Talk:Pala Empire

message: In the section for Second Period of Decline, there is a reference to The Cambridge Shorter History of India (1934 edition)(TCSHI).  I tried checking the reference for the Sena Dynasty, but there's nothing.  The sentences below don't use TCSHI but instead use the other two references cited in the paragraph.
Nayapala, the son of Mahipala I, defeated the Kalachuri king Karna (son of Ganggeyadeva) after a long struggle. The two later signed a peace treaty at the mediation of the Buddhist scholar Atiśa. During the reign of Nayapala's son Vigrahapala III, Karna once again invaded Bengal but was defeated. The conflict ended with a peace treaty, and Vigrahapala III married Karna's daughter Yauvanasri. Vigrahapala III was later defeated by the invading Chalukya king Vikramaditya VI.
The following sentence has the reference citation but isn't in TCSHI from pages 6 to 10.
The invasion of Vikramaditya VI saw several soldiers from South India into Bengal, which explains the southern origin of the Sena Dynasty.
Archive.org has the TCSHI book (1934 version) and that is what I used to check the reference. AnimeJanai (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-pertinent bibliographic reference

message: Hi, 
This article mentions:
The caste origin of the Palas is not clearly stated in any of the numerous Pala records. The Khalimpur copper plate inscription of Dharmapala, the second Pala emperor, states that Gopala I was a son of a warrior (Khanditarat) named Vapyata, grandson of a highly educated man (Saryavidyavadat) named Dayitavishnu, and he himself was elected to the throne of Bengal, therefore he was not initially of a distinguished royal blood from the Hindu point of view.
From the above given para, I have deleted the sentence "therefore he was not initially of a distinguished royal blood from the Hindu point of view". Kulke and Rothermund mention that Gopala was not of royal lineage and was elected in order to put an end to the chaos that prevailed in the country then. However, it is of note that Gopala was already a military general before being elected as a king; and his father Vapyata was a khanditarat and a military chief. Hence Gopala could have been a man from a "class of nobles" although a Buddhist. Keeping varna designations of Kshatriya and Shudra aside, if there is evidence to rule out Gopala from a "class of nobles", kindly mention so. Until then, the said sentence shall remain deleted. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://banglapedia.net/HT/P_0037.HTM
** In Pala Empire on Sun Jul 16 21:14:24 2006, 400 Bad Request
** In Pala Empire on Mon Jul 17 16:04:56 2006, 400 Bad Request
** In Pala Empire on Thu Jul 27 00:52:57 2006, 400 Bad Request
----maru   (talk)  contribs 04:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed link. --Ragib 04:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shafkatsharif (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 October 2011
:Google translate tells me that the above says, "I want to have permission to edit this page."
*You must leave messages in English
*If you have a specific request to make a change to this article, please use 
*If you want the protection to be removed, you'd need to ask in WP:RPP.  Chzz  ►  06:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: send some help dada..bhishon digdaree....lol....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.110.80 (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  nomoshkar...lol 

