User talk:Gpuri

Welcome!

Hello, Gpuri, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 00:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Krishna Banner/King Porus

Greetings Mr. Puri,

Your last edits on King Porus article do not conform to Wikipedia OR regulation. Editors are not permitted to dissect the cited sources unless there is a reliable secondary source doing so which must be cited as well. The author you have cited , i.e., Hari Singh Bhati, fully supports Tod's theory and no where indicates that Yadus perished from earth due to Gandhari's curse. In fact he regards himself a surviving descendant of them. Mahabharata and Visnu Purana both indicate that Yadus moved to Punjab and Afghanistan after Dwaraka's submersion. This is already stated in cited secondary sources as well:

"Actually , the legend reports a westward march of the Yadus (MBh. 1.13.49, 65) from Mathura, while the route from Mathura to Dvaraka southward through a desert. This part of the Krsna legend could be brought to earth by digging at Dvaraka, but also digging at Darwaz in Afghanistan, whose name means the same thing and which is the more probable destination of refugees from Mathura..."

Ref: Introduction to the study of indian history, pp 125, D D Kosambi, Publisher: [S.l.] : Popular Prakashan, 1999

"It seems , therefore, most reasonable to conclude that the name is simply the seat of Purrus or Porus, the name of a King or family of kings...There are no authentic records of tribes seated about Peshawar before the time of Mahmud, beyond established fact of their being of Indian origin; it not an improbable conjecture that they descended from the race of Yadu who were either expelled or voluntarily emigrated from Gujrat, 1100 years before Christ, and who afterwards found Kandhar and the hills of Cabul (Kabul) from whom, indeed, some would derive the Jaduns now residing in the hills of north of Yusafjai..."

Ref: gazetteer of the dera ghazi khan district, pp52, Publisher: Lahore, "Civil and Military Gazette" Press, 1898.

There are references available from primary texts as well...one of them is referred in the above in the secondary source quote. Also see chapter 5 of Visnu Purana where it is stated that Arjuna settled some of the Yadavas in Punjab after Krishna's demise.

Please contact me if you want to discuss this further.

Regards

--History Sleuth (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing within Wikipedia guidelines

Hello Mr. Puri,

Happy New Year!

You appear to be quite knowlegeable but the way you have been editing lately seems to be in conflict with wiki guidelines. With regard to Herakles and King Porus articles. I suggest we discuss before editing in order to edit constructively .

Regards

--History Sleuth (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I like your knowledge on this subject. Happy New Year to you as well.

Let us put back the Siva theory as well. Col Tod and Dr. Schwanbeck et al, they all have their theories and no theory can be considered as fringe theory. I will leave that up to you how you want to do it.

Also Arrian and Megasthenese are talking about the races of Alexander's time. I personally own this book. All later accounts are based on Greek historian accounts. There is no Indian written records from 326BC. There is another one from Firdaus from that time who claimed Porus actually even won the battle. Buddha Prakash mentioned in his book 'History of Porus'.

Regards

Gpuri (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Mr. Puri

I added reference to Shiva's theory and gave a link to the article you started. Since the author does not make any mention of Porus, it is better explained in the Heracles article. More content can be added to it there. Drawing infrence from it to question Tod's theory would consititue a synthesis which wikipedia does not permit.

On another note, Yadus cannot be excluded from Tod's mention of Puru dynasties , since he uses Puru in dual sense to mean the lineage from Yadus' brother and also "Eastreners" as derived from Parasois (skt. Prachaya). Infact, the linking of Porus with 'Paurava' is not supported by Greek writings. First of all , the descendants of Purus were not known as Pauravas even in Mahabharata times. His lineage had morphed into Kurus, of which a later offshoot was Pandavas, after a later descendant of Puru. The Porus of Greek writers is linked with "Parasois" which is a Greek translaton of "Prachaya" , literally meaning "Easterner". Chandragupta was also described as "Parasoi" by Greek writers to indicate Magadha as his origin which was further on the east of Mathura. Porus , in the context Tod is trying to argue, means more a "king of easterners" than a "descendant of Puru". It would be natural for a king hailing from Mathura to be known as "Parasoi" or "Easterner" in Punjab (west of Mathura). Tod's mention of Puru- the brother of Yadu- and his link with founding of Prayag , a place venerated by Yadus- is a red herring and contributes nothing to the conclusion he reached about Porus being a Parasoi , or "Easterner", or "Prachaya".

I have read Shahnameh reference of Buddha Prakash before and have tried to quote it before in this article. Maybe you could expand it as an alternative theory.

The passage where Megesthenes mentions Shoorsainis held twin cities Mathura and Shoorpura is already factored into Tod's thought. The passage where he links Porus with Shoorsainis comes after his mention of Megesthenes description of Shoorsainis. Tod contextualized Megesthenes timeframe as he had travelled to India by all estimates in Secluid period after Porus had been assasinated and Punjab had passed on to the Mauryas.

Regards

--History Sleuth (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I disagree with Yadu-Puru linkage. It doesn't reflect the real lineage of the 2 tribes. Porus was known as King of Pauravas.Rigvedic Puru was also known and Paurava. Kurus were descendants of Purus. Tod is specifically saying second son of Yayati when he is talking about Puru. Parsoi meant east from Prayag not Mathura. In that sentence he is saying Chandragupta also belonged to the Puru tribe based on Arrian's account.

Also you are giving too much weightage to Col James Tod. There are many more Indologists and Historians who have different opinion.

Regards

Why would Tod make the following statement if he thought Yadus were different from Purus:

Puru became the patronymic of this branch of the Lunar race. Of this Alexander's historians made Porus. The Suraseni of Methoras (descendants of the Soor Sen of Mathura) were all Purus, the Prasioi of Megasthenes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by History Sleuth (talk • contribs) 03:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gpuri (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yadus were not entitled to use the lineage Somvanshi or Chandravanshi. That is why Yaduvansh was started by Yadu. Puru was given the Prayag area. Yadu was given area along the coast of the Arabian Sea and into the Vindhya Mountain.

Even Chanakya's Arthashaster talks about Kurus and Shoorshenis seperately. Shoorsenis only possessed Mathura and area around throughout. Kuru possessed Indraprastha and current Pakistan.

Gpuri (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before you are giving too much weightage to Col James Tod. There are many more Indologists and Historians who have different opinion.

Gpuri (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Tod say if they were not seperate?

When Alexander attacked the ' free cities ' of Panchala, the Purus and Harikulas who opposed him evinced the recollections of their ancestor, in carrying the figure of Hercules as their standard.

Gpuri (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Puru (Vedic tribe)

Hello, Gpuri. Yesterday I reverted edits by the IP user 115.117.239.8 on the same article assuming it was vandalism because they removed so much information. We got into a discussion, though, and I realized the references that are on the article now are simply written sentences (not actually sources of information). I asked someone about it as soon as I saw it but they said they couldn't comment on it because it wasn't their area of expertise. This IP user seems to be making contributing edits, although I pointed out to him that his incorrect usage of "wikification" in his edit summaries on Puru (Vedic tribe) made me think that he was trying to hide his vandalism. If the IP user was removing incorrect information (that was hidden in fake citations) then is he correct in his removal? Or should the article just be tagged as poorly citated?
Jonadin93 (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has lot citations from various indologists. There are references to various books written by many historians. The IP address removed lots of information which had citations. Which part are you referring in particular? Gpuri (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Gpuri. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 17:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Hello, I'm Utcursch. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Puru (Vedic tribe), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Naval Viyogi is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. This has been discussed at multiple places including WT:IN. Also, please have a look at WP:BRD -- if multiple editors object to your edits, you need to take your concerns to the talk page, instead of indulging in edit wars. utcursch | talk 21:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gpuri. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]