Talk:Pala Empire

Non-pertinent bibliographic reference

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)

Edit

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)Mayasutra

Dead link

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)

Fixed link. --Ragib 04:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection

{{Edit semi-protected}}

— 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 {{Edit semi-protected}}
• If you want the protection to be removed, you'd need to ask in WP:RPP.  Chzz  ►  06:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

nomoshkar...lol

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

Recent revisions

1) Wikipedia is based on consensus. The recent changes does NOT have the consensus needed, as the previous version has been accepted by the Wikipedia community for years. Please see history. 2) "Democracy" is being cherry picked to the standards of the 21st century. Gopala was given the position by a group of elites. This can be said for Greece, Early America, etc. And we accept those as democratic. Even today the president of America is elected through the electoral college, a body of unelected party members. So America is not a democracy?? 3) The evidence of dismissing the extent of Pala rule is a controversial to that of other empires. Mayan Empire to that of Parthia. However, the evidence of ancient inscription is one of the few things we can go by. If not Parthian Empire would be 15% of the current size as demonstrated by the wiki map. 4) please wait on consensus before making such changes, and reverting/edit warring as per wiki policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.69.147 (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Your version is not based on consensus either. Consensus doesn't mean errors being overlooked for a long time. Neither does it mean if 10 people editors say "Obama is the President of France" and one editor opposes that, we should update the Wikipedia article on Obama to say the statement that the 10 editors support.
2. See WP:PROVEIT. Find a source which says that this was "probably the only democratic election in medieval India". I have provided sources which clearly state otherwise: such elections by the tribal chiefs were fairly common. Taranatha's legend is not a reliable source - it's a story which talks about a witch queen eating anyone who is elected by the people. Even that story states that many kings had been elected immediately before Gopala.
3. Again, find a source for the map. The map restored by you is unsourced and erroneous, as mentioned on the Commons page. It cites this as reference, but is completely out-of-sync with it. We don't accept fringe and primary sources, leave alone distortion of existing references or unsourced material.
4. That is not applicable in cases where you're restoring unsourced content, removing references and {{citation needed}} tags. You can't add things like "Rabindranath Tagore was born in China" to Wikipedia and insist that others wait for consensus before reverting your changes.

To summarize, find verifiable reliable sources for what you want to add. Wikipedia is not a platform for ethnic/regional glorification propaganda. utcursch | talk 18:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Exaggerations about geographical extent

@Akbar the Great: The claims that you're adding to the intro are not supported by the references.

1. Claim 1: Pala Empire included Afghanistan etc.

   Not supported by the references (Nitish K. Sengupta and George E. Somers).

   In the past, some other users have also tried to add this OR claim to the article, stating that Pala defeated the "Kambojas". But Kambojas here doesn't refer to the Kambojas (who existed around Afghanistan in Iron Age, much before the Palas). It refers to Kamboja Pala dynasty, which ruled Bengal. The intro already says that they controled North India for a short period (which is what the reference supports). How much of northern India did the Palas conquer beyond Kannauj is a matter of speculation and conjecture -- not worthy of intro.

2. Claim 2: Gandhara, Madra, Matsya etc. were "tributary states"

   Not supported by the references (Nitish K. Sengupta and George E. Somers). Sengupta clearly states that these kings maintained their own positions. Somers states that these kings were 'delighted' at the consecreation.

   The Pala inscription that these kings were present at the installation of Chakrayudha on the Kannauj throne, while "bowing down respectfully with their diadems trembling". This is not same as being a vassal or paying tribute. Even Pala records don't claim that. The "bowing down" bit is interpreted variously by the different historians, at worst - as exaggerations, or at best - as acknowledgment of supremacy.

3. Claim 3: North Indian poetry and inscriptions from the period state that the Palas were the dominant imperial power at the time, with their suzerainty stretching from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal.

   Not supported by the reference (Sailendra Nath Sen).

   This claim of conquering the 'land between eastern and western seas' occurs only in the Badal Pillar inscription of Narayanpala, a successor of Devapala. Sen (the reference cited by you) clearly mentions that this is a hyperbole. Other references cited in the article (Somers, Bagchi) also state that these are exaggerations -- they are not supported by records of other contemporary rulers.

In addition, your copy-paste repetition of references introduced Cite error at the end of the article, in the reference section. utcursch | talk 18:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@utcursch The cite error existed before I edited the article.

Spheres of influence and suzerainty are different from conquest. The Jalalabad region of eastern Afghanistan was part of ancient Gandhara, one of the nations that pledged alliegence to Dharmapala in Kannauj, according to all reliable sources. Being a tributary state does not imply being part of the empire itself. Korea, Japan and Malacca were once tributaries to Imperial China, despite being independent. Eastern Afghanistan was however within the Pala sphere of influence, as was Tibet and Sumatra. Parts of Afghanistan (Gandhara) continued to be centers of Mahayana Buddhism in that period, and the Palas were the preeminent Mahayana Buddhist empire at the time. As there are primary and secondary sources confirming this, it is a notable aspect to mention in the lede.

