![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 5 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Sunga Empire. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Three sources are already cited in the text, and more are readily available on Internet. User:PHG
This entire article is written from a Greco-philic perspective. I'm sure there was more to the Sunga empire than mere persecution of Buddhism for the fun of it, just as I'm sure there was more to the Bactrian attacks on the Sungas than naive altruistic intentions. I am highly suspicious of any article that seems to draw the bulk of its narrative from W.W. Tarn simply because that man was shameless in the unjustified praise he lavished on Alexander. I am doubly suspicious of accounts of history that construct their entire narrative in relation to the Greeks. After all, this is supposed to be an entry on the Sungas, not on the valour of Indo-Greek white knights. User: Pavs
I am not an expert so this is both a request for information and a way to streamline things that has me a little confused.
If you go to Magaadha, or the History of South Asia it lists the Sunga as merely a dynasty of Maghada among 4 other dynasties if that is the case then I think the Sunga Empire should be a redirect to Sunga Dynasty and the both the articles merged into Sunga Dynasty. Sunga dynasty anyway looks like a cut and paste section of this page. Also a a little table at the bottom showing both the preceding and antecedent dynasties should be included and placed under Maghada. The same holds true for the Mauryans I suppose. I will raise the issue on the Mauryan pages as well so that wikipedia articles are a little more clear.-- Tigeroo 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
My rationale for making the sectin succint. The article is about the entire Sunga dynasty. The debate is about just one singular member of that dynasty. It seems to be overdoing the emphasis in the article by focusing too much of the article on one who seems like an odd man out, in an article about the many.
I beleive it is enough to mention him, mention the debate around him, and mention how this contrasted with or reflected the general attitude of the dynasty as a whole. There are links to two other articles, Decline of Buddhism in India, and Pushyamitras own page, where the information is more specifically and fully explored. Feel free to come and help in the editing the details on those page.
I am being bold here and saying we need to condens and not overdo the exposure to the debate in this particular page.-- Tigeroo 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to check the reference "Sarvastivada p 38-39" but that reference seems to be ambiguous or incomplete. The Sarvastivada is a Buddhist philosophical tradition, not a book. Could you please supply a complete citation so that people who want to read the source material can? Charles haynes ( talk) 09:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Not keen on changing text before discussion. Reference Shailendra Bhandare, ‘Numismatics and History: The Maurya-Gupta Interlude in the Gangetic Plain’. In: Patrick Olivelle, Between the Empires: Society in India 300 BCE to 400 CE. Oxford 2006, 67-112.
Bandhare explains that "when the [Bodhgaya] inscription itself is consulted afresh from its estampages, it becomes clear that the very indication that Indrāgnimitra was a king, or Kurangī a queen, is doubtful." Reason: - no title appended to Indrāgnimitra - epithet of Kurangī "prajāvatī" meaning 'queen' is an assumption - therefore Indrāgnimitra assumed to be king.
Bandhare continues: Nevertheless "a general consensus prevails on identifying this Indrāgnimitra as a ruler who struck coins in the 'Pāñcāla' series. But no coins bearing the name Indrāgnimitra are known in the series." Reason: - there are coins with name Agnimitra - there are coins with name Indramitra - both type struck by separate issuer
Question: Should Wikipedia mention Indrāgnimitra as Śunga king when referring to the Bodhgaya inscription? Suggestion: No, or assumptions should be presented as assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijamin ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Mathura was well outside the Sunga Empire. The Map shows it almost on the border or inside it. The Maturas and Panchalas(between yamuna and ganges) along with the Indo-greeks(in punjab/haryana/himachal and northern pakistan) were allied against the Sungas as they all were related by marital alliances with the Mauryas whom the Sungas had overthrown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.2.23 ( talk) 18:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved per reasons given below. — kwami ( talk) 23:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Śuṅga Empire → Shunga Empire – The primary and consistent name for this article is now Shunga Empire (which is currently a redirect to this page). The use of IAST in the title, while accurate, is unnecessary and inconsistent with the naming conventions employed for articles on other Indian empires. The IAST spelling is, in any case, prominently displayed in the article's lead. -- Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) 09:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Look at the references provided on the Mitra dynasty article. All the references are provided. ( 2600:1001:B012:95BC:C11F:F9C9:72F8:2BEB ( talk) 18:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC))
@ Kintetsubuffalo: if you were actually familiar with the topic (which you are quite clearly not) and not being motivated by some weird agenda against me, you would quite clearly understand that the category entitled "History of Bihar" is more appropriate than History of Bengal. Instead of randomly reverting my edits, maybe read up on the topic? There are these marvellous inventions called "books" which contain a plethora of information. Many of them can be accessed online. Thanks in advance. MADHEPURA2018 ( talk) 20:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
This article should either start with "The Shunga Empire is ..." or be renamed to "Shunga dynasty". The article's beginning should tell you what the titular subject is. Kornatice ( talk) 20:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved as participants argued that the word Empire is crucial for the scope of this article ( non-admin closure) >>> Extorc. talk 14:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Shunga Empire → Shunga dynasty – Per WP:COMMONNAME. According to Google ngram data, Shunga dynasty has much more usages than Shunga Empire [1]. (In fact, Shunga empire has too low usages to be even measured by Google ngrams.)
