Talk:Ashoka

No mention of kalingan princess

In the Kalinga war section, there is no mention of how a princess changed his mind in local traditions that I have heard and how she despite losing her father and all male members stood up to war with him. After defeat in the Kalinga wars, women began to take up arms. Though I know that this is not totally accurate, but the mention of women and female warriors is indeed necessary. 2405:201:D021:E0DB:283D:8A30:C80E:83B4 (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources to back up "what you've heard" are indeed necessary too. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 08:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

yeah you should also have proof of your points aswell Personn.303 (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Go a bit more detailed?

Include how the Mauryan empire had set the stage up for the golden age and the Gupta empire. 2001:16A2:676A:DE00:810A:F1E0:3484:1849 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

scholars' views about Ashoka are irrelevant puffery?

Is this really irrelevant puffery? Many people's information about Ashoka is quite limited. Why are even scholars' views about Ashoka being considered irrelevant puffery by a Wikipedian? 2402:8100:3018:174A:E145:31A1:D2F7:B92 (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks like puffery ... and "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. 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." per WP:ONUS. JimRenge (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's puffery. To put it bluntly: 'mine is bigger than yours', reducing the contingencies of history and the complexities of personalities to a simplistic ranking, picked-out by an editor, but 'justified' by giving scholarly sources. This may have some relevance for American presidents, but not for figures dimly lighting up from a distant past. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

in religion it's only mentioned buddhism but in body of this article, there is a subtopic i.e. conversion to buddhism which means he must have followed other religion before buddhism. Kindly mention it. @ Joshua Jonathan 121.46.85.111 (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Ashoka in English

According to the Pronouncing Dictionary of Proper Names 2nd ed. as well as my own experience, Ashoka is almost always pronounced /əˈʃoʊkə/ in American and British English. However, this is not the case in Indian English and Ashoka was certainly not pronounced like this in his own day. According to the Manual of Style, "When a foreign name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and foreign-language pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first. If the native name is different from the English name, the native transcription must appear after the native name." I have done this, but I hope to open a diagloge here so that more fruitful discussion can occur than in the short edit summaries. Hwamplero (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit summary, yes you can actually pronounce it. There's an IPA guide, it's not that difficult. If anything, at the very least, you can pronounce the O as in 'awe' or 'for', rather than the O in 'go'. See, you don't even need to try too hard! Pronouncing it as the diphthong OU (ओउ) is completely unnecessary and utterly wrong. Rolando 1208 (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

And that's in the Manual of Style, Rolando? Please stick to the guidelines. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

No it's not Joshua, but you forgot about ONUS: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion Rolando 1208 (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The vowels are fine imo. It is the ɕ that will cause issues for many English speakers and can be anglicized in different ways. My reason for including an English IPA was that 'sh' can sometimes be pronounced as /s/ such as in the Indian state Odisha. As for the English pronunciation being wrong, unfortunately that is just how some words get anglicized even if it is awful. If it makes you feel any better (or worse lol) many many American city names are horribly mispronounced Native American names so its not just India this happens to. Hwamplero (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Juggling with guidelines, Rolando? The Manual of style is quite clear in this respect. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

ONUS is quite clear, have you read it? While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. 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. Rolando 1208 (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@SKAG123 You might wanna see this. Rolando 1208 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but Odisha is the exception, hence why the IPA is actually necessary, just like with Kiribati (great edit there btw).

Regarding the Native Americans, a lot of the correct pronunciations get lost or aren't well know. Besides, there are so many languages to keep up with it. Quite different with Sanskrit.

Also anyone checking the article on Ashoka is presumably interested in in Buddhism and/or the History of Bharat. They're most likely interested in pronouncing Sanskrit sounds somewhat accurately, at the very least they'd be curious enough to know what ɕ is. If not, "Ashouka" doesn't add anything to the table. The people who can't read IPA, well, that's how they're gonna pronounce it anyway. Rolando 1208 (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

After some reflection, I think that I will work on creating wiktionary pages instead. If people want the English pronunciation, they can go there. I think the with place names, it is more important to have an English pronunciation if it is like a state of India or something like that, but for historical things, I will leave things with the native pronunciation only. EXCEPT the Maratha Empire which I have heard too many times as /məˈɹɑθə/ and thus deserves an English IPA and even a respell. I will let the rest of the articles go. Hwamplero (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Dhanyawad. I actually think your edit for Maratha is sensible. Anglophones would probably see the t with a small h and confuse it with a θ. Cheers mate, have a good week. Rolando 1208 (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)