You yourself acknowledge that Pala inscriptions are supported by modern reliable sources, even though rival medieval accounts have disputes. What is clear is that the Palas were not the average middle kingdom of India, but a formidable Buddhist imperial power in Asia. Their military supremacy was widely acknowledged by tributaries, and their cultural influence spanned far wider than other Indian powers at the time. What's wrong in giving this article its due? And cut it out with claims of "copy-pasting" reliable references, have you read any of them? The lede should summarize the contents of the article, and my edits were directed at that.--Akbar the Great (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Akbar the Great: First of all, my contention was not whether the kings of Gandhara etc. were vassals/tributaries/something-else of Palas or not. That comes later. The issue pointed out by me is that none of the references cited by you support the statements that you're adding.

Direct quote from your addition: "At its height, the territory of the Pala Empire covered parts of what are now eastern Afghanistan..."

That statement is not supported by the reference that you cited for it. Similarly, the references cited for the claim that Gandhara etc. were tributary states of Palas don't support that assertion -- whatever "tributary" means here.

In short, your additions failed Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines.

 

Now since you've mentioned it, let's also discuss the bit about the Pala vassals/tributaries.

This is what the 12th verse of the Khalimpur copper plate states:

"With a sign of his gracefully moved eye-brows he installed the illustrious king of Kanyakubja, who readily was accepted by the Bhoja, Matsya, Madra, Kuru, Yadu, Yavana, Avanti, Gandhara and Kira kings, bowing down respectfully with their diadems trembling, and for whom his own golden coronation jar was lifted up by the delighted elders of Panchala."

There is considerable speculation about the meaning of "bowing down respectfully with their diadems trembling", as the historical records of all these kingdoms do not support the Pala claims

Indeed, there are writers (esp. Bengali historians like R. D. Banerji and R.C. Majumdar) who say that the Palas conquered all these kingdoms or that Palas gained suzerainty over them. But there are other writers (including one of the references cited by you) don't have similar views.

A few examples:

• CV Vaidya: According to him, the verse indicates that "the king of Panchala was restored with the consent and to the delight of Bhoja, Matsya, Madra, Kuru, Yadu, Yavana, Avanti, Gandhara and Kira" and that "almost the whole of Northern India west of Prayaga was under the suzerainty of the Varmas of Kanauj while east of Prayaga was the newly established kingdom of the Bengal Palas." (History of Mediæval Hindu India, p. 341).
• Rama Shankar Tripathi: According to him, the verse shows importance of Kannauj and the keen interest of other rulers in the affairs of Kannauj. He adds that the verse shows the power and position of Dharmapala as the premier king of North India, but specifically states that "We should, however, guard against making any such deductions" about the Palas subduing these kings. (History of Kanauj: To the Moslem Conquest, p. 216)
• Jhunu Bagchi: According to him, the verse simply implies that Dharmapala was a "famous and popular king among other north Indian states". A paragraph later, Bagchi says this about the inscriptions of 4 Pala kings: "These are only exaggrations made by eulogists". (The History and Culture of the Pālas of Bengal and Bihar, p. 39-40)
• Susan L. Huntington: According to her, the claims about Pala suzerainty in these regions may be exaggerated. (The Pala-Sena Schools of Sculpture, p. 39)

It's not appropriate to add a blanket lead statement about all these kings being tributaries of Dharmapala, when that assertion is debated by a number of historians. Something like "According to XYZ, <assertion here>, but ABC thinks is an exaggeration" is more acceptable, but even that is unnecessary detail for a lead section.

Something like Palas conquered a vast region in North India (which is already present) is fair enough and appropriate for an introduction. The debate about the interpretation of Khalimpur / Badal Pillar inscriptions can be discussed in the Geography section.

 

As for the references, yes I've read them all -- I was the one who added them. Apologies for the cite error bit -- I hadn't notice that these errors were already present. I've fixed the errors. The Google Books links added by you were already present as references in the article, so I've replaced two of them. One of them was Gyan Publishing book, which is not accepted as reliable source, so I've removed it. (see this discussion)

utcursch | talk 23:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Epigraphic records stating the tributaries of the Pala Empire are supported by reliable sources and a consensus among leading historians. They are very notable and should be mentioned in the lede. A History of Medieval Hindu India may have issues with NPOV, as medieval India was not just Hindu, but also considerably Buddhist (Gandhara again, for example). The other two sources mention the same exaggerations as all other historians, on the Deccan and Vindhyas being ruled by the Palas. The extension of Pala imperialism in Kannauj, even if short lived, should be elaborated, and not simply bracketed with regional rivalries. R C Majumdar is a leading authority in this field, and many books are based on his works. He supports inscriptions and later literary work referring to the Palas as dominant powers in North India in the early 9th century.The Palas ofcourse were never able to maintain an empire as prolonged and large as the Mauryans, even though they tried. The article should give due coverage of that.--Akbar the Great (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No, if a topic is debated among historians, it cannot be just mentioned as an uncontested fact. The sentence "Pala records from the imperial court..." is OK, but The empire and its tributary states covered modern-day eastern Afghanistan... is not. At best, you can say something like "The Pala records claim extensive conquests...", or "According to XYZ, the Palas had suzerainty over..., but this is debated by ABC." utcursch | talk 20:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