Edit – The reason is not just WP:COMMONNAME, the Shunga dynasty or Sunga dynasty, is merely seen as one of the successive ruling dynasties of Magadha, not as a seperate entity like Mughal or Timurid Empires. This is similar to the articles on the Delhi Sultanate at its five ruling dynasties. An article called "Tughaq Empire" or "Lodi Empire" doesn't exist. PadFoot2008 ( talk) 08:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The Shunga Empire (IAST: Śuṅga) was an ancient Indian dynasty from Magadha that controlled areas of the most of the northern Indian subcontinent from around 185 to 73 BCE." is a better lead sentence as in this version before the changes, since the dynasty might be the "seventh ruling dynasty of Magadha", but as an empire, it ruled areas beyond Magadha. Same should be the case with Nanda Empire article. This → "
The Nanda dynasty ruled in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent during the fourth century BCE, and possibly during the fifth century BCE" was the version before the edits that changed the lead sentence's focus to the dynasty instead of the empire. The older version had this as the following sentence → "The Nandas overthrew the Shaishunaga dynasty in the Magadha region of eastern India, and expanded their empire to include a larger part of northern India" — so information about Magadha was not exactly lost and the 'fifth ruling dynasty' part can be added there. Pinging @ Johnbod, पाटलिपुत्र, and PadFoot2008:. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 11:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The Shunga Empire (IAST: Śuṅga) was an ancient Indian empire that controlled most of the northern Indian subcontinent from around 185 to 73 BCE. The Shunga were the seventh ruling dynasty of Magadha...."
The Nanda Empire covered the northern part of the Indian subcontinent during the fourth century BCE, and possibly during the fifth century BCE, governed by the Nandas, the fifth ruling dynasty of Magadha"
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Withdrawn by nom. Arguments here indicate that "Sunga Empire" is not a preferred title, but do not seem to strongly indicate that "Shunga Empire" is the absolute best title. With that, and the relatively low participation, a no consensus close seems appropriate. ( closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 14:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Shunga Empire → Sunga Empire – The earlier discussion on 5 June 2023 made me realise that in fact, the name " Sunga Empire" is much more common than the name " Shunga Empire" in published sources according to Google ngrams. In fact, Shunga Empire has such less references that it can't be even cited in Google ngrams. I propose this page be moved to Sunga Empire per WP:COMMONNAME and also because the term "Shunga Empire" has almost no references in published sources. PadFoot2008 ( talk) 11:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 13:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 5 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Sunga Empire. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Three sources are already cited in the text, and more are readily available on Internet. User:PHG
This entire article is written from a Greco-philic perspective. I'm sure there was more to the Sunga empire than mere persecution of Buddhism for the fun of it, just as I'm sure there was more to the Bactrian attacks on the Sungas than naive altruistic intentions. I am highly suspicious of any article that seems to draw the bulk of its narrative from W.W. Tarn simply because that man was shameless in the unjustified praise he lavished on Alexander. I am doubly suspicious of accounts of history that construct their entire narrative in relation to the Greeks. After all, this is supposed to be an entry on the Sungas, not on the valour of Indo-Greek white knights. User: Pavs
I am not an expert so this is both a request for information and a way to streamline things that has me a little confused.
If you go to Magaadha, or the History of South Asia it lists the Sunga as merely a dynasty of Maghada among 4 other dynasties if that is the case then I think the Sunga Empire should be a redirect to Sunga Dynasty and the both the articles merged into Sunga Dynasty. Sunga dynasty anyway looks like a cut and paste section of this page. Also a a little table at the bottom showing both the preceding and antecedent dynasties should be included and placed under Maghada. The same holds true for the Mauryans I suppose. I will raise the issue on the Mauryan pages as well so that wikipedia articles are a little more clear.-- Tigeroo 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
My rationale for making the sectin succint. The article is about the entire Sunga dynasty. The debate is about just one singular member of that dynasty. It seems to be overdoing the emphasis in the article by focusing too much of the article on one who seems like an odd man out, in an article about the many.
I beleive it is enough to mention him, mention the debate around him, and mention how this contrasted with or reflected the general attitude of the dynasty as a whole. There are links to two other articles, Decline of Buddhism in India, and Pushyamitras own page, where the information is more specifically and fully explored. Feel free to come and help in the editing the details on those page.
I am being bold here and saying we need to condens and not overdo the exposure to the debate in this particular page.-- Tigeroo 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to check the reference "Sarvastivada p 38-39" but that reference seems to be ambiguous or incomplete. The Sarvastivada is a Buddhist philosophical tradition, not a book. Could you please supply a complete citation so that people who want to read the source material can? Charles haynes ( talk) 09:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Not keen on changing text before discussion. Reference Shailendra Bhandare, ‘Numismatics and History: The Maurya-Gupta Interlude in the Gangetic Plain’. In: Patrick Olivelle, Between the Empires: Society in India 300 BCE to 400 CE. Oxford 2006, 67-112.
