This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Patna, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Patna and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Ancient History Encyclopedia is not a reliable source
I have removed from the article two sentences added in this edit because the cited source does not fit Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Ancient History Encyclopedia is essentially a group blog, closer to Wikipedia than Encyclopedia Britannica. The author of its Ashoka article is not a professional historian, but an archaeology student who is also a freelance writer. The sources he used are two other articles from the same questionable source, an encyclopedia, a dated popular history, and one recent book from an academic publisher (which of these, if any, support individual statements is unclear because there are no inline citations and no inline attribution). The reliability of Ancient History Encyclopedia, and this writer in particular, have been discussed before at the reliable source noticeboard.
I have no objection to the statements being reintroduced if supported by reliable sources, although the sentence, "Archaeological evidence for Buddhism between the death of the Buddha and the time of Ashoka is scarce; after the time of Ashoka it is abundant", would be more appropriate in section Ashoka#Global spread of Buddhism than in Ashoka#Buddhist conversion. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 Does the line have to be controversial to require citation? Non-controversial content can be added to Wikipedia even without source? Please clarify. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo(talk·contribs·count) 02:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this content was "added" recently, was it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Highly relevant. For newly added content, you can demand sources. For the content that has been there a long time, tagging is the best course unless you seriously disbelieve it, made an effort to verify it and failed. The criterion for Wiki content is not sourcing, but verifiablity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Capankaismilyo, while it is true that unsourced material may be removed, it is not the case that it must be removed. You're removing large chunks of unsourced text, at least some of which can be easily sourced by a quick google search or by just looking to see if another wikipedia article has similar content that is sourced. Much better to search for a source or to tag the material with a cn and then come back later (much later) to see if a source has been added (that's why the cn tag has a date field). --regentspark (comment) 12:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The name Asoka is given here in its Sanskrit form Aśoka or अशोक and Anglicized as Ashoka. There are two problems here. First the man did not speak or use Sanskrit in any of his inscriptions. All indications are that his language was a North Eastern Middle-Indic language or Prakrit. He himself would have pronounced it Asoka or असोक. The principle texts that record his life other than his own Prakrit inscription are all in Pāḷi, another Middle-Indic language, which also spells it Asoka. So the use of Sanskrit here is ahistorical and anachronistic. Secondly, the name Asoka was associated with him while he was still a kumāra or prince. Once crowned rāja (or lāja in his own language) he used the name Piyadasi (Pāḷi Piyadassi) or the epithet Devānaṃpiya. He was Prince Asoka or King Piyadasi, but never King Asoka. See for example, Harry Falk's article on the edict preamble at Panguraria: https://www.academia.edu/26962426/The_Preamble_at_PangurariaJayarava (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Good point - you can try a move request. People may opposite it on WP:COMMONNAME grounds, though. A large number of scholars (including Henry Falk in the above link) use Aśoka or Ashoka in their writings. utcursch | talk 14:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)