And once again, your addition fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. For example, Sommers mention Gandhara as West Punjab, not Afghanistan. utcursch | talk 20:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

All reliable sources confirm that Gandhara covered both eastern Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan. With regards to the Palas, all reliable sources among leading historians, and both ancient and medieval records, confirm that there were the dominant power in the northern subcontinent in the early 9th century. It's puzzling why as to why there is such an unnecessary dispute. There's also no need to make the lede convoluted with direct quotes from primary sources.--Akbar the Great (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The dispute is not over the fact that the Palas were the dominant power in the northern part of the subcontinent. The dispute is over the actual extent of their power. Once again, let me break it down for you: There are two issues here:

1. The primary issue: As with your past additions, the content you're adding is not supported by the sources you're citing for them. "Its sphere of influence extended across modern-day eastern Afghanistan, northern Pakistan, northern and north-eastern India, Nepal, Tibet, Bangladesh and Sumatra." is not supported by any reference in the article. If you've a source that actually says that, I've no problem with that sentence being in the lead.
2. The secondary issue here is the your passing of debated interpretations as facts. The Pala record does not claim that Gandhara, Madra etc. were their tributaries -- it states that kings of these areas were present at Kannauj, with their diadems trembling -- whatever that means. "Tributary states" is an interpretation of a section of scholars (esp. Bengali historians), and is debated by others. You're just stating it as a fact, when I've clearly provided references that directly contest this claim. We can either have something like "According to one theory, these were Palas' tributaries, but a section of historians contest this claim.", or we don't mention in the lead at all. It's as simple as that. Imperial records exaggerate the virtues and power of the kings: Tibetan records contemporary to the Pala era, for example, claim that their rule extended from Mongolia to the mouth of the Ganges (i.e Sunderbans). You might find a few Tibetan historians who actually believe that, but there are other historians who don't take that at face value. In Palas' case, they don't even claim that they ruled Gandhara, Madra etc. directly or through vassals -- they just claim that the kings of these places were present at their ceremony.

Also, your latest edits are synthesis: Nearly all sources agree that Palas had commercial links with Sumatra and Tibet, but do not talk of any trade with Afghanistan. Some writers (esp. Bengali historians) do claim that the Palas had control over everything from Afghanistan to Bengal, based on the Khalimpur copper plate, but that is debatable, as discussed above. Now, you've combined these two and introduced the term "sphere of influence" -- what does that mean here? Like I've mentioned in point one, none of the sources use the term "sphere of influence" to describe Pala relations with all of these areas. This is just your own original research. utcursch | talk 16:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The "Bengali historians" cited are leading Indian academics. You're displaying a very ethnically charged POV. You changed this article without consensus. You are contradicting the majority of reliable sources, in favor of the not-so reliable. You continuously act as if you WP:OWN this article to preserve your minimalist interpretations. My edits are based on reliable sources and academic consensus. Spheres of influence is common sense. The Palas introduced Mahayana Buddhism to both Tibet and Sumatra, it wasn't just trade. And on Afghanistan. First you claim Gandhara was never in Afghanistan. How were the Bamiyan Buddhas built then? Then you try to push the line that the Palas never reached Afghanistan. I've provided a source on a Pala military expedition into Kabul Shahi. And there are numerous reliable sources which confirm that Gandhara, including parts of east Afghanistan, did come under the Pala orbit. These areas were already hubs of Mahayana culture, and the Palas had emerged as the last major Indian Mahayana empire.--Akbar the Great (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You introduced several changes showing Palas in positive light, ranging from "golden era" to "flourishing mercantile and intellectual contacts". I didn't undo those changes. So clearly, I don't have WP:OWN issues or a dislike for Bengalis (I am guessing that's what you mean by "ethnically charged POV"). So, let's ignore the personal attacks, and concentrate on the topic.

 

I never claimed that Gandhara was not in Afghanistan -- I said that the source that you are citing for it (Somers) doesn't say that Palas ruled Afghanistan -- it mentions that they ruled only the West Punjab area of Gandhara.

I've already said this twice, and I'll say it again: the primary issue here is that you're citing sources that don't support the content you're adding. It is very obvious that you've not even read some of the sources you're citing.

