Talk:Golden Age of India

Edit change

I am removing the Vijayanagara Empire. This was a reginal empire and therefore can not be considered the "golden age" of India. There are not enough reliable sources to back it up. I am also considering removing the chola empire if consensus is reached.

I am also adding back the Mughal empire as It was a significant empire and there is a good amount of reliable sources to back this up. This was recently removed by a Single-purpose IP. SKAG123 (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I really liked your decision on this notable topic. I have also some suggestions to add in this Article. Sur Empire is a notable empire under Sher Shah Suri whom conslidated most of North & Central India. Builted New Roads, Introduced new policies & currencies, they had most Advance Artillery. So I would like to Add that empire in this article. Hassan Gangu (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I would support adding this in the Mughal Empire section but not as a separate section. The Sur empire was too short lived and a regional power to be its own section in this article. SKAG123 (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Chola Empire

@PadFoot2008, I don't want to get into an edit war with you, but as per BRD, I do think a discussion is in order before you can unilaterally remove an entire section of the article that may very well be valid.
While you are right to point out that the Chola Empire didn't encompass the entirety of what today constitutes India, I'm not sure that's either relevant or practically applicable. The borders of the current state of India are relatively recent, and at some point, it would become a Sorites argument as to what was sufficiently "Indian" in early history. Additionally, I would argue that the Chola Empire holds major significance as part of the country's history to qualify as fitting a "golden age of India". Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku, so Chola empire was a regional power and not a pan-Indian power. The article is about the golden age of the historical region called India (i.e. whole or northern Indian subcontinent). The article talks not about the Republic of India, but about the historical region. This article is not based on your opinion, but on reliable sources which none are provided explicitly stating that Chola rule constituted the golden age of entirety of India, which would be of course an exaggeration. Pinging @SKAG123. PadFoot (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008, you're rebutting a claim I didn't make; please read what I wrote above. I'm aware that Chola was a regional power; my claim is that it was significantly large and important within Indian history to be included here.

I'm not set on this point, however, and if a strong argument can be made for why Chola doesn't belong in this article, I will not oppose it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku, the article is about the "golden age of India", there are no sources provided stating that Chola rule was the "golden age of India" PadFoot (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008, is "golden age" more than a subjective term applied to eras that are considered historically significant by a preponderance of historians? If the answer is yes, then we would need a source that refers to each of the eras within the article as being "golden ages". If no, then by what criteria would the Chola Empire not be a "golden age"? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a source that says that Chola rule is considered the 'golden age of India". Not South India, not Tamilakam, not Cholanadu, but a source that mentions that Chola rule was the "golden age of India" which is what the article is about. And yes, there needs to be WP:HISTRS sources that call the Mauryan rule or Mughal rule the "golden age of India" as well or else they need to be removed as well (otherwise it would be WP:OR). PadFoot (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008, the whole concept of a "golden age" is fuzzy and somewhat subjective, which makes this tricky, especially if you insist that certain eras are unquestionably "golden ages" and others aren't. The point of this article is to highlight eras in the history of what falls under Indian territory today that have major significance and exert historical influence over the subcontinent; I would argue that Chola fits that description. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku, That would be like a thousand different entities, as there must have been a "golden age" for some Indian region at some point of time. This article deals with "Golden age of India" not "Golden age in India". Your claim would drag this into WP:OR territory. If your aim is to list the different "golden ages" of all different regions in India, you can make an article about "Golden ages in India" (which I don't think is a bad idea to be honest). PadFoot (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008, I think we're going round in circles here. I don't agree with your position, you don't agree with mine, and neither one of us seems able to convince the other. Best to seek 3O on this. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I know an editor experienced in these matters and who often gives third opinions, @AirshipJungleman29. Also pinging @Flemmish Nietzsche, who is quite experienced in these Indian history-related stuffs. PadFoot (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I have had a quick look at sourcing, and while I have found terms like "the climax of South Indian power", "the golden age of Indian seafaring", "the golden age of Tamil culture", and much similar to describe the Chola Empire, I have not found anything that uses the phrase "Golden Age of India" in the same way as for the Mauryans, the Guptas, or the Mughals. For that reason, I would support removing it from the article; alternatively, if evidence is found for other states being described in similar ways, I would discuss them and the Chola in tandem as "lesser Golden Ages". Since I was pinged here directly, this should not be taken as a formal third opinion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

As Padfoot has said, the Cholas should only be included if it is stated in sources that India as a whole under their rule went through a Golden Age; however, I got the same results as AirshipJungleman in that sources which do talk highly about the Cholas only say that their rule influenced the prosperity of South India, not India as a whole. In addition, if sourcing for the other three entries didn't meet the same requirements, it would be different, but there are plenty of sources talking about an Indian Golden Age under the Mauryas, Guptas, and Mughals, while this is not the case for the Chola Empire. [1] [2] [3] Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)