This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Removed text (source of previous exclamation... :) -- April
Belonging to a group of young norwegians and friends who founded Magadhan Empire on an island in The Pacific in 1996.
The Empire and its founders, Goggen, Marthe, Alfred and Alex still lives on - The population is now 157.
Why is Magadha kingdom and Magadha empire seperate?
Why shouldn't there be a separate article when sources cover it. Definitely not OR if there are numerous sources that cover it. Magadha was a Mahajanapada and a region, while the Magadhan Empire was an empire based in the region, but included vast territories outside of the Magadha region. They are not the same. PadFoot (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 This article is simply unnecessary since whether Magadhan Empire or Magadha they are completely same entity.Your comparison is completely flawed since by this interpretation we should also have a separate article for Satvahnas since they were earlierly vassals of Mauryas but later became vast empire and so. Edasf (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Mahajanapada and an empire are different polities. A single article would be conflating too many topics together unnecessarily, and causing unnecessary complications. The Magadha article is now much less complicated or cluttered. PadFoot (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What your saying about region , I agree upon. But the seperation you have done is not based on region and political entity but rather on two political entities.
@PadFoot2008 What?? Give a source.Mahajanpadas were kingdoms your comparison is baseless those were Medieval kingdoms you can't compare them.Yes it may not completely equivalent.I am still opposed to this separation. Edasf (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mahajanapada means great kingdom.
If you want a seperation , you could do one on basis of Region and Kingdom/Empire
The Mahājanapadas were sixteen kingdoms and aristocratic republics that existed in ancient India from the sixth to fourth centuries BCE, during the second urbanisation period.
Quoted directly from the main article, this is the exact meaning. I meant to say that they were not simply equal to kingdoms in general, I meant to say that they refer to a specific period of history as clearly indicated in the quote above. And please stop pinging me. I am aware that a discussion is happening here. PadFoot (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your separation gives message both were different entities which they weren't.Magadha Empire is a name used by modern scholars to refer the expanded Magadha Kingdom.Yes, Mahajanpadas were to a specific period but this doesnt proves Magadha and Magadha Empire as different.In short, your separation has grown confusion rather than ending it. Edasf (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've provided no reasoning for not having seperate articles for the two phases. I don't see why there can't be separate articles for the Mahajanapada phase and the Empire phase. See Kingdom of France, First French Republic and First French Empire which were the same polity and were continuous but only had a change in leadership. See Dominion of India and India which too are the same thing, and only a change in status and constitution happened. See Tsardom of Russia and Russian Empire. We usually have different articles for kingdom and empire phases of the same entity. As for the Gupta era, I would be happy to create a separate article, not by the name 'Restored Magadha' as that is not what scholars use, but by the name 'Second Magadhan Empire'. PadFoot (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edasf, Perhaps then maybe it would be best that we compile sources explicitly mentioning "Magadhan Empire" and its foundation, and see the common scholarly view. I will say that I too am a bit confused as to what its start date actually is, and it would be best that we both discuss this. PadFoot (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First is the name of this entity, Shouldnt it be just "Magadha Empire" or "Empire of Magadha" ?
Second is the 'Restored Magadha Empire" article i was talking about
which shall focus more on Imperial Guptas and Later Guptas, it will also help to fix successors and also that the timeline of the empire is seperated by 350 years. JingJongPascal (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the first, Magadhan Empire and Magadha Empire both are common names, but it appears that that the former has historically dominated, and the former is more prevalent among historians. Regarding your second point, I'd be happy to create an article about the "Second Magadhan Empire" as the Imperial Gupta era Magadha is usually referred to as by scholars and "Kingdom of Magadha (medieval)" about post-Imperial medieval Magadha. PadFoot (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine so I think we have reached a WP:Consensus here to have separate page for Gupta era Magadha and others.I think there shiuld be separate discussion for its start date with a more broader Consensus. Edasf (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its start date will be of Gupta dynasty start date. (240 CE)
Second Magadhan Empire would be confusing, i will retrain from using Numbers here as it is already confusing between Magadha Mahajanapada & Magadha Empire
Guys…if you really want to add new maps, then you need consensus first. We’ve discussed this many times on the mauryan empire talk page. Consensus doesn’t just change so easily in these instances where it’s been discussed to death. Someguywhosbored (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got accepted by who? The users here who were opposed on the mauryan empire talk page for similar reasons?
Consensus in controversial topics like this doesn’t just get changed overnight. Your changes were disputed so ONUS is on you to achieve consensus.
for now you shouldnt be reverting anything until consensus is established first. If you gain consensus than at that point your free to add this gif. But until then, wait until discussions on this matter end.
“no one is adding new map, I am reverting to its stable form. Also my gif was already got accepted.” I don’t think consensus was ever reached there either. It’s relatively new content so if a user disputes this, then usually the content gets removed per WP:NOCONSENSUS. If you want to add it back, first gain consensus, that’s what the talk page is for.
“ Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. 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”.
so for now the content should be removed until discussions on this matter end. If the discussion concludes in your favor when it’s done, then feel free to add it back. Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging other users to who have participated in similar discussions
There are two separate issues here. The GIF and the map with holes. Firstly, the map with holes already had many discussions in the past which favored it in the past. And new discussions are ongoing but that consensus has never changed. I’m not saying it can’t change, however unlikely. But it simply hasn’t yet. Discussions on the mauryan empire page are ongoing. Only the people who have agreed with its removal have even commented on this page. Wait until they get here.
Which leads me to my next point. The mauryan empire talk page had many discussions about this in the past which favored the holes map. So it doesn’t suddenly change to “No consensus” because you guys wanted to remove it. That just means discussions are ongoing.
The gif matter is just ridiculous because your claiming consensus on a discussion which began yesterday. The other editors who disagreed with you in the past haven’t even commented on here yet. Consensus takes more than one day to change and I think you know that so obviously, ONUS is not on me. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was agreed in the talk page to add the gif and no user disputed (even padfoot who was contesting it accepted it later) it except for you, so you have to seek consensus first before outrightly changing it, regardless of it being a new content, Padfoot's map similarly is a newly added map too which has absolutely 0 consensus either. No one strongly disagreed or agreed with it and the discussion is still going on. Numerous editors like Patliputra, Edasf, Jingjong (If that is his name?), crypto disagreed with the said map. There was no RFC either. So what padfoot was adding is genuinely a new content with no consensus, in such circumstances it is way better to add a more long standing stable version of the map which was in the article since a long time. Which crypto did.
"Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. 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". Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You ignored much of what was written.
Firstly the “map with holes” discussion was something that was carried over from the mauryan empire talk page. It didn’t just start here. Numerous discussions in the past have already addressed this and each time, the map with holes was favored. So regardless of your issue with the gif, you should have never removed the map with holes per wiki policies such as WP:ONUS and consensus. You’re supposed to wait until discussions end and only add it if you gain consensus. And consensus doesn’t just change overnight. You guys are rushing to gain consensus before anybody has a time to respond. Nobody who took issue with the removal of the holes map has even addressed their concerns here on the talk page yet, because the topic was brought up YESTERDAY! Which brings me to my next point. How can you seriously say that consensus on the gif matter is closed when the discussion just began?! Again, consensus takes time to change.
But back onto the matter on the map holes. @Joshua Jonathan revealed several links of discussions which ended in favor for the map with holes. So consensus was reached on that. But let’s say for the sake of argument, that consensus on that matter wasn’t set in stone, as you believe. You do realize that it still was the previous content? And previous content shouldn’t be changed without consensus which you wrote word for word was the case? So why did you remove the map with holes?
As for the gif matter, as I’ve mentioned previously, the discussion began yesterday. The fact that you tried claiming that consensus was reached immediately is just out of this world to me. You should wait until other editors who have clearly voiced their opinions in favor of the map with holes to express their viewpoint here on the talk page. So far only people that have agreed with each other on the previous discussion have even commented on here except me. So again, wait more than one day for this matter to be settled.
I'd like to see sources that actually mention or treat a polity as the second Magadhan Empire, I also think creating a separate article would be pointless, if sources do not treat it as such. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do know that the discussion has been going on since the mauryan Empire's talk page, but there was absolutely no clear consensus or agreement over any sort of map. The holed version faced numerous disputes and is still being disputed. There is no consensus yet established. So there is no question of publishing it again. The one without holes was a long standing version which prevailed in this page [2] until padfoot added it few days ago here [3] (which hasn't met a consensus yet). And eversince then it is still being disputed.
As for the gif's discussion begining yesterday, it was still quickly agreed by many users..even those who initially disputed it, thus since there is no one disputing it, we can clearly publish the map. Yes surely we will remove it if someone disputes it and the consensus changes, but let that happen first before outrightly removing it.
Regarding the holed map, I would say it again, there is no consensus for the said map. It is still being disputed and the discussion is still clearly going on, the fact that it is still being disputed by more than 4 users is more than enough to not publish it until a consensus is reached. And no, it was NOT a previous content, this was the long standing version [4]
And again for the gif, there are no disputes yet, those who disputed it earlier (like padfoot) accepted it and a consensus is reached, unless there are disputes we will begin a discussion for a new change. And I am extremely glad that you didn't prefer to edit war and choose to discuss in the talk page instead. Thank you.