Case in the point is your claim: "I've provided a source on a Pala military expedition into Kabul Shahi." You just copied this entire thing from the article Kabul Shahi

"Devapala's Monghyr Charter (B-8), Epigraphia Indica, XVII p 305; The History of the Gurjara-Pratihāras, 1957, p 62, Dr B. N. Puri; Ancient India, 2003, p 650, Dr V. D. Mahajan; History and Culture of Indian People, The Age of Imperial Kanauj, p 50, Dr R. C. Majumdar, Dr A. D. Pusalkar."

Guess what, Epigraphia Indica, XVII doesn't even mention Devapala. I did some digging around, and found that another EI volume -- XVIII -- has an article titled The Mungir Plate of Devapaladeva. I went through it, and it doesn't support the claim either. It's same with the other sources mentioned in that ref: none of them support the claim mentioned in the article Kabul Shahi (about Devapala leading a war expedition to Kabul valley). I did some more digging around, and found that this fake claim about Devapala was inserted into the article Kabul Shahi by User:Satbir Singh, who is banned from Wikipedia for his disruptive editing resulting from misrepresentation of sources and pseudo-history, among other things.

 

That said, there are other sources which theorize that the Palas' vassals might have included the rulers of present-day Afghanistan. I don't have an issue if the article mentions that. All I'm asking is that do not mention this theory as an uncontested fact, when there are other historians with different theories. This is not OK: "XYZ were vassals of Palas". This is OK: "According to a section of scholars, the rulers of XYZ were their vassals, but this theory is contested by others."

And, no, a source doesn't become "not so reliable" because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions. These opposing theories are not fringe theories: their proponents are cited by multiple books and journals, including the sources that you're citing (e.g. Tripathi in Somers).

 

I didn't remove the "cultural influence in Tibet and Sumatra" bit in my previous edit: I have no problem with that. My issue is with your clubbing of them with Afghanistan etc under the "sphere of influence" term. Buddhism in Afghanistan was not a result of Pala Empire -- the Buddhas of Bamiyan were constructed 300 years before Gopala came to power.

The 'Pala influence in Afghanistan'::: claim has got nothing to do with trade or cultural exchanges. That claim is based on the conjecture that the kings mentioned in the Khalimpur copper plate were vassals of Palas. And unlike Tibet/Sumatra bit, that claim is not without doubters. It should be mentioned separately in that context, with a mention of the theories contesting that conjecture.

As for "sphere of influence", it is not at all "common sense", especially when you're using it to describe everything from Afghanistan to Sumatra. As the article sphere of influence mentions, that term implies a degree of cultural, economic, military, or political exclusivity. Unless a source directly supports it, it's not OK.

utcursch | talk 01:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You are contradicting reliable sources and frankly it's speaks of blatant original research. I will say it again, my edits are based on references from leading historians. I don't care who placed earlier references, as long as they are reliable. Stop misrepresenting sources. And I never placed a source from Somners on Afghanistan, so stop making false claims.--Akbar the Great (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is the diff where you placed Somers.

Please don't remove the maintenance templates while a discussion is still going on. Epigraphia Indica, XVII is a reliable source, but it doesn't support the content you claim it does -- you've just copy-pasted it from another article.

I guess the only way forward is dispute resolution. utcursch | talk 13:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

@Akbar the Great: 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 this version, for mediators:

1. "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.

2. "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".

3. 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)

Edited, as per your three suggestions.--Akbar the Great (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Akbar the Great: 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)

Epigraphia Indica failed verification

I have moved from the article to here the following statement added in this edit:

The Kamauli copper plate inscription of king Vaidyadeva of Kamarupa (Assam) connects the Palas to the Kshatriyas of "Mihirasya vamsa" ("solar lineage").

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.

References

--Worldbruce (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

South Asia/Indian subcontinent

@Fylindfotberserk and Alivardi: 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)

@Za-ari-masen: 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)

@Fylindfotberserk: 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 Alivardi'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)

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)

Pingign @Kautilya3 and Uanfala: for suggestions. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Also @Gotitbro:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I would say, avoid WP:OR and follow the reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

• I don't see any difference between the two terms here (and the fact that they can be taken to have different territorial extents is not relevant here as the areas of non-overlap are far from the territories of the Pala). I guess it's all down to which is more commonly used in the literature on this period and region. – Uanfala (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

Fylindfotberserk, 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)

@Za-ari-masen: 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)

Regarding new changes

@Vif12vf: This is regarding to of the edits I made.

Firstly regarding "Expansion under Dharmapala and Devapala" section. Pala Empire didnt control Odisha(not Orissa), it was under Bhauma Kara Dynasty. "Utkala" refers to Northern Odisha unless kings like Satrubhanja conquer most of Odisha. So Utkala(or Kalinga or Toshala) can mean whole Odisha or Northern Odisha depending on how much power Utkala kings(mostly Bhanjas) have. At this point Odisha was ruled by Bhauma Kara Dynasty of Toshala. There is no evidence of Palas occupying "Utkala", but even if they did its probably just small parts of Northern Odisha.

