This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan 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.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
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.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
This revision removed the references and statement about some scholars disputing that the Gupta Empire was "the Golden Age", claiming it was an "exaggerated claim. Only DN Jha refuted the claim of Golden Age, while most modern historians still maintain the claim." I reverted the change, but would like that user to know why and allow them an opportunity to open a dialogue about this.
I reverted the change because the wording of the article already implied that this is an idea only contested by some scholars. If the claim is to be made that this was "The Golden Age" of India, it is important to show all dissenting ideas and the scholars that wrote them in order to help provide a neutral point of view. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk?16:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here also: The Bhagavad Gita: A Biography - Page 6
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1400851971
Richard H. Davis - 2014 - Preview
Most Sanskrit scholars agree that the Bhagavad Gita originated in northern India, sometime in the classical period between the reign of the Mauryan king Ashoka (r. 269–232 BCE) and Gupta dynasty (320–547 CE), as part of a much larger ...
And here:
The Bhagavadgita: Doctrines and Contexts - Page 243
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1139469053
Angelika Malinar - 2007 - Preview - More editions
Some scholars, for instance, interpret the BhG as a 'synthesis' of different ideas and groups which mirrors a peaceful, prosperous society in which diversity has been harmonised, as was allegedly achieved under the Gupta dynasty (350–500 ...
Dallas museum of art mentions the following map of gupta empire, i think its the greatest extent of gupta empire which should be mentioned in this article, its a great injustice that empires like empires of alexander, and mughal are shown at their greatest extend in their articles even though they were only to retain that for a very few years while gupta empire article has multiple maps none of them showing their greatest extent.
i think your maps dont represent maximum extent of the Gupta empire, in any article related to empires, maximum extent is always shown, secondly your maps are not of the same quality as other shaded maps, i think my map should be replaced on the template while you can put detailed map below. 60.50.173.223 (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not undo your changes, but I'd like to point out that the extent depicted in your map may not be accurate. Your map depicts large parts of large parts of south-eastern India as well as north-western India as parts of the Gupta Empire at the same time. In reality, the south-eastern campaign of Samudragupta probably resulted in some tributary states rather than annexed territories, and this tributary status probably did not last during the reign of Chandragupta II when the empire is believed to expanded in the north-west. utcursch | talk00:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the extent depicted in these maps is not unanimously accepted among scholars. For example, see the sources of the current map.
Other than that, as RegentsPark (who undid your edit) states, the current map is more informative. And I agree -- it labels various places and neighbouring kingdoms, while the other map shows nothing more than three colors. utcursch | talk15:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about in the Chandragupta section (assuming the sourcing is good). Along with the caveats stated by Utcursch above - clearly stating that it includes tributary states. --regentspark (comment) 00:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current map depicting the Gupta Empire is highly inaccurate. It erroneously includes parts of modern-day Pakistan, Afghanistan and southern India. During the same era, modern-day Punjab in Pakistan and Taxila was ruled by the Kidarites and local tribes, and Sindh was under the control of the Sassanids, succeeded by the Rai dynasty. Details regarding the southern conquests are scarce, and conflicts indicate that the southern kings were not directly under the suzerainty of the Guptas. The cited source for the map is highly flawed, as observed in the case of the Vijayanagar Empire as well. This Map Conflate different eras into One DeepstoneV (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Current map has sources. Can you please provide an alternative map with proper sources and explain why it is a better option? Thanks SKAG123 (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure But I gave the reason regarding the Current Map, which conflates different eras into one, The current Map shows Taxila and Punjab as Territory of Guptas But as same Era Kidarites ruled and Litrally same in the case of Sindh, at Same era Sassanids followed by Rai dynasty ruled it
I told current Map conflates different eras into one, Is there any Sold Evidence to Support that Guptas ruled Taxila and Sindh? Because at same era other dynasties were rulling DeepstoneV (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This map is totally inaccurate without any sources and there's no way we can change the current map to this. Well, even worse! Not only is this map inaccurate and without any sources, but it's also just a screenshot from a YouTube video [1], [2]. Definitely not changing the current map to this, and I hope you know YouTube videos aren't WP:RS. Based Kashmiri (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Current Map has alot of InAccuracies, and We have seen that in the case of Vijayangar empire's Map too.
Current Map shows Sindh as territory of Guptas But at same era Sindh was Province of the sassanid empire and Rai dynasty Preceded them in Sindh
Look, there's no way we're going to change the current map that's accurate and well sourced to your screenshot from a YouTube video. I suggest you to take a look at WP:RS
The current map is of 420 CE and Rai Dynasty started in 489 CE.
Also Gupta Arts have been found in Sindh (circa 410 CE) so the current map is absolutely correct.
"The terracotta figures of Mirpur Khas represent the Gupta idiom as it flourished in Sindh. (...) In the terracottas of Mirpur Khas, of which the Museum has a most representative collection, one may see the synthesis of Gandhara and Gupta traditions . Here the old sacrosanct forms of Gandhara are moulded in the Gupta character of nobility , restraint and spirituality and the result is very pleasing. The figures of the Buddha from Mirpur Khas show transformation from the Gandhara to Gupta idiom , which the figures of the donor and Kubera show well developed Gupta types."
What are you going on about? You asked for solid evidence of Gupta rule in Sindh, so I gave you sources of their influence there. Did you know that the Guptas extended till Sindh?
The above discussion enables us to describe the nature and extent of the empire of Samudra-gupta with an accuracy and fulness of details which are rare in ancient Indian history. It comprised nearly the whole of Northern India, with the exclu- sion of Kashmir, Western Punjab, Western Rajputāna, Sindh and Gujarat, together with the highlands of Chattisgarh and Orissa and a long stretch of territory along the eastern coast extending as far south as Chingleput and probably even further. Of these vast territories, a considerable portion of Northern India, more accurately defined above, was directly adminis- tered by the emperor through his own officials[3]
Clearly you aren't an expert in this topic. You shouldn't spout off about things you know nothing about.
Your source is litrally depend upon arts, even a Indian art is found in Italy known as Rome Laxmi. This don't proves anything DeepstoneV (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No unrelated and invalid arguments please. We won't edit the current map, which is properly sourced to your unsourced screenshot from YouTube. Do you even know what WP:RS is? Based Kashmiri (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is litrally a article present on Sassanid Sindh Province Depend upon WP:RS and you are Giving some Art Sources that at same era Gupta ruled Sindh, Wow. DeepstoneV (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but we are not going to add your unsourced and fake map which is literally a screenshot from YouTube[1], [2]. Also, I already gave you sources regarding the Gupta's conquests of Sindh. Based Kashmiri (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also been brought to my attention that you removed the "Gupta Empire section" from History of Sindh (3) in a highly biased manner. if you continue to engage in vandalism and removing WP:RS on pages related to the Gupta Empire and Sindh, I will report it to WP:ANI (Wikipedia: Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents). This is your last warning. Based Kashmiri (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is genuinely hilarious. Referring to everything as WP:RS (Wikipedia Reliable Source), and by the way, you can't even locate the context in most of those sources. Just observe the timeline to see how both the Guptas and Sassanids ruled simultaneously. This is nonsense, and Sitush was correct about Indian history. DeepstoneV (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, the edit by DeepstoneV which Based Kashmiri was talking about was reverted [1] by brand new user User:Malik-Al-Hind who made the same argument, who also tries to overinflate the Gupta territory [2] just like brand new user Based Kashmiri and who makes the exact type of edits as Based Kashmiri. Certainly doesn't sound similar to the countless other new users [3]. Also [4] - 4th-century Kalidasa is not WP:RS per WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:PST and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even more interestingly there is another user who opposes DeepstoneV and isn't a brand new user. (9)
And who are you to decide whose edits I should talk about? I'm currently talking about you and the recent edit warring that led to this page being protected. Feel free to respond to my first comment up above. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying using Kalidasa as a source isn't WP:RS, But the cited sources use Ashwini Agarwal and Upinder Singh, Both of them are historians and they come in the category of WP:RS clearly. And they clearly talk about Kalidasa Praising Guptas for having conquered Oxus, Kambojas, And other 21 kingdoms in and outside India. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources which are WP:RS talk about Kalidasa Praising Guptas for conquering 21 kingdoms in and Outside India, This included the Oxus valley, kambojas and bactria.
And that is what the lead said.
"The 4th-century CE Sanskrit poet Kalidasa credits the Guptas with having conquered about twenty-one kingdoms, both in and outside India, including the kingdoms of Persians, the Hunas, the Kambojas, tribes located in the west and east Oxus valleys, the Kinnaras, Kiratas, and others."
