Talk:Ashoka

scholars' views about Ashoka are irrelevant puffery?

Is this really irrelevant puffery? Many people's information about Ashoka is quite limited. Why are even scholars' views about Ashoka being considered irrelevant puffery by a Wikipedian? 2402:8100:3018:174A:E145:31A1:D2F7:B92 (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks like puffery ... and "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." per WP:ONUS. JimRenge (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's puffery. To put it bluntly: 'mine is bigger than yours', reducing the contingencies of history and the complexities of personalities to a simplistic ranking, picked-out by an editor, but 'justified' by giving scholarly sources. This may have some relevance for American presidents, but not for figures dimly lighting up from a distant past. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

in religion it's only mentioned buddhism but in body of this article, there is a subtopic i.e. conversion to buddhism which means he must have followed other religion before buddhism. Kindly mention it. @ Joshua Jonathan 121.46.85.111 (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Ashoka in English

According to the Pronouncing Dictionary of Proper Names 2nd ed. as well as my own experience, Ashoka is almost always pronounced /əˈʃoʊkə/ in American and British English. However, this is not the case in Indian English and Ashoka was certainly not pronounced like this in his own day. According to the Manual of Style, "When a foreign name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and foreign-language pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first. If the native name is different from the English name, the native transcription must appear after the native name." I have done this, but I hope to open a diagloge here so that more fruitful discussion can occur than in the short edit summaries. Hwamplero (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit summary, yes you can actually pronounce it. There's an IPA guide, it's not that difficult. If anything, at the very least, you can pronounce the O as in 'awe' or 'for', rather than the O in 'go'. See, you don't even need to try too hard! Pronouncing it as the diphthong OU (ओउ) is completely unnecessary and utterly wrong. Rolando 1208 (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

And that's in the Manual of Style, Rolando? Please stick to the guidelines. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

No it's not Joshua, but you forgot about ONUS: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion Rolando 1208 (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The vowels are fine imo. It is the ɕ that will cause issues for many English speakers and can be anglicized in different ways. My reason for including an English IPA was that 'sh' can sometimes be pronounced as /s/ such as in the Indian state Odisha. As for the English pronunciation being wrong, unfortunately that is just how some words get anglicized even if it is awful. If it makes you feel any better (or worse lol) many many American city names are horribly mispronounced Native American names so its not just India this happens to. Hwamplero (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Juggling with guidelines, Rolando? The Manual of style is quite clear in this respect. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

ONUS is quite clear, have you read it? While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Rolando 1208 (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@SKAG123 You might wanna see this. Rolando 1208 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but Odisha is the exception, hence why the IPA is actually necessary, just like with Kiribati (great edit there btw).

Regarding the Native Americans, a lot of the correct pronunciations get lost or aren't well know. Besides, there are so many languages to keep up with it. Quite different with Sanskrit.

Also anyone checking the article on Ashoka is presumably interested in in Buddhism and/or the History of Bharat. They're most likely interested in pronouncing Sanskrit sounds somewhat accurately, at the very least they'd be curious enough to know what ɕ is. If not, "Ashouka" doesn't add anything to the table. The people who can't read IPA, well, that's how they're gonna pronounce it anyway. Rolando 1208 (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

After some reflection, I think that I will work on creating wiktionary pages instead. If people want the English pronunciation, they can go there. I think the with place names, it is more important to have an English pronunciation if it is like a state of India or something like that, but for historical things, I will leave things with the native pronunciation only. EXCEPT the Maratha Empire which I have heard too many times as /məˈɹɑθə/ and thus deserves an English IPA and even a respell. I will let the rest of the articles go. Hwamplero (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Dhanyawad. I actually think your edit for Maratha is sensible. Anglophones would probably see the t with a small h and confuse it with a θ. Cheers mate, have a good week. Rolando 1208 (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the pronunciation. Rolando 1208 has been on a crusade to remove English pronunciations from quite a large number of articles, and there's no obvious justification for it other than them being non-native terms. People still need to know how to pronounce them. Theknightwho (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

