Talk:Indo-Greek Kingdom/Archive 1

message: How come the word barbarian is used within the quotes? That implies the native Indians saw the Greeks as the equivalents of nomads and other relatively turbulent cultures. Is the translation actually correct or should it be read up and corrected if necessary to something more appropriate such as foreigner, alien or invader?
:Hi. The original word typically used in these texts is Mleccha, for Yavanas and others invaders from the Northwest, which usually designates people who are not of Sanskrit culture, and is usually translated as barbarians. Regards PHG 21:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Word Choice

message: I have changed the reference to the title Soter as being used only twice before Menander I. It was used by Ptolemy I, Antiochus I, Seleucus III, Attalus I & Eumenes II of Pergamon, and also posthumously applied to Diodotus I and Pantaleon by Agathocles I.
--Sponsianus 23:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Soter

message: '
--------------------------------------------------------
Can I just say something here? While I find this conversation intriguing, it is kind of bad netiquette to respond inside the contents of someone else's posts. It breaks the conversational flow and makes it exceedingly difficult to follow the structure of the first poster's (Devanampriya's) argument. If you wouldn't mind moving the bullet-points out and quoting appropriate phrases to remind us what you're referencing rather than garbling up Devanampriya's postings, it would be much appreciated.
I do find that this article also exhibits the same "Greco-centric" perspective of Indian history as the one on the Sungas that I commented on earlier. It seems wholly innappropriate to write about history in India through a Greek lens. Building up a historical argument based on one-sided sources is just bad form no matter which way you slice it. Some of the assertions here (control over the area around Pataliputra, for one) are declared much more forcefully than the body of historical evidence would permit. Might I just suggest that we all be wary of publishing ideas or historical arguments within Wikipedia that are not representative of mainstream thought without some kind of disclaimer? There are some pseudo-historians out there who write with an agenda towards aggrandizement of certain historical figures and their legacies (e.g. Tarn with Alexander) and we ought to keep an eye-out for falling for their propaganda.
Cheers,
Pav
:Hi Pav. Thanks for the comments. As far as I know it is normal practice on Wikipedia to respond part-by-part to a long argument. It actually makes it easier to follow the points made and their direct response rather than having two huge blocks of text one after another. You typically get a cascading structure with questions and answers. Please reference if it is indeed not Wikipedia etiquette, I will be glad to comply.
:Anyone is free to add any reference material they might have. I am certainly not blocking out (and sure cannot block out) alternative views (as long as they are referenced), and the suppositions in the article are presented as such and all referenced from published scholarly material. Especially, alternative primary references are VERY welcome. So far, the claims against the "Hellenistic" slant of the article (it is an article on the Indo-Greeks after all...) are not supported by any alternative primary references, only rethorics. And sorry, Tarn, Bopearachchi, Puri, Boardman etc... are not pseudo-historians, neither Western historians only. Regards PHG 03:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Pav. Well, I can hardly say more. Any (referenced) material, any (referenced) alternative view is welcome. I do believe the article is actually quite balanced and systematically referenced in view of the available sources, and after intense scrutiny by our "Wiki peers" has indeed been recognized as one of the best articles of Wikipedia. Regards. PHG 23:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perspective and Stylistic Issues