So there is nothing wrong with this. Since the cited sources clearly say what the lead section of the page says
Make sure to read Read what Ashwini Agarwal has said in the cited sources:
Ashvini agarwal in p-165-
"Trans-Indus region and from there he headed northwards, reached Bactria, where perhaps he had a battle with the Hūņas on the Oxus. This view remarkably tallies with Kālidāsa's account of Raghu's conquests of the north. His description seems to be based on a historical background and he seems to have combined the conquests of Samudragupta and Chandragupta II into that of the legendary Raghu"
Goyal is a Historian as well as well and see what he says about this: Goyal p-218- lt conclusively proves that if Kalidasa wrote the account of the digvijaya of Raghu on the basis of the actual facts provided by the military achievements of Samudragupta and Chandragupta II, he had completed the composition of the Raghuvamsa before the conquest of the Western India by Chandragupta II the Saka rule in the Westera India came to an end towards theclose of the reign of Chandragupta. Therefore, the composition of the Raghuvamsa may well have been over by c. 400 A. D.
It is a very significant clue, because as is generally admitted, the Raghuvamsa is by far one of the best and most mature works of Kalidasa.Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?!?!?! "Are they agreeing with Kalidasa" I don't get you. And what was that [6]? Please be sure about what you ask. Then I may be able to respond you. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was me clarifying an already simple question, yet you still failed to understand it. It's not rocket science. Are you going to address it? HistoryofIran (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... okay, let's try one last time. This info you added [7], it's by reported by a person from the 4th-century, but you are claiming that the two modern historians Ashwini Agarwal and Upinder Singh are supporting this claim. So please cite the quote where they are supporting the following; "The 4th-century CE Sanskrit poet Kalidasa credits the Guptas with having conquered about twenty-one kingdoms, both in and outside India, including the kingdoms of Persians, the Hunas, the Kambojas, tribes located in the west and east Oxus valleys, the Kinnaras, Kiratas, and others."HistoryofIran (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I simply said the two Modern historians agree with the claim that Kalidasa Praises Guptas for having Conquered 21 Kingdoms In and Outside India Including Oxus valley, Kambojas, Balkh and kingdom of the persians. Which is obviously true if you simply click on the citation and check it.
But since it looks like rocket science to you, I am quoting him again.
Ashwini Agarwal in Pg 165 says:
"Trans-Indus Region and from there he headed towards northwards, reached Bactria, where perhaps he had a battle with the Hunas on the Oxus. This view remarkably tallies with Kalidasa's account of Raghu's conquest of the north. His description seems to based on a historical background and he seems to have combined the conquests of Samudragupta and Chandragupta II into that of the legendary Raghu."Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is "rocket science" because this quote in no way supports the above claim - the only part that would maybe do so is "perhaps had a battle with the Hunas on the Oxus", but it does not claim this battle was won and uses the word perhaps. If you would be so kind as to provide further great evidence that accurately and fully supports this claim, you are welcome to do so. I originally supported the "anti-deletion" side of this debate as these sources which stated the larger extent of the Guptas seemed at first to be reliable, however I have now yet to see that the sources actually support the claim. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all the topic thread was about whether the Guptas ended upto Sindh or not. And obviously about the map of the Gupta Empire, Since @Based Kashmiri already provided sources stating that Gupta rule indeed extended upto Sindh while the current map of Guptas is well sourced and accurate and shouldn't be replaced with a map which is from a YouTube video, This topic thread should have already been closed. However, History of Iran then jumps in to change the topic, Just to defend DeepstoneV's disruptive edits on this page. Still I'd like to extend it further by providing more sources for Guptas defeating the hunas, Kambojas and Persians.
The account of the conquest of the North-Western region by
Raghu is consonant with and supports our suggestion. According to Kalidasa, Persia could have been reached by
a sea-route, but Raghu discarded it. He went by the land-rout and defeated the Persians in a fierce fighting. Thereafter, he moved northwards and vanquished the Hunas on the banks of the river Oxus. Then came the turn of the Kambojas who were unable to resist his valour and accepted his overlordship. - History of Imperial Guptas by SR Goyal pg 218-219
The poet begins his account of the north-western campaign of Raghu bystating that he set out to conquer the Persians (Parasikas) This shows that the primary object of Raghu was to crush the
Parasikas. But after defeating them somewhere near Begram and conquering the adjoining regions it became imperative for the conqueror to proceed right north and pounce upon the Hunas on the Oxus. This proves that the association of the Hunas withthe Parasikas were so close that without conquering them the victory over the latter was quite meaningless. - Studies in
Indian History And Civilization by Buddh Prakash pg-323
Just after defeating the Hunas on the Oxus Raghu conquered the Kambojas. As will be shown later, the Kambojas occupied the Badakhshan - Studies in
Indian History And Civilization by Buddh Prakash pg-346.
