Talk:Ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya

message: Following is the discussions over the article , mainly on the origin of  him. The article was tagged NPOV. I have now created a separate article (this one) and request the intersted parties to discuss about the origin here. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

message: It seems like in History of India related links a new trend has started.  Some speculators have started a vicious, fraudulant and hostile campaign to show that all great rulers in India had origins in North-west or Punjab.  Blatant unsubstantiated work by some authors is being presented as "Another View or Fifth view and so on...".  
The speculators are so drunk with haughtiness that they think If there was an ancient ruler of India it must have been from North-west. The traditional view known to India for Centuries is being presented as "Just Another View out of many different possibilities".  Wild speculations are being presented as "matter of fact".  
One example is a wild speculation that how could an "inexperienced" person from Bihar conquer the "hardy Punjabis" and establish his rule all across India? And that he himself must have been of Punjabi origins.  Plutarch's words are presented as assured truth whereas traditional view is presented as highly sketchy is nature.  If this is not fraud, what is?  We would like to know in which ancient and historical work ChandraGupta Maurya is referred as belonging to some North-Western region.  
Even in Modern times there are plenty of examples that Heartland of India, Uttrapradesh, bengal, Bihar, Madhyapradesh, Gujarat and South States have produced leaders of great stature who commanded the allegience of All Indians.  Subhash Bose, Mahatma Gandhi, Viekananda, Aurobindo, Dayanand Saraswati and even in pre-british times the Marathas, the empire of Vijaynagar, and most assuredly Mauryas who most honest Indians know originated unequivocally from Bihar.  These Leaders were as good or better than any leader North-West has produced.
This article therefore needs major changes.  SanjayMohan 21:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: False references used

message: The article is very badly written from all point of view. Some views are termed "Alleged" and some others are taken as proved facts when they are not. There is still wide disagreements in all views and so all should be equally weighted. Giving preference to views of some is very bad in terms of scholarly interests. There seems to be a set of people who think that they have the authority to decide the truth and history. Already the way the world history stands shows that, it is this type of selective analysis which is not only only wrong but dangerous. The bits and pieces of information available should not be interpreted at once whim, bias and modified to suit some view. The study of history is only for the sake of truth and not otherwise. So articles should be neutral on such aspects. 27.61.156.232 (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.Few users are acting like historians.The article was already in a bad shape and these people made it pathetic,that's why i got the main article locked.Some users are very biased,and make edits to highlight their clans/caste achievement.The best you and me can do is,present counter view along with their views.^^Maverick.Mohit^^  04:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who should decide what is truth and what not? 

message: to my brother sitush the whole topic in that category was wrriten by me and that was a mistake on my side, 18th century dhundiraja was commentator of mudrarakshahsa and not on vishnu purana because i cannot edit plz change the content it was medieval commentator named Ratnagarbha who is heavily criticized because he has termed chandragupta a shudra even though nothing such is mentioned in vishnu purana. His name is ratnagarbha he was a critic(or commentator) on vishnu purana. thnx122.162.205.86 (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: medieval commentator and not 18th century

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Maurya.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060216162559/http://depts.washington.edu/ebmp/etext.php?cki=CKI0013 to http://depts.washington.edu/ebmp/etext.php?cki=CKI0013
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article was created by splitting a large amount of poorly-sourced content from Chandragupta Maurya without any discussion. As pointed out by others above, much of this content is badly-written, poorly-sourced and/or irrelevant to the topic. Last month, I tagged much of the content with appropriate tags (citation needed, relevance etc.); the article already has citation needed tags dating back to 2010 and 2016. If these issues are not addressed within a few weeks, I'll merge back the content to the original article, since there'll be hardly anything left after removing the poorly-sourced bits. utcursch | talk 15:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now redirected this back to the main article. utcursch | talk 21:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge back