Talk:Āryāvarta

---

---

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh

It has been discovered that this book:

• Gupta, Om. Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Gyan Publishing House, 2006. ISBN 8182053897, 9788182053892.

Contains significant amounts of material plagiarized from Wikipedia articles. (Some other books from the same publisher also have this problem). There is no practical way of determining which material came from Wikipedia, and which came from other sources. Further, widespread plagiarism is an indication of poor scholarship. For those reasons, and according to Wikipedia policy, WP:CIRCULAR, I will deleting all citations to the book. However I will not delete the material that cites it, as there's no indication that the material is inaccurate. For more background, see WP:RSN#Circular references: Gyan Publishing and ISHA Books, or the archive it goes there.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok but why have you deleted ref from book written by Bijay Chandra Mazumdar ? Rajkris (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Source

A user has reverted this source found at this location:

http://books.google.com/books?id=am3XAAAAMAAJ&q=Aryavarta+Cyrus+the+Great&dq=Aryavarta+Cyrus+the+Great&hl=en&ei=2NYTTsLzJOrf0QHU9rn4CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ

Unfortuantely the source does not show the entire text in this link. You can find a snippet view on this location:

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Aryavarta+Cyrus+the+Great&btnG=Search+Books

I like a general consensus on how people feel on this? I am going to go back and make a slight alteration stating that "Some soruces argue." Let me know how u feel. Thank you Dr. Persi (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your source do not say it is Cyrus who gave that name.Rajkris (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read a bit on this and could not find anymore than the source above on this. My aformentioned source DOES state the point however it is only one source and from what I have read in the literature it is not widely accepted. No matter that portion about Cyrus the Great would not be mentioned unless I find a more robust source. However I have added new content which you have also reverted. Why? This content has nothing to do with Cyrus the Great and is basically an expansion on the article itself. Maybe you were to hasty to revert it? I have reverted the version to the link itself. Please read it and you can actually click on it and go to the page for that content on Google books. How is that?

Also I have a request. Please assume good faith and avoid confrontation. I am only interested in the article and we are all trying to better its quality so lets work together instead? Thanks Dr. Persi (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Then i advise you to rewrite your sentence according to what is written in your ref. The ref says it is 19th century theory. This theory is no longer accepted by scholars.Rajkris (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, rewritten. How about this? Dr. Persi (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Better than before.Rajkris (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Also I read the source, it says nothing that this view point is wrong, but that it is "old." Also I tried to find a "modern" view on what the origin of Aryavarta is and aside from stating the same poitns that is in the article not much formulated. What can you do with limited sources? Dr. Persi (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Rajkris you seem to know a lot about Aryavarta so why are you not providing the sources? Why is there two citation needed tags? Why not replace them with applicable sources?

Here are some ideas but I really have little clue ont he general topic (as far as it concerns Modern India and such) so here are some suggestions:

http://books.google.com/books?id=aLh_0iJDs4sC&pg=PA175&dq=Aryavarta++Pata%C3%B1jali's+Mah%C4%81bh%C4%81%E1%B9%A3ya&hl=en&ei=r-4UTqWqHYnfgQfb9bT-BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=efaOR_-YsIcC&pg=PA220&dq=Aryavarta++Pata%C3%B1jali's+Mah%C4%81bh%C4%81%E1%B9%A3ya&hl=en&ei=r-4UTqWqHYnfgQfb9bT-BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Dr. Persi (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Just too busy... I will check your refs. Thanks you.Rajkris (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"Out-group understanding"

@सत्याचेअरक्षक: you have twice modified or removed sourced info diff diff, the second time removing (bold)

The text defines the area as the place where the "good" people are born, with "goodness" being dependent on location rather than behaviour.

References

stating

REFRAIN from using out-group understanding that might imply racial or ethnic supremacy. Concepts of "supremacy" have no place for people who are stereotyped to be cow worshippers and tree huggers, and are entirely imposed from the culture of the non-group observers.

• What is the "out-group understandig here? Scholarly studies by non-Hindus? If so, Wikipedia uses WP:RS, not ethnically approved texts.
• What do you mean with "might imply racial or ethnic supremacy"? That seems to be exactly what the Manusmṛti implies.
• Who are supposed to be "cow worshippers and tree huggers"?
• The "Concepts of "supremacy"" are not imposed by scholars, but by ancient Brahmanism.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

"The text defines the area as the place where the "good" people are born, with "goodness" being dependent on location rather than behaviour" is grossly misleading argument, expecially the "rather than behaviour" at the end.