Secondly "First period of decline". This source is so wrong about things that are already known. Amoghavarsha never attacked Pala Empire, it was Mihira Bhoja who later attacked Narayanapala. Sailodbhava Dynasty had already declined by the time the Pala Empire rose to power and the Palas controlled Odisha, which was back then controlled by Bhauma Kara Dynasty. Bhauma Kara Dynasty ended Sailodbhava Dynasty in 736 CE. There is no way a dynasty that does not exist can break away from Palas.

Caste

@Ekdalian Caste of Pala Empire:-I added a source which claims that Pal empire belonged to the Tili caste @Ekdalian , so I request you to kindly go through my source and if find it mentionable mention it there in the article source:- page 168 link :- https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.316260/page/n207/mode/2up and there are a lot Tili families like Ranaghat Pal Chowdhary,Majumdar of South 24 pargana ,their kulij and vanshavali indicates that the are the descendant of Pal King. Doraemon.Sasuke (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ekdalian: Can you provide the quote from the source your edit used for verifying the information? I still think that origin is about ancestors lineage is WP:UNDUE for the article about an empire. Dear Debasish (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey Dear Debasish, let me quote the same. It says, "Tha Pala, Sena and Varman kings and their descendants - who did make claims of kshatriyahood - almost imperceptively merged with the Bengal caste of the 'Kayasthas', ....". I think origin and lineage is pretty much important for the readers. These are related to history, and I believe, a reader has every right to seek correct information on the same; even reliable texts mention these as well and there must be reasons why historians/authors mention about it. Other active editors are welcome to share their opinion here. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

But per WP:RELEVANCE it is necessary to maintain consistency and avoiding information that are not directly related to the subject. I am sure many readers would want to know more and more but WP:UNDUE is a policy that needs to be enforced. Dear Debasish (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You are considering this as WP:UNDUE, and you have already mentioned it earlier. And I have clearly mentioned that I don't agree with you. There's no point in repeating the same. We need other opinions. Pinging LukeEmily for their opinion! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk, Kautilya3, and Gotitbro: Kindly share your opinion on this. Dear Debasish (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning of castes (and specifically modern ones) should most definitely be generally avoided regardless of sources. There is an earnest lack of contemporary chronicling information from the ancient/medieval Indian period, what we have are few sources which barely provide enough information on what the extent or period of rule was. Sourcing the origins of kingdoms/rulers is mostly post-dative and speculative at best. This also involves anachronistic conflation with modern castes.

As it happens, this is the same case in the post-Delhi Sultanate Muslim dynasties which have a much better historiographic and chronicle record. There is no 'definite' on the origin of dynasties beyond what they claimed there as well; I have frequently seen editors disruptively adding modern affiliations to historic dynasties and kingdoms in a sense of dubious claimation in this space. Gotitbro (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Gotitbro. Please note that the debate here is not regarding inclusion of the caste of the Pala rulers, but regarding their descendants, which is comparatively recent, and is reliably sourced. Ekdalian (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Even then I am not sure of its relevance and it does fall into the caste status claimant type I am talking about. Gotitbro (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, again Gotitbro! Will wait for other opinions. Ekdalian (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Pinging TrangaBellam for their opinion. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - The whole caste discussion in that section is tedious, boring and quite WP:UNDUE. I recommend a one-liner that says:

The Pala rulers claimed Kshatriya status but were most likely Kayasthas.

No mention of "Shudra" is necessary because,r as Wink says, there was no real "varna system" as such in Bengal. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Ekdalian: per agreement above, are you willing to make the necessary edits ASAP? Dear Debasish (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe we are yet to find any clear consensus from the above discussions. You shouldn't be in a hurry; let's wait for others' opinion. Since you are not new here, you must be aware that arriving at a consensus is a time consuming process. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Further, if we go ahead and remove the statement regarding the descendants of the Palas, an important piece of information will be missing, and one might wonder what happened to the Palas after their decline! Would request LukeEmily & TrangaBellam once again to share their thoughts, if they can spare some time for the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is much to say, sure I can wait for sometime but it might be best if you make the edit yourself or at least explain why you think we will miss important info(related to origin) if the necessary edits (which I suggested) will be made. Dear Debasish (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Would request Arjayay to share their opinion, if possible. Thanks again to all the editors who have commented on this. Ekdalian (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I confess that I do not have much knowledge of the Pala Empire or Bengali castes but my general opinion is that if a statement is relevant and well sourced from a scholarly source, it should be ok to keep it on wikipedia. IMHO, the current version seems well sourced. Also I agree with Ekdalian, that it is important to know what happened to them after their decline. Did they migrate? Did they change religion etc.? LukeEmily (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to the editors who commented. We have already a section on final decline. We can avoid both WP:cherrypicking and WP:Undue in origin section. More significant informations on orgin and later claims can be incorporated. Dear Debasish (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks LukeEmily for sharing your opinion.