message: If there is no new argument to resolve the deadlock, I suggest we file a dispute resolution request.
Summarizing the problems that I see in , for mediators:
# "Its sphere of influence extended across modern-day eastern Afghanistan, northern Pakistan, northern and northeastern India, Nepal, Tibet, Bangladesh and Sumatra. Pala monks and scholars, notably Atisa, played an important role in propagating Mahayana Buddhism in many of these regions, of which only Tibet continues to practice the faith.
#: Problem: None of the references mention the term "sphere of influence" for even one of these regions, leave alone all these regions. The second sentence is very vague - "many of these regions".
#: Suggestion: Replace it with something more specific supported by the references. E.g. specific influence (art/culture/religion) on Sumatra/Tibet. Remove Afghanistan etc. unless there is a reference that directly supports the claim. I'm OK with the term "sphere of influence", if you can find a reference that actually supports it.
# "the imperial records of the court of Emperor Dharmapala in Kannauj state the presence of rulers from ancient Gandhara, Madra, Matsya, Kuru, Vidarbha, Avanti and Kira acknowledging their supremacy as tributary states"
#: Problem: The imperial records do not mention these kingdoms as the Palas' tributary states. The Khalimpur Copper plate mentions that the rulers of these kingdoms were present at a ceremony organized by the Pala king, with "their diadems trembling". The 'tributary state' bit is an interpretation of a section of historians, and should be mentioned as such. Plus, there are other authors who think that these kingdoms were not vassals of the Palas: E.g.
#:* Susan L. Huntington: "Dharmapala succeeded in bringing much of both Bengal and Bihar under his direct control. It has been suggested that his suzerainty even extended into the Punjab, eastern Rajputana, Malwa, Berar and perhaps Nepal, although this may be an exaggerated view. While these regions maintained their autonomy, they may have paid obeisance to Dharmapala."
#:* RS Tripathi "The gathering of distant sovereigns like those of Gandhara and Avanti to give 'respectfully' their stamp of recognition to the settlement made by the Gauda  monarch not only shows the importance of Kanauj and the keen interested bestowed on its affairs by the contemporary states of northern India, but also indicates the power and position of Dharmapala, who seems to have attained in his day the rank of the premier king of the North. We should, however, guard against making any such deductions, as was done by Mr. R. D. Banerji, that Dharmapala conquered or overran [list of kingdoms]..."
#: Suggestion: Either remove the specific names from lead: something more generic is sufficient for the lead (e.g. "at its height, the Pala Empire covered a large part of the northern subcontinent", as several sources state) -- the details can be explained in the body. Or change to something like "The imperial records of Dharmapala notes the presence of rulers from ... - a section of historians believe that these were vassals of the Palas, but this claim is debatable".
# Inclusion of Afghanistan in the Pala territory is stated as a fact
#: Problem: First of all, the source cited (Epigraphia Indica, XVII...) does not support this assertion -- it has been copy-pasted from another article without verification. Secondly, this is a conjecture by some historians -- it should not be stated as a fact. The conjecture is based on either of these: (1) Gandhara was a vassal of Dharmapala and is equivalent to Afghanistan (2) Devapala defeated the Kambojas, and Kamboja = the region in NW subcontinent. Both points are debatable. From the sources cited in the article:
#:* RC Majumdar: Gandhara = "upper valley of the Sindhu"; the empire "probably extended up to the Sindhu"; no mention of Afghanistan
#:* GE Somers / BP Sinha: Gandhara = "West Punjab"; the empire may have included "Bengal, Bihar, U.P., Punjabm Rajputana, Sindh, Berar and probably Saurashtra and Karnatak". About Kamboja: "It is not easy to locate Kamboja. A country of that name is known from ancient times in the north-west. Did Devapala's arms reach that far in the north-west? Not impossible, but no evidence." He suggests that Kambojas might have been Tibetans, who according to Tibetan inscriptions, reached Gangasagara after securing submission of Dharmapala. Devapala might have defeated them and regained the territory lost by Dharmapala. No mention of Afghanistan.
#:* DK Ganguly: Gandhara = "Peshawar". the Kamboja reference may be "an allusion to Devapala's invasion of a Tibetan principality on the northern frontier of Bengal". No mention of Afghanistan
#:* NK Gupta: Extent of the Pala kingdom - "present-day north India and Paksitan"; traces Kamboja to north-west, but in "present-day Punjab" -- no mention of Afghanistan
#:* SN Sen: No mention of Afghanistan -- Punjab is the most NW region mentioned; about Devapala, he states that "Kamboja cannot be identified properly"
#:* Besides these, there are sources mentioned earlier that don't even consider Gandhara etc. to be the vassals of the Palas; and sources that mention Kambojas as intruders in Bengal (e.g.).
#: Suggestion: Remove from lead. If citing a new source, clearly mention it as a theory attributable to specific historians.
utcursch | talk 22:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited, as per your three suggestions.--Akbar the Great (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thank you. You have been making some good contributions to Bengal-related articles. Hope to see more of them. By the way, I've no problem, if the article mentions "According to XYZ, the Pala Empire might have extended to Afghanistan" in the body with attribution and proper references. I'll do it myself when I get time; currently, I'm busy gathering content for expansion of another article. utcursch | talk 21:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution 

