|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Jana means people and not Tribes.
- Abhijna, term Jana is taken to mean tribe by all scholars. For example refer to India as Known to Panini by Dr V. S. Aggarwala or Evolution of Heroic Traditions in Ancient Punjab by Dr Buddha Parkash etc.
Error in section on Gandhara
There are quite a few grammatical errors which i would like to clean up. Any objections?
~~T Servaia, 26th May 2006~~
Any doubt about the statements of this article?
Of course, the references for each and every statement made in this article can be cited. Which section of the article do you want the references quoted sir?
But why this question and tag especially for this article? Do all other articles on Indian Civilization and History in particulrar, or other articles in Wikipedia in general, cite the references to substantiate the material they present to the readers?
Not that we dont want to furnish the references here, but just am curious to know from the person who added the reference-tag for this article here as to why he doubts the contents of this article and want it substantiated through references?.
Response will be appreciated.
Sze cavalry01 04:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Every Article should cite its references. If you see an article that doesnt cite references feel free to add the tag --Qweniden 04:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I just can't see a reason this shouldn't be singular as Mahajanapada. That's what the naming conventions call for unless something is overwhelmingly referred to in the plural. - Taxman Talk 02:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Mahajanapada-haru is the correct Sanskrit plural form for "MahajanapadaS" and this is of course awkward as is adding the -haru pluralizer. It should simply be a mass noun, "Mahajanapada" not "Mahaanapadas".Jfortier (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is EVERYTHING to do with the epoch of Hindu kingdoms oriented around Buddha and Buddhism? This is silly. These places should be spoken of in their own terms. --18.104.22.168 06:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it true,that "Manhattan" was purchased from the "Indians" at a very cheap price by a crooked "American" bussiness man back then? Also,the name,"Manhattan" looks so much like "Mahajanapahas"? Please send me an answer to - daorigino @www.yahoomail.com Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I spent some hours improving the wording of the article without changing the substance. Most changes involved adding the word "the" in appropriate places. While I was doing this, I couldn't resist removing links to monarchy and republic, feeling they were not needed, but later I reconsidered. There may be ways these links are informative that I don't know about. I have restored the links manually. I hope all this is of help overall. Moonsell (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)