@Dear Debasish, please maintain the indentation. If you are still having trouble, please read WP:INDENT. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I did it with intention. Can you stay on the topic and better comment on it? The consensus of 3 editors over 2 editors in favor of exclusion is still stronger than you think. Dear Debasish (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey Dear Debasish, consensus is not like 3:2, it's not a vote or not just about numbers. Moreover Kautilya3 mentioned something else altogether, therefore even if you say it's 2:2, that is not what consensus means. For example, LukeEmily is a much more established editor and a reliable one compared to you who is new to editing actively in the caste space. Also, we will wait for other opinions here. Till now, we can see that there seems to be no clear consensus on removing the statement you've mentioned. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey Ekdalian, you are considering an article about an empire a caste space! LukeEmily admits that they "do not have much knowledge of the Pala Empire or Bengali castes". I registered way before LukeEmily and have a broader set of edits, but instead of making this silly point you need to remember that consensus is about incorporating all the editors' valid concerns. If we just follow WP:RS, many other later claims, mythical descends or caste/varna details might be added (and I read about such in multiple published sources). But these are gross disregard to the policies (as already elaborated above by me and other editors). We have waited for other editiors' opinion and can surely wait for some more time. But till now there's a consensus that current version is already violating multiple policies. To add further on Kautilya3's view, I am in agreement that we should avoid ALL details about caste/varna here. Dear Debasish (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Dear Debasish, you can't force your opinion here, not in Wikipedia at least. Yes, the ongoing discussions are related to caste, broadly speaking origins (don't forget you have created this section on talk page & just look at the name you have chosen!!); and I have rightly said that you are not in a position to consider yourself equivalent to senior/established editors like LukeEmily. What LukeEmily has said is called modesty, but honestly speaking you neither need to know about the Pala Empire nor Bengali castes in order to edit/comment on this. Look at their edits in the article on Baidya, & you may get an idea of the kind of respect they have earned. Even a senior admin had recommended & mentioned that LukeEmily was cleaning up the article on Baidya (you need to check older versions of the article). And you have yourself mentioned that you have registered yourself years back in Wikipedia but mostly for reading (when asked by another senior admin) and you are comparatively new as far as editing here is concerned. You have been warned by admin(s) as well few months back only. And NO, till now there is NO consensus at all. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Gotitbro. Each and every line he wrote is very much relevant and apt in the context of Pala empire (and that can be verified from the reliable sources here and I can provide quotations and cite other published sources too). I agree with Kautilya3 about irrelevance of caste/varna details. I am also in agreement with Lukefamily about importance of providing information about Pala's decline ( And we have two separate sections on it). Please stay on the topic, comment on the content and address every editors' legitimate concerns ( I believe every admin will advise to do so). I would like to know why you are insisting on keeping caste details(especially modern caste) while it's generally avoided in other articles about an empire and editors here objected to it with strong reasons and valid concerns. Thanks.Dear Debasish (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You may please check Sena dynasty. 'Origins' are rather common in such articles. I have already mentioned in details; I don't think there's much to add. LukeEmily shares the same concern, I mean what I had mentioned earlier. And if an editor like LukeEmily thinks the section we are discussing about is fine, I think we are far away from any sort of consensus. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@ekdalian can you please provide by the source where palas are mentioned as kayasthas?? thanks Miller110 (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally I also think they were kayasthas.I just need a valid source Miller110 (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about the Palas, but surely their descendants. Check this page 102. Ekdalian (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You must check WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST.  I don't care about your admiration towards LukeEmily, that you falsely believe them being more experienced than editor like me, Kautilya3 and Gotitbro.  Rejecting clear presence of consensus is WP:DE but your story does not end here. You are personalizing this dispute big time by making false claims such as "You have been warned by admin(s) as well few months back only," when it concerned nothing more than false accusations of sockpuppetry that were already quashed.  Instead of WP:STONEWALLING you are supposed to comply by the consensus that exists. Dear Debasish (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

"According to Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak (in Ain-i-Akbari), the Palas were Kayasthas." is there any citation available for this claim?? Miller110 (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Pinging senior admins Bishonen (who has warned Dear Debasish multiple times earlier) and RegentsPark. Would request you to intervene since user Dear Debasish is abusing his editing rights by ignoring the ongoing talk page discussions where LukeEmily and I have clearly disagreed with his POV regarding removal of a reliably sourced statement, and we have not only requested for other opinions but also trying to arrive at some sort of consensus. In fact, Dear Debasish is now involved in edit warring as well, in spite of being aware of discretionary sanctions in place and the consequences of edit warring. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING won't help you in your case where 4 editors including Kautilya3, Gotitbro, Miller110 and me have rejected your edits. Interesting that how you haven't pinged any of these 4 editors including me. You are supposed to back up your argument with policies or guidelines which you haven't done so far. Dear Debasish (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@dear debasish why don't you not want to keep the merged with kayastha part in this article? can you explain.thanks Miller110 (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems, you haven't gone through WP:CANVASSING and read what is appropriate and what's not, Dear Debasish. Let the admin(s) decide! Ekdalian (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

