Talk:Kambojas

[Untitled]
'''Kamboj is a Sanskrit word. One must not forget that the Aryan Indians and Aryan Iranians are cousins and also Rigvedic Sanskrit and Avesthan Persian is very similar. Read the authentic history of Kashmir the Rajatarigini to know the real facts of the Aryan Kashmiri people.'''

I would agree that Kamboj is Sanskrit in origin. but I must mention that Rajataringini makes no mention of Kamboj and Rajataringi is the authentic history of Kashmir.

Handling citations
As I try to clean up this article, the one thing I am not sure how to handle is the numerous citations. They are sprinkled in within the overall narrative which makes it very difficult to read. Does anyone have a good example of how to do format this best?

Also, there doesn't seem to be an accepted style to present a sanskrit shloka, so I have adapted a style I have found elsewhere and expanded on it. Please comment.

Finally, I may have actually found an error in the first shloka I tried to style. The text of the article states that it is from the Mahabharata, book 12 (Shantiparva) page 207, verses 43 and 44. However, based on http://www.hindunet.org/mahabharata/txt/12.txt, the actual reference seems to be page 200, verses 40 and 41. I have changed the citation accordingly. Would anyone confirm that this is correct please? SpikedZebra 00:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks SpikedZebra

Actually, there is no error.

The verse number (MBH 12/207/43-44) which you are refereing to I have based it on the Gorakhpore edition of Mahabhara.

You have changed it in accordance with online Critical Edition of Mahabharata.

To be noted here that there are some discrepancies and differences between Gorakhpore Mahabharata and the online Critical edition.

I have mostly relied on verse-references from the Gorakhpore edition.

KLS

P.S.

I'm also thankful to Bluemoose for sectionalizing the article.

Ashoka Column picture removed
This picture was removed because of possible copyright violation. The copyright notice on Wikipedia incorrectly stated that the picture is from buddha101.com and used with the permission of the author of that site. The picture is not on buddha101.com and no permission was given.

Cleanup and rewriting
Currently the page is filled with countless sources which cant be read and the texts are in a lack luster state so over the next few days ill clean up the sources and find some new ones and re-write werever I can Trigarta (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Already on it . --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Blatant pov pushing
Trigarta's changes ;

They were adherents of Zoroastrianism-> They were supposedly adherents of Zoroastrianism. What the two cited sources say; Scholars have long (see, e.g., Kuhn; Charpentier, pp. 145f.; etc.) connected this practice with the Avestan Vīdēvdād. 14.5f. (and with Herodotus 1.140.3, where the same is said about the mágoi), and the conclusion has been drawn that the Kambojas were Mazdayasnians." / "This alone suffices to show that they were Zoroastrians, acting in accord with precepts formulated in Vd. XIV.5-6." So no mention of "supposedly" or anything similar.

which bordered the Indian lands. They only appear in Indo-Aryan inscriptions and literature -> which bordered the Indo-Aryan lands. They only appear in Indo-Aryan literature and Sanskrit and Pali texts. What the cited source says; "known by name only from Indo-Aryan epigraphic and literary sources since the Late Vedic period and living in the extreme northeastern area of Iranian tribes along the northern Indo-Iranian frontier." So no mention of "Indo-Aryan lands", as Indo-Iranian = Indian and Iranian. They also removed "inscriptions", despite the source literary saying "epigraphic". Let's not forget that Sanskrit and Pali are also both Indo-Aryan languages, yet he differentiated them from that. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)