message: I have moved from the article to here the following statement added in this edit:
This fails verification. The article that starts on that page of that volume is "Notes on the Irda Copper-Plate Grant of King Nayapaladeva". It discusses work by N. G. Majumdar, but is by Jogendra Chandra Ghosh. Nowhere does it mention the Kamauli copper plate, King Vaidyadeva, Kamarupa, Mihirasya vamsa, or solar lineage.
--Worldbruce (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Epigraphia Indica'' failed verification 

message: Although a very trivial issue but we seem to have a disagreement here which has triggered a bit of edit warring. Which term should be used here? I support "South Asia" as it's geographically more inclusive and more commonly used term, see Indus Valley Civilization or Mughal Empire for example. Also, the wiki article on South Asia is more comprehensive than Indian subcontinent. Thoughts? Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: South Asia would include other countries e.g. Afghanistan which was likely not the case with Pala Empire, but was definitely the case with Mughals. Since Palas controlled parts of India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh, all which are countries of the Indian subcontinent before being part of South Asia, it is logical to use that. Consider Maurya Empire and Nanda Empire articles, both of which uses the term Indian subcontinent. There are many other articles like that of empires/dynasties that controlled countries of modern Indian subcontinent. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  thank you for your reply. I think inclusion of Afghanistan is not an issue, a description like "empire in South Asia" wouldn't imply the empire dominated all of South Asia. Indus Valley also didn't include Afghanistan. Article on Maurya Empire uses both terms as it seems. Also, I'm not sure if the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh or the Northern areas of Pakistan are included in the general definition of Indian subcontinent where Palas did have control. Let's wait for 's opinion and get over with it, it's too insignificant of an issue to involve long discussions and I'm fine with either term. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead sentence in the Maurya Empire article uses the term "Indian subcontinent". Note that Mauryans controlled Afghanistan, so South Asia was used in the next sentence. Also note Shunga Empire, Nanda Empire, Kanva dynasty, etc. The Northern areas of Pakistan and the Chittagong Hill Tracts are part of, administered by Pakistan and Bangladesh respectively, so yes, they are part of the Indian subcontinent. Just to note, even Afghanistan is sometimes considered to be part of the Indian sub-continent. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Pingign  for suggestions. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Also . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say, avoid WP:OR and follow the reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Firstly, IVC did indeed cover tracts of northern Afghanistan. Now looking at the refs in the article most of them refer to it as a power in eastern India/Indian subcontinent located in the Bihar/Bengal region. Even third party sources, such as Universalis, Catalana, Treccani refer to it as an "Indian dynasty" so it appears better to maintain statusquo here. Gotitbro (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I honestly don't have much of a stake in this discussion. As per my edit summary, I simply believed the phrase "Kingdom in northern South Asia" was awkwardly worded. Alivardi (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Should maintain WP:STATUSQUO in this case then. Also to maintain parity, since most other empires use the term Indian subcontinent. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , Okay, I'm just removing "northern" from the description to keep it as "empire in the Indian subcontinent" as Pala territory at times were limited within the eastern part, also stated above. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, they were based in eastern India, but did control other parts of the subcontinent. OK with your change. Short Descriptions should be around 40 letters. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Asia/Indian subcontinent 

message: The reporter estimated GDP is absurd and illogical. It reeks of biased history retelling common in the region of South Asia. 115.187.57.123 (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurd GDP 

message: @Wham2001 citations generated by template are no showing in reuse option. Eduardo2024 (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Eduardo2024 sorry, I'm not really sure what you mean here.  All the citations in the article look correctly formatted to me at the moment [I just fixed a svn multiple-target error].  Could you describe the problem in a bit more detail?  Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it is ok, thanks Eduardo2024 (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Wham2001 can you please give your opinion about Andre Wink? I think his statement is kind of strange. Should we include him in this article? I read his wiki page and there is a section of Al Hind which has some mixed reviews. Eduardo2024 (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging @पाटलिपुत्र and @Vif12vf also for their opinions who contributed in this page recently, Thanks, Eduardo2024 (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

text: I'm really not a subject-matter expert; I just gnome around fixing technical reference errors (of which there are a lot of them in this topic area because there are a lot of articles using / references).  I would suggest asking for advice at the reliable sources noticeboard, and perhaps drop a line to Wikipedia:WikiProject India asking for input at RSN.  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations