Jump to content

Talk:Ashoka

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


Proposed Move to Ashoka the Great

[edit]

The page should be moved from Ashoka to Ashoka the Great. It is already a WP:COMMONNAME. Except this, Ashoka held the title of Chakravartin, the highest any king or emperor could ever achieve in Ancient India. He even took the Magadhan Empire to its peak and controlled around 5 million sq km of land, the largest among any other Indian empires. PS there are other such articles like Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great, and Darius the Great. ĀDITYA 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hart's ranking of Ashoka

[edit]

Including Hart's ranking of Ashoka is a typical 'Look how great my hero is' statement; it serves no other goal than pumping up his importance. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is ashoka established kashmir?

[edit]

Some publications say Ashoka samrat estd shrinagri(srinagar) And some says kashmir , but what is the right info can anybody please provide right info about that. Bmx aditya (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Utcursch and reliable sources

[edit]

Sorry, Utcursch, your POV is disturbing. Here's a lesson you need if you're going to continue to edit Buddhist related pages on Wikipedia: Buddhist scholars are the best sources for history on Buddhism. Why? A Tibetan Khenpo has studied Buddhism for 23 years before they are tested and pass their exams, receiving the title of Khenpo. The title of the source here is Khenchen (great Khenpo) whose page on Wikipedia states he was considered the highest Nyingma School scholar of his day. His published scholarly work on the history of Ashoka is actually the most reliable source on the Ashoka page, given his scholarly credentials and education. He has written based on valid Tibetan historical texts, dating from the early Nyingma school's period. You said as an excuse for deleting a valid edit based on this source that,"A Buddhist religious leader is not a great source for a history-related article;". I'm embarassed for you. Will you please re-correct the misinformation on this page? 2400:1A00:B040:FE04:53D7:7B15:58F9:6614 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, they won't; we rely on secondary and tertiairy sources, not on primary sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]