Chandragupta II undertook an expedition across Vahlika (Balkh?). R.K. Mookerji asserts that Chandragupta II crossed the Sindhu (Indus) and its tributary rivers (the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej rivers). This expedition was directed probably against the Huns or the Sassanids. Another objective of this campaign was to get access to the Central Asian and Afghanistan horses. - Warfare in pre British India by Kaushik Roy p-57.Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now you are citing different sources, which means you were misciting Ashwini Agarwal and Upinder Singh. Malik-Al-Hind is no doubt misusing those sources as well or something similar. If someone could check it, that would be appreciated. And I'm not defending anyone. Funny, you argue just like a certain someone [8]HistoryofIran (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, the last quote shows uncertainty too. And its the exact same quote misuse by a certain someone… more evidence for the ANI, we love it. HistoryofIran (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose: This logic of "historically not consistently capitalized" (if we go by SMcCandlish's claim of requiring 90%+ support for capitalization) can be applied for nearly all empires if we go by pre-2000 ngram data, yet for 20 years, for some odd reason, we've treated Empires as proper nouns without any objection. Using the 2019 corpus and adding a preceding "the", [9][10][11][12][13] there's no reason, by this logic, not to just do a mass RM for many prominent empires as simple maintenance.
We have had the capitalization we have for these historical states for so long not because of miscapitalization or ignorance of guidelines; some people's interpretation, or the wording of the guideline WP:NCCAPS may cause beliefs of miscapitalization, as it for one states that we cannot capitalize unless the subject is always capitalized mid-sentence. Right now, not 20 years ago, when these RMs are taking place, the conventional method in reliable sources is to treat these polities as proper names. [14][15][16][17][18] This change in convention may have occurred in part from usage here, but it has occurred nonetheless, so to ignore it is to go against what reliable sources say.
I think the hours of editor time that may be wasted on changes which have little real importance outweighs any perceived improvement to the project if attempts are made to apply this reasoning to all historical polities. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Randy, why you want caps here? And why not look at n-grams with enough context to remove some of the title-case contexts, e.g. by at least having lowercase "the" in the context? If you do that, you find that it was majority lowercase for the 100 years prior to the creation of the article at Gupta Dynasty, after which it crept up some, but still not close to consistently capitalized like MOS:CAPS calls for. You don't need a threshold as high as 90% to make it clear that it falls short. It might touch 80% one year, with minimal smoothing, but nothing like consistently capitalized. Have a great weekend, and feel free to waste less time here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony1, for pointing out my mistake that I and Dicklyon missed. I meant "uppercase prevalence" in the n-grams, not "lowercase". And Dicklyon, my apologies for not accepting your concern on good faith and being a dick about it. Because these lowercasing nominations and disagreement discussions seem to occur week after week, month after month, for years, I was just hoping that sometimes, when uppercasing is obviously correct, you would not nominate things like this one. Your argument seems to be that Wikipedia uppercasing 'Empire' years ago influenced later sources to follow suit. It may have, or may not have, and we don't know and can't know. Either way, this has nothing to do with deciding the present-time title casing. Acting on an assumption, and using your interesting although tangential observation to negate current n-gram usage, seems an WP:IAR argument. What would be ignored would be present-time n-gram information in order to reflect historical usage, and this should probably be directly stated as an IAR policy ask (which isn't used near enough in my opinion). Yet it would be hard to argue IAR in this instance since lowercasing 'Empire' does not improve or maintain Wikipedia via commonsense. Another thing missed, besides my wording blunders (I'll correct the first so as not to confuse the closer, and strike the second per:Dick), is that the n-gram I linked does include the word "the". Randy Kryn (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question of capitalisation (per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS) as to whether caps are necessary is essentially a statistical question. In this case, there is a relatively small sample of sources to help us determine the question and there are inherent problems with small sample sets (in distinguishing signal from noise and whether an apparent trend is actually real or an apparition). If we take the ngram result from the most recent year, the proportion of the capitalised form is 70% (69.86%). It may be at a threshold by which some might consider capitalisation necessary but it does not exceed it. It is also common (but not correct) to equate capitalisation with being a proper noun|name. It ignores that English uses capitalisation for other things and that capitalisation