Bandhare explains that "when the [Bodhgaya] inscription itself is consulted afresh from its estampages, it becomes clear that the very indication that Indrāgnimitra was a king, or Kurangī a queen, is doubtful." Reason: - no title appended to Indrāgnimitra - epithet of Kurangī "prajāvatī" meaning 'queen' is an assumption - therefore Indrāgnimitra assumed to be king.
Bandhare continues: Nevertheless "a general consensus prevails on identifying this Indrāgnimitra as a ruler who struck coins in the 'Pāñcāla' series. But no coins bearing the name Indrāgnimitra are known in the series." Reason: - there are coins with name Agnimitra - there are coins with name Indramitra - both type struck by separate issuer
Question: Should Wikipedia mention Indrāgnimitra as Śunga king when referring to the Bodhgaya inscription? Suggestion: No, or assumptions should be presented as assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijamin ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Mathura was well outside the Sunga Empire. The Map shows it almost on the border or inside it. The Maturas and Panchalas(between yamuna and ganges) along with the Indo-greeks(in punjab/haryana/himachal and northern pakistan) were allied against the Sungas as they all were related by marital alliances with the Mauryas whom the Sungas had overthrown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.2.23 ( talk) 18:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved per reasons given below. — kwami ( talk) 23:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Śuṅga Empire → Shunga Empire – The primary and consistent name for this article is now Shunga Empire (which is currently a redirect to this page). The use of IAST in the title, while accurate, is unnecessary and inconsistent with the naming conventions employed for articles on other Indian empires. The IAST spelling is, in any case, prominently displayed in the article's lead. -- Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) 09:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Look at the references provided on the Mitra dynasty article. All the references are provided. ( 2600:1001:B012:95BC:C11F:F9C9:72F8:2BEB ( talk) 18:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC))
@ Kintetsubuffalo: if you were actually familiar with the topic (which you are quite clearly not) and not being motivated by some weird agenda against me, you would quite clearly understand that the category entitled "History of Bihar" is more appropriate than History of Bengal. Instead of randomly reverting my edits, maybe read up on the topic? There are these marvellous inventions called "books" which contain a plethora of information. Many of them can be accessed online. Thanks in advance. MADHEPURA2018 ( talk) 20:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
This article should either start with "The Shunga Empire is ..." or be renamed to "Shunga dynasty". The article's beginning should tell you what the titular subject is. Kornatice ( talk) 20:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved as participants argued that the word Empire is crucial for the scope of this article ( non-admin closure) >>> Extorc. talk 14:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Shunga Empire → Shunga dynasty – Per WP:COMMONNAME. According to Google ngram data, Shunga dynasty has much more usages than Shunga Empire [1]. (In fact, Shunga empire has too low usages to be even measured by Google ngrams.)
Edit – The reason is not just WP:COMMONNAME, the Shunga dynasty or Sunga dynasty, is merely seen as one of the successive ruling dynasties of Magadha, not as a seperate entity like Mughal or Timurid Empires. This is similar to the articles on the Delhi Sultanate at its five ruling dynasties. An article called "Tughaq Empire" or "Lodi Empire" doesn't exist. PadFoot2008 ( talk) 08:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The Shunga Empire (IAST: Śuṅga) was an ancient Indian dynasty from Magadha that controlled areas of the most of the northern Indian subcontinent from around 185 to 73 BCE." is a better lead sentence as in this version before the changes, since the dynasty might be the "seventh ruling dynasty of Magadha", but as an empire, it ruled areas beyond Magadha. Same should be the case with Nanda Empire article. This → "
The Nanda dynasty ruled in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent during the fourth century BCE, and possibly during the fifth century BCE" was the version before the edits that changed the lead sentence's focus to the dynasty instead of the empire. The older version had this as the following sentence → "The Nandas overthrew the Shaishunaga dynasty in the Magadha region of eastern India, and expanded their empire to include a larger part of northern India" — so information about Magadha was not exactly lost and the 'fifth ruling dynasty' part can be added there. Pinging @ Johnbod, पाटलिपुत्र, and PadFoot2008:. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 11:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The Shunga Empire (IAST: Śuṅga) was an ancient Indian empire that controlled most of the northern Indian subcontinent from around 185 to 73 BCE. The Shunga were the seventh ruling dynasty of Magadha...."
The Nanda Empire covered the northern part of the Indian subcontinent during the fourth century BCE, and possibly during the fifth century BCE, governed by the Nandas, the fifth ruling dynasty of Magadha"
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Withdrawn by nom. Arguments here indicate that "Sunga Empire" is not a preferred title, but do not seem to strongly indicate that "Shunga Empire" is the absolute best title. With that, and the relatively low participation, a no consensus close seems appropriate. ( closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 14:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Shunga Empire → Sunga Empire – The earlier discussion on 5 June 2023 made me realise that in fact, the name " Sunga Empire" is much more common than the name " Shunga Empire" in published sources according to Google ngrams. In fact, Shunga Empire has such less references that it can't be even cited in Google ngrams. I propose this page be moved to Sunga Empire per WP:COMMONNAME and also because the term "Shunga Empire" has almost no references in published sources. PadFoot2008 ( talk) 11:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 13:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)