Talk:Bhaskaravarman

Requested move 24 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Consensus was for the proposed title per evidence. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 18:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Bhaskar Varman → Bhaskaravarman – Bhasakaravarman is the name of this ruler as per reliable sources.

• Sailendra Nath Sen: Bhaskaravarman probably died about A.D. 650 …
• Hans Bakker: His younger brother Bhāskaravarman became king …
• Nayanjot Lahiri (The Pre-Ahom roots of medieval Assam, p.66): For instance, in the Nidhanpur copper plates of Bhaskaravarman (7th c.) …

While Gait preferred Bhaskara Varman back in 1906, modern scholarly sources appear to prefer the singular Bhaskaravarman. — Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. EvertonFC13^(talk2me) 23:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support as nominator: As reasoned above.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I would recommend a move to Bhaskarvarman instead, because it follows the spelling as is used more commonly now (check books.google.com) and the way it is spoken as well. Bhaskaravarman follows the rule of retaining the ending vowel incompletely. Thus it should either be Bhaskaravarmana or Bhaskarvarman, and of these two, Bhaskarvarman is preferred as it is preferred today. Chaipau (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

We should go by the spelling preferred in scholarly sources. Besides the authors listed above, the usual suspects all appear to prefer Bhaskaravarman. This includes Upinder Singh, RS Sharma (India's Ancient Past, p. 262), et al. I have no problems with Bhaskaravarmana (like Harshavardhana?) either and some scholars (including "Bhaskaravarmana" Dilip Chakrabarti prefer it), but going by hit count on Google Books, Bhaskaravarman (5570) trumps Bhaskaravarmana (165) by a large margin. The ngram confirms this. Bhaskaravarmana can perhaps be included in the lede as an alternate spelling. I'm not keen on Bhaskarvarman. Thanks--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Bhaskar (Bhaskara) is a given name and Varman (Varmana) is family name.

• 'Bhaskar Varman' has 2,060 hits on google books;
• Bhaskaravarman (5,810)
• Bhaskarvarman (1,990),
• Bhaskaravarmana (187). भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: Thank you. I'm not entirely convinced that Varman is a schwa-deleted version of Varmana. I see that you are the creator of the Nidhanpur copperplate inscription article and the uploader of the image in it. Then you must be familiar with its source where epigraphists prefer Bhaskaravarman. (This is not unlike the contemporary Pallava names such as Mahendravarma/Mahendravarman.) In any case, you might want to include your stats as part of a vote which is how this process usually works. Cheers.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cpt.a.haddock. Here are some additional observations.

• The ngrams show a sharp decline for Bhaskaravarman while it could be said that Bhaskarvarman is either steady or slightly rising.
• The spelling of his name in Assamese is identical to the spelling in Sanskrit, but it is pronounced "Bhaskar" not "Bhaskara", and as a result most of the discourse in Assam happens under Bhaskarvarman.

Chaipau (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Chaipau:: Google's corpus becomes sketchy after 2000 (the default value). Here is the same ngram until 2000 (and until 2008) with more smoothing. Either way, the use of Bhaskaravarman, is still around 100 times more common. Incidentally, I notice that the Assamese Wikipedia article is titled Kumāra Bhāskara Barmā. In any event, what is important is its use in reliable sources in English. Upinder Singh, Lahiri, RS Sharma, et al. were all published in the last 10–15 years. (I have taken the liberty of marking your reply as a Comment; please switch that to Oppose if you so desire.) Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock:, thanks. No, I do not want to oppose, but would like Wikipedia to use the correct form. The Assamese is titled Kumar Bhaskar Barma, not Kumara Bhaskara Barma. Bhaskara does not sound right locally. I agree that the name should be a single name and not split into a first name and a last name, just as Chandragupta and Samudragupta is used uniformly in Wikipedia. But Bhaskara does not sound right. Chaipau (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, i believe all names suggested here are equally good candidates, also we have Avanti Varman (Utpala dynasty), Simha Varman II, Rajashekhara Varman, Sthanu Ravi Varman, Sankara Varman. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

(I thought I'd already responded to this …) I've moved a couple of those articles to the names used in reliable sources. The Cheran articles appear to be spelt as in RS.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposed. The Ngram evidence and a simple Google Books search of the various options[1][2][3] show Bhaskaravarman being the most WP:COMMONNAME.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Redundant information

@Chaipau:, @Bhaskarbhagawati: Isn't the following part from the section Alliance with Chinese

After 648 CE, the Chinese invaded India to avenge the insult done to Chinese representatives at the court of Harshavardhana by the minister who usurped the throne of Harshavardhana after his death. The minister was defeated and captured. In the conflict, Bhaskaravarman aided the Chinese with supplies of cattle, horse and accoutrement

redundant with Xuanzang's account part here:

Harsha died in the year 648 CE four years after Xuanzang left India, but Bhaskaravarman was reigning till about 650 CE Just after Harsha's death his minister Arjun or Arjunaswa usurped the throne. At that time an embassy arrived from the emperor of China. Alas, Harsha who had shown so much respect to the pious Chinese pilgrim who, on his return, must have prompted the Chinese emperor to despatch this friendly mission, was no longer living to receive the envoy in a befitting manner. On the contrary the usurper Arjun actually ill-treated the members of the mission and killed some of them. The rest, led by Wang-hiuen-tse, escaped to Nepal and sought the aid of the kings of Nepal and Tibet and of Bhaskaravarman.[31]

It appears from the Chinese accounts that the kings of Nepal and Tibet assisted with forces and Shi - kien ma (Sri Kumara), the "King of Eastern India" sent him "thirty thousand oxen and horses and provisions for all his army, to which he added bows, scimitars and collars of great value".[32] With such assistance Wang-hiuen-tse defeated the usurper Arjun and capturing him took him as a prisoner to China. Bhaskaravarman probably did not continue to reign long after this event

I mean the the both can be merged isn't it? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, yes although second version seems more academic, which neutrally covers that event.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati:, I agree that the second one is elaborate, however it contains words like 'Alas!' which needs to be removed. I believe the Alliance with Chinese section can be removed. Lets see what Chaipau says. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we need to rewrite it in encyclopedic tone; that section can be covered under "Alliance with Harshavardhana".भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Atleast somebody solve this redundant issue I discussed above, Chaipau, @Bhaskarbhagawati:? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, it seems first one is saying nothing new, i.e. it has already covered in second one, thus a duplication.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: Remove "Alliance with the Chinese" section, merge its contents/refs with "Xuanzang's account" and then Copy edit. Right? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Right, remove the duplicate section and merge the content.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Problems related to the Article

@Abecedare: @Chaipau: @Fylindfotberserk: @Bhaskarbhagawati: Entire article is based on K.L Barua's book. It should be replaced by more factual and accurate sources. Just like Varman dynasty page. Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no replacement for "Early History of Kamarupa" as of now, but you are free to add recent scholarship.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I have added a notice for WP:PEACOCK. Most of it will go. Early History of Kamarupa is a WP:FORK. Chaipau (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

What proof we have of Bhaskarvarman being crowned king in 600AD and not 593AD?

There is no proof that I have seen. The fact that both Assamese & the Bengali societies have 593AD as the start date of our calendar and yet the ONLY event of significance was Bhaskarvarman’s coming to throne, makes it obvious that Bhaskarvarman’s reign should be from 593AD not 600AD. Ihasha (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I have added a citation. Wikipedia is not the place to establish original research (WP:OR). Chaipau (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)