for emphasis or distinction is quite common (but we don't do that per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS). The question here is whether Gupta Empire is a formal name and therefore a proper noun|name or whether it is being used descriptively to describe a polity founded by Gupta and has been capitalisted for emphasis and/or distinction. this source uses Gupta "empire" [sic], indicating a term of art, which might also be indicated by capitalisation - ie it is not being used as a proper noun|name. We also see inconsistency in capitalisation in this search and that that a significant number of the search hits involve the term being in the title of works. As to other WP articles, we are certainly not seeing the degree of consistency here (see other empires linked above) that we see in this ngram. Outwardly, there might be similarities of poor consistency in the use of capitalisation but this would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. As to the argument, its been like this for a long time, it falls to WP:NODEADLINE. Arguments that it is a lot of work to change fall to Wikipedia:Fait accompli and are not appropriate arguments to consider. The Nom, DL routinely follows through with the changes they propose. Argument to effect its not important and/or its not an improvement are against the broader community consensus to have a style guide which is followed. Overuse of capitalisation reduces accessibility. Yes, there are various perception on what should or should not be capitalised. This is why we have MOS:CAPS. If capitalisation is not important, then there should be no issue with removing capitalisation as a matter of routine maintenance. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SMcC and FN, that cytogenesisis not an argument for reverting capitalisation - English changes and how/why it has changed is irrelevant to the criteria established by MOS:CAPS. The substantive question is whether it has changed to such an extent that capitalising empire in this case is necessary. Arguments about capitalisation of other empires are irrelevant to the point of fallacious reductio ad absurdum. I have been waiting to see if there are sound arguments that this has reached the point where capitalisation is necessary. While it is approaching this threshold, I am not convinced that it has past this point, and certainly not as a long term change. These ngrams sow the proportion of use for the contexturalised terms the Gupta Empire and Gupta Empire was. In each case, the proportion of capitalisation peaks in 2012, short of 80% and then declines to about 70% (±). I also note that the ngram plot gives a slightly higher value than that which I calculated above. This is probably because of the ordering in which the smoothing function is applied. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support While close to the threshold by which we might consider capitalisation necessary per MOS:CAPS, I am not convinced it has exceeded this threshold (per my comments above). Cinderella157 (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great questions! The answer is absolutely no, because those are so very clearly consistently capitalized in sources. They are great examples of what proper names look like in n-gram stats: [19], [20]. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Since around 2000, published work that includes this term has been moving more and more toward upper case. We are witnessing the transition from a descriptive term to a conventionalized proper name, and the capitalized form overwhelmingly dominates in modern publications. This trend began before WP had an article on the subject (and back then there was a fork at Gupta dynasty, converted into a direct in 2006); while "citogenesis" could have had an influence, it is not the cause. Consistent capitalization in sources doesn't mean "including obsolete ones that pre-date an obvious shift in usage". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've misinterpreted the article history. Look at the Gupta dynasty history. When it was created in 2003, it was a redirect to the already existing Gupta Empire article that had been created in 2002 (even though the lead there said Gupta dynasty). If you look at the n-grams, it looks like 2002/03 is about when the trend toward more capping started. And whether that's attributable to Wikipedia's unreasonably effective influence or not, it has not gotten close to the "consistently capitalized" threshold that we normally use. You can see similar trends to more capitalization after WP capped Sikh Empire, Nanda Empire, Maurya Empire, and lots of things other than empires, too. It's not too late to fix them, as they're not yet close to "consistently capitalized". Please take another look before this is snow closed. Dicklyon (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Randomly picking three empires not mentioned above, Empire of Japan (see alternate name), Russian Empire, and Roman Empire (different from the Holy Roman Empire mentioned above), capitalize the word 'Empire'. The logic is that we aren't talking about Japanese people that have an empire, or Russian people that have an empire, which is common noun usage. We're talking about a specific entity as a proper noun. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello @पाटलिपुत्र, I have created a map of the Gupta Empire, which closely resembles yours but I have followed additional geographical maps for more detailed insights.
Your map shows the evolution of Gupta territory through time, and could nicely replace the twin map in the middle of the article currently captionned "Evolution of Gupta territory, with neighbouring polities", which is quite hard to read. A detail: what is the "Gupta inscription" your map is showing above Gandhara (which does not seem to appear in the source)? Also, I think it would be nice to add "Sasanian Empire" and "White Huns" at the western periphery, as does the source. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk)06:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Gupta inscription" you mentioned was referring to the Sacred Rock of Hunza in the Gilgit-Baltistan region, which has connections to the Guptas but is also disputed. To maintain accuracy, I have removed its marking. I have also included the labels for the "Sasanian Empire" and "White Huns" as suggested. NxcryptoMessage10:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@पाटलिपुत्र:This, as well as this, are better representations of this work, apart from the "inscriptions" part ofcourse. The positioning of Pundra for example, isn't correct in the new map, that area is Kamarupa / Pragjyotisha instead considering that river is Brahmaputra. Pundra should be in the position of Magadha in the map and Magadha should be a bit more west. Also Vanga should spread a bit towards the west, alongwith Tamralipta (associated with Tamluk) which is positioned near Calcutta. It should be on the west bank of the 'wedge-like' part of the estuary per this and this. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NXcrypto: That's nice. I've a few more suggestions to make:
1 A) The ochre colored region (Pragjyotishpura) should be renamed to Kamarupa (it was probably under Varman dynasty at that time, Pragjyotishpura was the capital).
1 B) The ochre colored region should extend a bit to include the river Brahmaputra (valley).
2) Would suggest to reinclude the cities of Champa (Bhagalpur) and Tamralipta (Tamluk).
3 A) Include Pundra north of Vanga, spanning the northern parts of the distributaries of Ganges and Brahmaputra (as in here)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Everything you say is a nonsequitur. What does who restored the Magadhan empire have to do with anything? The Gupta dynasty ruled the Gupta Empire. The Gupta Empire was the state ruled by the Gupta dynasty. There is no contradiction. Srnec (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: They are all same! Gupta Empire is used to refer Gupta ruled Magadha you are confused.Magadhan Empire wasn't a same entity under all dynasties all had their own distinct rulers and identity.Magadhan Empire is an umbrella term to refer them collectively you request a move to rename that as something else.And for universe's sake don't do such non sense move requests before clearing confusion and having sources.
Then why aren't Delhi sultanate a different entity? Many kingdoms are ruled by different dynasties and rulers. Doesn't mean their political entity changes.
Oppose - There's no such thing as a "restored Magadhan Empire", Wikipedia is not a place to promote extremely fringe views or your own origial research. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Majumdar was a nationalist historians known for promoting Hindu nationalist views. I would like to see modern historians supporting these claims. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initial home of the Gupta dynasty is assumed to be in the area of the Käsi-Ayodhyā-Pāțaliputra region. Based on coin finds, all indications are that the Gupta capital was around Kannauj and Kāśī, not Pāțaliputra.
UP therefore seems to have been the place from where the Guptas operated and fanned out in different directions. Probably with their centre of power at Prayag, they spread into the neighbouring regions.
The capital of the Guptas was located somewhere in the eastern part of U. P. The evidence of the Puranas from which we learn that Prayaga was the nucleus of the original Gupta state.
Pataliputra has been mentioned under its own proper name in the Udayagiri cave inscription of Virasena, a minister of Chandragupta II, and the Gadhwa inscription of the time of the same emperor. But neither of them connect it with him as his capital.
On the other hand, the statement of Virasena that he was a Pātaliputrakah suggests that this city was not the imperial capital of the empire, for, being a minister of the central government, he was supposed to have been officially connected with the imperial capital; there was no necessity for him to describe himself as belonging to it. It means that he has referred to the city to which he belonged in his private capacity, and not to the capital of the empire.
No inscription of the imperial Guptas belonging to the first hundred-fifty rears of their rule, has been discovered at or in the neighbourhood of Pataliputra.
No specimen of the Chandragupta-Kumardevi type of coins, the earliest of the series of the Gupta gold coins, has so far been found at Pataliputra, no hoard of the Gupta gold coins has been yielded by this city.
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
