmed by tradition. ..."
- are precisely those of Vincent Smith 1923, second edition, (Ancient and Hindu India) sitting in front of me (which is a 1937 "Oxford at the Clarendon Press" reprint of the 1923 second edition). It is a minimally edited version of the edition of 1920 (mostly only corrected for errors) by S. M. Edwardes. (I don't have any issues with your reference to Smith in a talk page discussion, but if we are to use him, especially to quote his (1920/23) observation "I am disposed ..." or infer something from it in the article, then we must make clear that the observation dates back to 1920. (OUP, India, is not very rigorous in its "revisions.") Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- PS I think (though I'm not sure) the OUP India 1988 "fourth edition" is a straightforward reprint of the 1958 third edition published by Oxford/Clarendon. Percival Spear died in 1982. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- They list loads of "reprints" as well, so 4th edition must mean something. They have only "Preface to the third edition" , so it may be light touch, but no doubt changes were made, especially for recent periods - the last page takes you up to the 1975 emergency, so you are not correct there. Lots of people submit ms within 2 years or so their death. Change the ref to your edition if you like. Is there anything much different in more recent sources? Keay, a solid populariser, suggests not. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- PS I think (though I'm not sure) the OUP India 1988 "fourth edition" is a straightforward reprint of the 1958 third edition published by Oxford/Clarendon. Percival Spear died in 1982. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's an OUP Delhi paperback "Fourth edition, edited by Percival Spear", different parts revised/rewritten by him, Sir Mortimer Wheeler (the early periods of course), A. L. Basham, & J. B. Harrison (of SOAS - he did "India in the Muslim Period"). Nothing odd in this, surely? Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- He actually died in 1920. See Vincent Arthur Smith. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: I just noticed this. I have my grandfather's copy of Vincent Smith's three-volume OHI, 1920. Smith had already retired from the ICS at the time of publication, so it is unlikely that the book was published in later editions during his life. There are Indian publishers who bring out dubious "editions" of books that are out of print. Motilal Banarsidass and many others in Old Delhi are well-known for this practice. OUP India might be doing the same, but Smith himself could not have revised it in 1981. I don't know if he has a WP page; it might confirm it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Your "Hindu king" claim ([5]) is bogus, coming from a non-historian (D.D. Kosambi), writing at a time (1966) when "Hindu" was often just used as a general term to mean "Indian" (see my previous post). I don't think you will find any solid source claiming Chandragupta Maurya was a "follower of Hinduism", except maybe in Nationalist Hindutva and sectarian publications. For a summary of religions under the Mauryas, have a look at the Historical Dictionary of Hinduism p.255 by Jeffery D. Long, which clearly states that the Mauryas followed Sramana traditions (Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivikism...), while rejecting Brahmanism, and that Hinduism would only be a later development, a fusion of Brahmanical and Sramana traditions, favoured by the rise of the Guptas in the 4th century CE. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Source is mentioned on infobox which say he was Hindu. Your attempts to redate Hinduism have failed elsewhere as such you should avoid rehashing this argument and your personal dispute with this other subject is irrelevant here. Chandragupta being a Jain is just a traditional Jaina claim and isn't taken seriously by the scholars, where as I haven't seen any dispute if he was not a Hindu. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Aman.kumar.goel: There was apparently no Hinduism to speak of at the time of the Mauyras. This recent reference work (The Oxford History of Hinduism: Hindu Practice, p.68 by Johannes Bronkhorst, Oxford University Press, 2020) only gives Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivikism as the primary religions under the Mauryas, with Brahmanism struggling in disfavour in the northwest. Your only remaining source is an old 1966 ([1]) source by a non-historian (D.D. Kosambi) saying Chandragupta was "a Hindu king": this is probably not WP:RS anyway, and dates from a time when such a statement regularly just meant he was "an Indian king" (see Hindus): this proves nothing about him being a follower of Hinduism or not. The other source you have been using repeatedly ([2][3]) was actually about another king, the 5th century CE Chandragupta I of the Gupta Dynasty and the legends on his gold coins (Chandragupta Maurya DID NOT have gold coins with legends anyway). You are yet to find a WP:RS positive statement claiming that Chandragupta Mauyra was indeed "a follower of Hinduism". Without such a statement by reputable sources, claiming his religion as Hinduism is not possible on Wikipedia. It is also mind-boggling that you would knowingly delete properly referenced sources about his probable and well-known affiliation to Jainism in later life [4]. Not the way to go. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, the words are Vincent Smith's not Percival Spear's, even if he edited the light revision. Spear's specialty was British India; he would not have deigned to give an opinion on the Mauryas. I think the point I am attempting to make is that OHI is no longer a reliable history. There are, however, quite a few modern scholarly history books on India which this article should be using:
- Coningham, Robin; Young, Ruth (2015), The Archaeology of South Asia: From the Indus to Asoka, c. 6500 BCE – 200 CE, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-84697-4
- Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8;
- Fisher, Michael H. (2018), An Environmental History of India: From Earliest Times to the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-107-11162-2
- Kulke, H.; Rothermund, D. (2004), A History of India, 4th, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-32920-0
- Ludden, D. (2002), India and South Asia: A Short History, One World, ISBN 978-1-85168-237-9
- Robb, P. (2001), A History of India, London: Palgrave, ISBN 978-0-333-69129-8
- Singh, U. (2009), A History of Ancient and Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century, Delhi: Longman, ISBN 978-81-317-1677-9
- Stein, B. (2010), Arnold, D. (ed.), A History of India (2nd ed.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6
- Wolpert, S. (2003), A New History of India (7th ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-516678-1
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- So what do they say? Stein p. 65 mentions Jain monasteries "established with the support of" CM. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well that's for you guys to explore and carefully write. And if these books do not discuss Ch Maur's Jainism in any great depth then that topic does not have historical heft. The inscriptions and texts on which the interpretation of his adoption of Jainism is based are from after the mid-first-millennium CE (i.e. more than 800 years later in a generally ahistorical culture). So, we are talking iffy things. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- When I have time, I'll look for some sources. More anon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be nice! I don't see why it's just "you guys" who should do it. I'm not sure I've ever edited the article. Keay & Smith agree that there is only a Jain story & then inscriptions from some ?6 or 7 centuries later, so you can forget about "any great depth", on this or pretty much any aspect of CM's life. All the same, this is the only information we have and it is considered fairly credible, so it has "heft". Unless your researches come up with anything else. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- When I have time, I'll look for some sources. More anon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well that's for you guys to explore and carefully write. And if these books do not discuss Ch Maur's Jainism in any great depth then that topic does not have historical heft. The inscriptions and texts on which the interpretation of his adoption of Jainism is based are from after the mid-first-millennium CE (i.e. more than 800 years later in a generally ahistorical culture). So, we are talking iffy things. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- So what do they say? Stein p. 65 mentions Jain monasteries "established with the support of" CM. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll try, but I'm generally very reluctant these days (even depressed) about editing South Asia-related pages, especially India-related ones, where the level of general obsession with India's shining pre-Muslim antiquity continues unabated, probably has worsened in these Hindu majoritarian times, or should I say, anti-Muslim majoritarian. Coming back to CM, the South Asian sources are from much later; the western (Magesthenes) are contemporary but have their own issues. I think the best approach is to use Coningham and Young's (see the list above) language and brief political biography as a template:
"... historian D. D. Kosambi noted that whilst the latter's (Alexander the Great's) expedition “passed completely unnoticed in Indian tradition ... [t]here was an immediate, unexpected by-product of the utmost importance: it hastened the Mauryan conquest of the whole country” (1965: 138). Indeed, after Alexander's death at Babylon in 323 BCE, a vacuum occurred within South Asia, as powerful governors and warlords focused on the mastery of the Greek and Achaemenid satrapies further west. The Seleucid Ambassador Megasthenes later recorded that this vacuum allowed Chandragupta to organise a confederation of disaffected leaders to oust the remaining Macedonian-appointed governors occupying the Punjab and rule in their place. Then pursing an eastward campaign, Chandragupta steadily assimilated the city-states on the peripheries of the Kingdom of Magadha and, having had Dhana Nanda assassinated, expelled the Nanda dynasty from the throne of Magadha in 321 BCE. Now firmly established within the Gangetic heartland of Magadha, western Classical sources recorded that by 303 BCE he had campaigned against the eastern provinces of Seleucus Nikator (r. 305-281 BCE) as the latter was engaged in his own struggle for supremacy amongst Alexander’s surviving generals. When Seleucus attempted to re-establish his hegemony over the eastern satrapies in 305 BCE, later western Classical historians recorded that he was defeated and exchanged sovereignty of those satrapies for s00 war elephants which he used against his Macedonian rivals in the west. Jain tradition recorded that Chandragupta renounced his worldly authority and wealth and retired to Sravana Belgola in the Deccan as an ascetic (Thapar 1961:17). Chandragupta was succeeded by his son Bindusara ... (p 411)
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- So, exactly what Smith and Keay say at greater length, and the article now says. I doubt archaeologists (quoting a mathmetician) are exactly the best sources, but since everyone seems to agree on this ....Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Johnbod, I suggest that you not compulsively attempt to argue with me about this, especially not make facile comments. Kosambi was a mathematician, but he was also a numismatist and a historian of early India. Neither Keay (who has written garbage on anything half-buried in India) nor Vincent Smith whose book I have read (all three volumes) in much greater detail and for much longer than you ever will are now reliable. Just look at that disastrous lead that you apparently have been watching without protest for so long. Chuck out those sources; otherwise, when I have time I eventually will. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think there's much doubt on who is the compulsive arguer here! I haven't been watching the lead at all, or I think ever read it. God knows why this article is one of the 31,932 on my watchlist. I have just been looking at the narrow religious issue. What provoked your facile comment on Keay? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- See here Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Johnbod, I suggest that you not compulsively attempt to argue with me about this, especially not make facile comments. Kosambi was a mathematician, but he was also a numismatist and a historian of early India. Neither Keay (who has written garbage on anything half-buried in India) nor Vincent Smith whose book I have read (all three volumes) in much greater detail and for much longer than you ever will are now reliable. Just look at that disastrous lead that you apparently have been watching without protest for so long. Chuck out those sources; otherwise, when I have time I eventually will. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- So, exactly what Smith and Keay say at greater length, and the article now says. I doubt archaeologists (quoting a mathmetician) are exactly the best sources, but since everyone seems to agree on this ....Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Incorrect dates might be enabling OR on this page
Radha Kumud Mookerji's biography of Chandragupta was first published in 1943 by the University of Madras; it recorded his Sir Charles Meyer lectures delivered at the university two years earlier. Mookerji was an early nationalist historian of India. His first book was published in 1912, or thereabouts, and he died in 1963. Obviously, he could not have published the edition (1988) cited in this article. Most likely it is the result of the kind of dubious practice Motilal Banarasidas have been engaged in for a long time. In any case, that book cannot be used reliably in this article. It is too old, it is too full of nationalist rhetoric. Chandragupta in the view of today's historians had barely laid the foundations of a rule that was later expanded under his grandson's reign to briefly become a loose-knit empire. Please drastically reduce the dependence on this book, and cite him as Mookerji 1966 (originally published 1943) and not Mookerji 1988 (originally published 1966). We don't date books by reprints; otherwise, I could be using Defoe, 2021 as a modern source on the Plague. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)