According to that source Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak didn't mentioned palas as kayasthas.so I removed it and did your task easier @ekdalian.and yes palas merged with kayasthas,it is well sourced.thanks you Miller110 (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

In spite of Miller110 not participating in the initial discussion (he never agreed with you, Dear Debasish), still you are saying "4 editors including Kautilya3, Gotitbro, Miller110 and me have rejected your edits." Cannot assume good faith any more. Ekdalian (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I had said "Miller110 and me have rejected your edits", which does not mean "Miller110 agreed with me". Also you violated WP:CANVASSING by selectively pinging LukeEmily but not the other participants including me who disagreed with your edits. Dear Debasish (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't ping LukeEmily, look at my statement and the context. I mentioned about them where I stated - "where LukeEmily and I have clearly disagreed with his POV regarding removal of a reliably sourced statement". This statement is about those who clearly opposed you, and the user has been linked so that admins can verify his credentials as an editor here. Ekdalian (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I think ekdalian can write the merged part with kayasthas here,if the source is right. Miller110 (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Having seen this article mentioned in other venues and edited it earlier, I am in support of removal of the mentions about 'caste' related stuff from this page because they are ultimately weak speculations. Capitals00 (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Any sourced (especially) content removal (even the so called offensive words like the shudra etc.) from wikipedia is not acceptable unless it falls in the rule at WP:REMOVAL. The wikipedia approved reasons for content removal are here. History is not math hence cannot have definite answers - thus we have different scholars with different opinions(speculations) .We need to check credentials of the author to make sure they are reliable and if necessary attribute the statement to the author. For WP:NPOV, we need to present all sides. If editors agree, the section can be moved down in the page (above religion section). Then we will not be violating WP:REMOVAL. Wikipedia is not a democracy where we count votes, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. If wikipedia permitted sourced content removal based on agreement or voting by a few editors, then all unpleasant content (like Shudra etc) would disappear from many pages. My suggestion is this:

1.Move the origin section down (where it will be less prominent). Please mention all opinions by reliable sourced Brahmin, Kshatriya, Kayastha, Buddhist, Shudra etc.

2.Where the Pala Dynasty merged is not relevant to origin, hence it should be in the decline section.

3.BTW, the Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubara statement is sourced (the citation must have been incorrectly placed by someone - an honest error) (see page 40 of Sengupta source cited previously). However, I don't know how reliable Sengupta is. LukeEmily (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• • Very well explained, LukeEmily. I have already mentioned that consensus is not like 3:2, I mean it's not about numbers (vote). Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks LukeEmily for their opinion and suggestion. " ..., Which also ranked as shudras." is the part of the sentence from Wink has not been mentioned in the article (even when I asked for quotation), which is WP:Cherrypicking. But I proposed for the removal of the whole part because it's a marginal view and irrelevant ( the descendants and modern caste thing is WP:IRI in origin section). Other editors like Gotitbro, Kautilya3, Capitals00 raised many other concerns. Historians mentioned, we have very little knowledge of origin of the Palas, the Gopal's ancestors and ethnicity. Stray references suggest his father and grandfather were ordinary official under some non-descript local chief. Palas were devout Buddhists and in their own records, they never allude to brahmanical institutions like caste. In their own records Palas didn't claim descent from any mythical figure or epic hero like contemporary dynasties either. Of course, there were many later claims. But as Jhunu Bagchi mentions," All these hearsays practically have no value at all for discussion." We don't have knowledge based on evidence about their descendants, even the last kings. Govindapala (ruled approximately around 1160 AD, have contradictory speculations) ruled Gaya region in Bihar. Since he has Pala affix and held Buddhist title 'Parama Saugata' , it is assumed he might be related to Palas. Majumdar and Sengupta suggest, " Pala empire evaporated around AD 1160". If the caste/varna details are given, to maintain WP: NPOV, we need to provide all the claims and speculations from reliable sources. But Since we are discussing a line of kings who were staunch Buddhists, I am not sure of its relevance. But surely it's not of much importance. LukeEmily has incorporated many of our shared concerns. We have a consensus current version need changes. I will wait for some more time if some other editors interested in this topic have some substantive opinions. Thanks. Dear Debasish (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• • • Hey Dear Debasish, WP:Cherrypicking "means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says"; please read. What is contradictory here? Not just this source, other source(s) also mention that the descendants of the Palas merged with the Kayasthas in Bengal. Is 'Shudra' contradictory here, I mean as far as the source we are discussing here? It is a long term consensus that varna (especially for castes having ambiguous ones) should not be mentioned in other articles considering WP:NPOV. Rather, all reliably sourced POVs regarding varna should be mentioned in the relevant article's varna section. I would simply like to quote a very senior admin regarding your statement in Talk:Bengali Brahmins that the same "is a nasty assumption of bad faith, Dear Debasish"; I completely agree, and this behavior still continues. Coming back to the article, let me incorporate the changes suggested by LukeEmily, not only all the points mentioned by them are valid & logical, I believe no one has disagreed with him as well, and we are all more or less on the same page. In case of any further valid opinion, we can always reconsider. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

