Talk:Bharata chakravarti

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bharata chakravarti article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jainism High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style – Naming conventionsJainismWikipedia:WikiProject JainismTemplate:WikiProject JainismJainism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger

I am okay with merging Bharata Chakravarti and Bharata (emperor), but think that the latter would be a better title for the merged article since the "emperor" title would be appropriate for both the Jain and Hindu versions of the legend, while Chakravarti(n) wouldn't be. Abecedare (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you. Im still thinking whether it should be merged or not. Can you help in this? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 18:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mildly favor a merge because (1) it provides better context; (2) we don't have to get into arguments about whether the name Bharata for India is based upon the Hindu Bharata or the Jain Bharata; and (3) it provides a simpler way to deal with the Vishnu Purana version of the legend, which talks about a Bharata s/o Rishaba. The only reason for keeping the articles separate is that I haven't come across a source which deals with all the legends about Bharata in conjunction (mainly because, the sources are focused either on Jain mythology or Hindu mythology)

Btw the Jadabharata article should also be merged into either this or the combined article, since its subject and content is a complete overlap. Abecedare (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you that all three should be merged. As per my own synth, from research and facts, both Hindu and Jain talk about same person. The only (notable) conflict is the parents. Jains consider Rishabha and Sunanda as his parents so does a section of Hindus (Vishnu purana). Only dramatised version of Mahabharata by Kalidasa talks about Dushyanta and shakuntala as his parents. We can specifically depict conflicting views using language like Rishabha and Sunanda were his parents as per Jains and Vishnu purana. However, Mahabharata depicts Dushyanta and Shakuntala as his parents. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 18:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on all counts (how often does that happen on wikipedia ?!):). Lets wait a few days to see if there are any opposing views, else we can go ahead with the merge. PS: One quibble that doesn't affect your basic point: I believe that Dushyanta and Shakuntala are mentioned in the (original) Mahabharata, and not just in Kalidasa's (much later) play; will reconfirm once we get to merging and clean-up. Abecedare (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's wait and see -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 19:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think two pages namely, 'Bharata (Hinduism)' and 'Bharata (Jainism)' can be maintained to avoid confusion.

Bharata (Hinduism) = Bharata (emperor) + Jadabharata {Hindu mythology}
Bharata (Jainism) or Bharata Chakravarti {Jain mythology} Nimit (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt we need a separate page for Bharata (Hinduism). If I talk about referenced (cited) content, Jadabharata and Bharata (emperor) has very little content about Bharata different from Jain version. It does have content about Shakuntala and Dushyanta but I guess that is not required, since we have separate articles about both. So the major deviation of Hindu version (as per my understanding) only remains the parents of Bharata. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger The Bharata - the son of Dushyanta and Shakuntala and a character in the Mbh and Shakuntalam - is different from Bharata - the son of Rishabha (the Jain tirthankara and in Hinduism, an avatar of Vishnu in Bhagavata Purana. The articles Jadabharata (Bharata, the son of Rishabha in Hinduism) and Bharata Chakravarti need to merged and Bharata (emperor) needs to be retained as separate. Also, opposing Jadabharata to be merged in Bharata (emperor). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Social activist

Barathprasanna commenly know as Barath.A B.Tech Mechanical Engineer , Studied at Puducherry , currently working at Chennai based MNC , Social activists , Intrested in you Tuber. Bharata Chakravarti (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to Bharata (Jainism)

I propose this article be renamed Bharata (Jainism), which I believe is much more encyclopedic and makes for a less confusing title for the average user. Chronikhiles (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this page to Bharata (Jainism), which I agree is clearer and less confusing.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

- Felixdor (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]