People can read the Sanskrit IPA. You're gonna have to give me a better reason than this. Rolando 1208 (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rolando 1208 Sanskrit IPA is not helpful for an English-speaker that doesn't know anything about Sanskrit. [ɐˈɕoːkɐ] contains three phonemes that don't exist in standard English, and although /əˈʃoʊkə/ might use close approximations, it's obviously useful for an English-speaker to know what those approximations actually are. Theknightwho (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Change the name ASHOK from every where to ASOK

hello his name is asok you have to change the name because you are the one eho making this name famous his actual name should be written here his name was asoka so please dont use different name ashoka is famous because people dont know the real name and from their the misinformation spread really fast i hope you understand because then people think that this name is Sanskrit language name its pali name so please Mohit atulkar (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Also the Mauryas, Muras, or rather Mors, were Jats, and hence Scythian or East Iranic in origin. Consequently, Ashoka, Chandragupta and all other emperors of the Mauryan dynasty were undoubtedly Jats by origin. EjazCharr (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The mauryan were Shakya from the origin they were the moriya from the piplivan they also made the angar stupa Mohit atulkar (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Bias in the sources of information section?

Quite apart from the "alternate interpretations of epigraphic evidence" section that has already been called out as single-source, I'm concerned about the tone of the section "Sources of information". The whole section is overly focused on calling out which of the evidences are unreliable. There are very reliable sources too in plenty (as far as possible for a >2000 year old historical figure). Asokan edicts are unreliable because they could be propaganda, Buddhist legends are unreliable because religion, sure. But why call into question whether hospitals were built or not? There are far more sources that say hospitals were built by Asoka than the studies that say "we can't be sure". The Britannica encyclopaedia entry for hospitals mentions Asokan hospitals in 230 BCE.

Above, I see that someone tried to add details about how positively he was perceived, only to be called "puffery".

There is a possible political bias here. There have been movements to discredit the contributions of non-Hindu rulers in India's history, trying to parlay that into a contemporary political divide. The wiki page for Asoka needs to be spared this treatment.

Teal Drinker (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Ashoka's religion before his "conversion"

@PadFoot2008: regarding your conviction that Ashoka converted from "Hinduism" diff, previously, at Talk:History of Hinduism#Periodisation, we've discussed when Hinduism came into existence. The Hindu synthesis developed between 500-200 BCE and ca. 300 CE, as explained by Hiltebeitel and Larson; at Ashoka's time there simply was no "Hinduism" yet. We don't even mention his 'pre-Buddhist religion' in the Wiki-article, obviously because we don't know what it was. Several Buddhist sources refer to him as a Brahman, or Brahmanistic, which is historically viable:

• Giancarlo Bosetti (2023), ASHOKA: Ancient Rocks Teaching the Art of Discussion'x. In: Philosophy and Politics - Critical Explorations, SpringerLink: "convert from Brahmanism";
• Deepika Deshwal, Dhamma, Buddhism & Ashoka: An analytical study:

Both the cutting-edge and the traditional translators differ in regards to the individual religion of Ashoka. In addition, Buddhist texts

additionally give some different speculations about the individual religion of Ashoka. Previously a few researchers put that Ashoka was a Brahmanist or Jainist and not a Buddhist [...] the researchers again called attention to that in the records of Buddhaghosa, Ashoka was referenced as "Brahmana Bhatto" or the

disciple of Brahmanism. The “Samanta – padasiaka” likewise verifies the way that Ashoka was a Brahmana. As indicated by Kalhana, Ashoka was a devotee and admirer of Master Shiva. Later the Ceylonese accounts portrayed that initially Ashoka was a Brahman however later transformed into a Buddhist and paid visits to the Buddhist people group or the Samghas. Thusly the contemporary chronicled records affirm Ashoka as a Brahman.

Devotion to Shiva does not automatically mean "Hinduism," even not when a few sources refer to his previous religion as "Hinduism," which obviously betrays a lack of understanding on their part. If you think this is incorrect: on what contemporary sources do they base their statement that Ashoka converted from "Hinduism"? Which "Hindu"-tradition specifically? And why not Brahmanism, which is an obvious choice of patronism? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)