Talk:Chandragupta Maurya

"Dr. Ranajit Pal" on Origins

Under the "Origins" heading, there is a large section of views of a certain Ranajit Pal, whose website strikes me as a very odd piece of, errm, "original research" (to put it politely). It'd be nice if someone with more knowledge on the topic than me could have a look at those passages. They should either be condensed into a summary or deleted altogether. Varana (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Varana: I agree totally. Ranajit Pal seems intent on rewriting practically the whole history of India and Persia. I have just gone through his website and found it full of accusations, suppositions and unsupported speculations. I will now have a look at this article and remove these speculations and give a reference to Pal's website for those who might be interested in some alternative views. Thanks for pointing this out. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Repair work on this article. Help requested

Further note to the above: I have just started editing the main page and removed all the academic titles as per Wikipedia policy as well as some of the discussions of Ranajit Pal's speculations (but left a link to his site in case any one is interested in his alternate views). However, I then started looking at some of the so-called "quotes" only to find that some of them seem to be completely made up (I have removed a couple of those), while others seem to be poorly rewritten versions - not the originals given at the place where the links take one to. I have started replacing them with the proper quotes from the English translation by Rev. John Selby Watson on the same site. However, this article on Chandragupta (and all the quotes and references in it) needs to be carefully checked - as someone has been really misusing the Wikipedia. I will try to get back to it soon - but it would be very helpful if others could also check and, where necessary, repair "quotes" and claims. We should probably also check other articles that are linked to it in case there has been similar vandalism on those pages. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear John Hill,

The current issue of the classics journal Scholia (vol. 15, pp. 78-101) carries an article by Ranajit Pal whom you characterize as a vandal. Prof. M. Witzel of Harvard calls Pal a hijacker which appears to be more appropriate. In this article Pal discusses some issues like the location of Palibothra which are of prime importance in world history. He maintains that Palibothra cannot be Patna because not a single artifact of any Maurya or Nanda king has been unearthed here. I believe that apart from elaborating the current academic position, even if one detests 'original research', it is the duty of the writer to point to the problems in the current theory. Why are no archaeological relics of Chandragupta known from anywhere in the world? Is this something that we should be silent about ? Pal maintains in his book "Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander" (p. 88) that Orontobates was Chandragupta who was Rantivarma of the Mudrarakshasa. According to him Diodotus of Erythrae was also Chandragupta. The book has been reveiwed by Jan-Mathieu Carbon of Corpus Christi college, Oxford University,( http://www.classics.und.ac.za/reviews/05-19pal.htm ) and also in the prestigious Bryn Mawr Classical Reveiw ( http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2007/2007-12-39.html ) . Also your exasperation is evident in that the sentence in the Wiki article "H.C. Raychaudhuri noted that the name Priyadarshi was adopted also by Chandragupta and as noted by W. W. Tarn," ends with a coma. The next sentence, "Robin Lane Fox has written that Sisines the Persian who is said to have met Alexander in Cilicia was in fact an ally of the latter." is also meaningless as it is without any context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda (talk • contribs) 01:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear John Hill,

I think the repair work was very damaging. Someone who probably reads little else than textbooks says he does not know enough to form an opinion but dislikes what was there and you oblige him by removing all that he does not like. This may also be vandalism. This gentleman is in good company. Ranajit Pal states in the website http://www.ranajitpal.com that Romila Thapar who is the co-recipient of the one million Dollar Kluge prize also admitted she did not know enough to comment on Pal's work. Coming back to the repair work again the sentence "H.C. Raychaudhuri noted that the name Priyadarshi was adopted also by Chandragupta and as noted by W. W. Tarn" is still incorrect and strange. Tarn had nothing to do with Priyadarshi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda (talk • contribs) 14:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Repair Work Is Another Instance of Editorial Ignorance

Dear John Hill and Varana,

Although the editor and his advisor Varana do not have the slightest idea of the seriousness of Ranajit Pal's observations, two important history websites, historyfiles.co.uk [1] and Historyhunters International [2] attach great importance to the work of Pal. Pal's work which is strongly critical of the SOAS-JNU version of Indology, is given recognition also by the University of Utrecht [3] , one of the oldest and most respected universities of Europe. The prestigious Bryn Mawr Classical Review (University of Pennsylvania)[4] also acclaims Pal's work. The editor clearly needs to educate himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda (talk • contribs) 10:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Gdprasad (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Gdprasad: The authors on Maurya Empire have to show in literature proof that 'Sandracottus' really correaponds to 'Chandra Gupta Maurya' and not to "Gupta Chandra Gupta of Gupta Dynasty' or to any other Chandragupta, and that the assumption is not a mere guess, conjucture or speculation of the authors of referances cited.

Contradiction on death year

This article states 298 BC as likely death year; over at Megasthenes the year 288 BC is given. This contradiction should be resolved somehow. AxelBoldt (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)