This implies a false dichotomy of either location or behaviour, but it is the culture, values and rite of passage of a location that moulds behaviour of individuals from that location.

Supremacy of brahmanism exists only based on one's actions and qualities (guna and karma). What the author seems to imply with the exclusive OR (location rather than behaviour) is racial or ethnic supremacy, which is what most europeans impose on other cultures the allegedly "study". सत्याचेअरक्षक (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you check the source? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The source talks about 19th century situation and commentary, which is not an authority on vedic period (pre 1000 BC, if you believe european historians that essentially made all civilizations from India to Egypt and China be 5000 year old, because bible says the world is 6000 year old).

Can current situation and practices be assumed to exist even back then, considering the amount of corruption in varna system and social engineering by various invaders to break apart and convert hindu population in the last 500 years. सत्याचेअरक्षक (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

19th century? How? Anyway, I did check the source, and you're right, that is, on the first part of your argument: the territorial designation refers to the area where the good people come from, that is, the twice-born who adhere to the Vedic dharma. I have adapted the sentence consequently. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Capital (May 2024)

@Varahmihira, Joshua Jonathan, Austronesier, Doug Weller, Utcursch, and Kautilya3: It is regarding the recent additions. While the sources do allude to "Kannauj" being the capital of Aryavarta, in actuality are referring to the kingdoms and empires governed from that city. Here, (page 240) it talks about Harsha and the Pushyabhuti dynasty, while this one (page 17) talks about Isanavarman of Maukhari dynasty. Note that this article is about the geographical region (with changing boundaries) and not a political entity. I find this addition undue/odd. It is akin to calling XYZ as the capital of the Indo-Gangetic plains because a good part of it formed a kingdom at a given time period. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is @Varahmihira 's reply "@Fylindfotberserk You are right here but you need to see how every prominent empire which ruled over Aryavarta had their capital at Kannauj like Maukharis, pushyabhutis, Pratihars, Varmans and Gahadavalas etc. They all claimed to be the emperor of Aryavarta after gaining control over Kannauj. Kannauj being the capital of Aryavarta goes back to Hindu texts where it was capital of Amavasus and Vishwamitra the decorated seer in Rigveda. If you see Tripartite Struggle Three of the greatest empires were struggling to take control over Kannauj only for this reason. Even Andre Wink in his Book [Al-Hind: Early medieval India and the expansion of Islam, 7th-11th centuries page-288] mentions how Kannauj was cultural and religious capital of Aryavarta. If this isn't called the capital of Aryavarta, i don't know what should be." Varahmihira (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Arranged, please keep the discussion under the same header

As I said, this is a geographical region, not a political entity. It is like saying Rome is the capital of southern Europe (geographical region) since various dynasties of Roman Empire ruled that part of the land from Rome. Undue IMO. Let's see what other users have to say about it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Fylindfotbdfserk. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk @Fylindfotberserk @Joshua Jonathan, Austronesier, Doug Weller, Utcursch, and Kautilya3: i want you all to take the 3rd citation into consideration [page-241] by Andre wink where he clearly calls Kannauj as imperial capital of Aryavarta. Also Aryavarta was not just geographical Identity but also kingdom with ever expanding boudaries as mentioned in same article and in source [Journal of the American Oriental Society] where it again calls Kannauj as capital of "Kingdom of Aryavarta". You all can simply search on Google books and will get sources by many authors noting the same. Varahmihira (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Wink refers to Inden, Imperial formations, imperial puranas, a chaper in Texts and Knowledge in South Asia (forthcoming - forthcoming since 1990... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

No time to get involved here, my time is getting shorter/ Doug Weller talk 14:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan No Sir. Please read the 2nd last line of page 241 which clearly calls Kannauj as the capital of Aryavarta. He isn't talking about Puranas. Varahmihira (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"No"? Yes! Wink refers to Inden; you have to find out what Inden actualy wrote. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Ok i got i what you are saying. Wink quoted Inden but doesn't it means he approved it too? Varahmihira (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

So you really don't see the incongruence between what you want to add based on a handful of sources and the subject of this article? The sources talk about a capital of a political entity labelled Aryavarta, while this article presents Aryavarta as a term for a region in northern India with a somewhat fluid scope, following common practice in many sources about ancient India. As @Fylindfotberserk: says above, It is like saying Rome is the capital of southern Europe.

If you don't just cherry pick sources, but try to get a complete picture from the extant literature, you will see that most sources specifically talk about Kannauj as the political center of the Maukhari, Vardhana and following dynasties. So what is behind the statement in some sources that Kannauj was the "capital of Aryavarta", if not an ideological school of thought in the historiography of Ancient India that tries to idealize the manyfold rivalling kingdoms and dynasties of northern India into a political continuity by labelling these various polities as Aryavarta? If you can succeed to mutate the scope of this article into this ideologically tinged narrative, only then the added text will make sense. But I doubt that reliable sources will support such a transformed Āryāvarta article. –Austronesier (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier There is a Misunderstanding in between us. I am not labeling any polities as Aryavarta. To begin with, The analogy of comparing Kannauj with Rome is Flawed. Kannauj can be compared with Constantinople, The capital of Eastern Roman Empire which was Captured By Ottomans. Mehmed II staunchly maintained that he was a Roman Emperor since he just captured Eastern Roman Capital not the whole of Landmass of Eastern Roman Empire in its peak. Same is the case with Kannauj, for which the Famous Tripartite Struggle happened. Maukharis, Pushyabhutis, Varmans, Pratihars etc were not "Just" dynasties, They were the strongest North Indian Empires of their time ruling Aryavartan Heartland of "Ganga-Yamuna Doab" where Kannauj Exists. Anyways i'm not going to make any addition in the article in question from now. It's all upto you. The efforts of you guys deserve appreciation. Varahmihira (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Austronesier and others who said it doesn't make sense. Wink is saying Harsha established Kanauj as the capital of Aryavarta, by saying which he is identifying Harsha's empire with Aryavarta, for which Kanauj was the capital. What about the times before Harsha? Aryavarta is a region and timeless. It doesn't make sense to say that it had a "capital". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Shouldn't it be mentioned that During Maukharis, Harsha, Varmans, Pratiharas and Gahadavalas, city of Kannauj was the Capital of Aryavarta? Its literally 6th century to 11th century which is slightly more than 5 centuries. All of these dyansties ruled the whole of Aryavartan heartland of Ganga-Yamuna Doab. Varahmihira (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk @Joshua Jonathan @Austronesier I think information im reply above this should be mentioned in this article if you all agree on this. From Maukharis to Gahadavalas is slightly more than 5 centuries. We should mentions names of each dynasty who ruled Aryavarta. Varahmihira (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

What can be said is something like "from year X to year Y, Kanauj was a central city of Aryavarta, and was used the capital city of the kingdoms/empires of ...". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The past few days here have been a mess, we need to clarify some things

If you wish to add a new section to an article, that section needs to be sourced, and those sources need to follow the basic rules for sourcing, if either of those rules are violated, it is usually valid to remove that section, if you wish to fix a poor section, you can copy it into your sandbox page and work on it there. However, if a section does fit the Wikipedia rules for sourcing, it does not require consensus to add, regardless of how large it is. Finally, the person adding something being a sock account is not a valid reason to remove to addition if said addition was valid in the first place. If you wish to argue about this further, do it in the replies to this topic, not in the history of the article itself. Hexifi (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Upon further investigation it has come to my attention that the person who is using the sock account has been banned from editing the English Wikipedia, in which case it is valid to remove said person's edits regardless of the sourcing within them. Hexifi (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Who are you trying to educate? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Not anyone in particular, just anyone who hasn't been down in the weeds while this has been happening and may be thinking of intervening in the article, and was looking for some sort of guide for which parts of the history are following the rules or not. I probably should have made that clear in the original post. Obviously some parts of that post were just a mistake as to what was actually going down on my part, so it is probably best to just remove or archive it. At the end of the day it shouldn't much matter now that it has the auto-confirmed restriction. Hexifi (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, Kautilya3, and Austronesier: Are we keeping this? Shouldn't we remove it per WP:BANREVERT WP:DENY? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the "Political history" section that I made at the bottom is fine. There seems to have been a revival of the "aryavarta" term during the early medieval times. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)