In that particular sentence mentioning only 'Kshatriya' and not 'shudra' is neither suggesting ambiguity nor maintaining WP:NPOV. Check again what Kautilya3 suggested. LukeEmily is also against censoring shudra word. There was no kayastha like todays in ancient Bengal. In medieval Bengal purana karana(no mention of kayastha at that time) was a sat shudra. And here we're discussing the history of ancient and early medieval Bengal. That's why it's clearly WP: Cherrypicking. Going off-topic and trying to divert our attention again and again not going to change the fact. You have mentioned that admin and also gone to their talk page to enforce your opinions here. LukeEmily suggested providing all the sides(not only the side of your preference) and to put it in a less prominent place. Most of us are against varna/caste(especially modern caste) details. we're in agreement it's not that important. But you may put forward a substantive argument about its relevance. To say that "not only all the points mentioned by them are valid & logical" is far from ideal response. On Wikipedia, you have to retain/remove a number of things that you are not in favor of. Thanks. Dear Debasish (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Debasish, you didn't answer my question, "Is 'Shudra' contradictory here"? If Kayastha and Shudra are not contradictory, it's not WP:Cherrypicking; hope you read it properly. Claims of being Kshatriya is not same as assigning a particular 'varna'. Also, the source by Eaton only mentions the term 'surrogate Kshatriya'. Kayastha is a caste and Shudra is a 'varna', therefore they cannot contradict each other. Moreover, as I have already mentioned, many castes have ambiguous varna status, and all reliably sourced opinions are mentioned in the 'Varna' section of the relevant article; hope I am clear. But honestly speaking, I can't understand what you have mentioned above; part of it is WP:OR/WP:SYN. As far as LukeEmily is concerned, they have clearly mentioned point wise, hence there is no ambiguity; moreover points are logical and additionally they have clarified Wikipedia policies regarding the same as well. I cannot agree with their suggestion on moving down the section on 'Origins' since this is the usual order followed in such articles. Would request LukeEmily to throw more light on where exactly they would like to move down this section, which would keep the flow of the article intact. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian, I was originally thinking culture/religion section. Its up to you and Dear Debasish as I checked other dynasty pages and they have a origin section usually near the top. I do not have strong opinion about this as long it is on the page somewhere.LukeEmily (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, LukeEmily for sharing your opinion. I am in favour of keeping the section there itself in line with other similar articles. Ekdalian (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• I never received the pings from Ekdalian but assuming it is not very late, I will consult my sources and attempt to provide an answer. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent dispute (Feb '22)

Hey Dear Debasish, I am not sure what exactly is your concern here. We have a consensus as per WP:NPOV to show all possible opinions. Also a senior and trusted editor of our community, LukeEmily has mentioned in the above section, "BTW, the Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubara statement is sourced (the citation must have been incorrectly placed by someone - an honest error) (see page 40 of Sengupta source cited previously). However, I don't know how reliable Sengupta is." Moreover, the same is supported by other reliable sources like Wink ( Al- Hind: The slave kings and the Islamic conquest. 2, Volume 1. BRILL. p. 269). Please stop your disruptive edits, and share your concern here. @LukeEmily: please feel free to share your opinion. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

As I wrote at Sena Dynasty,

The Senas and their descendants merged into the Kayastha caste-group, heralding them as the neo-Kshatriyas of Bengal — hence, Abul Fazl would write that Bengal had always been ruled by Kayasthas.

This is the context behind Fazl's observation; the descendants of Palas had merged as well. Obviously, it is anachronistic exercise to determine what caste the Palas were originally were. [I did not really check the disputed edit; this is just a pointer.] TrangaBellam (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks TrangaBellam for your input. Ekdalian (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• I have consulted Roy, Majumdar, RD Banerji, Bagchi and Sengupta and found caste discussion of palas and their desecendants are just irrelevant and undue weight. They were devout buddhists and remained casteless in their own records. Most of these scholars had not mentioned about Fazl's statement at all. Roy gave detailed discussion about origin and castes. Let me quote; at page 322:

  Yet nowhere is it claimed that Gopaldeva's family was a prestigious one; perhaps he was just another vassal leader. In Haribhadra' s commentary on the Astasahasrika-Prajnaparamita and in the Khalimpur inscription's interpretation of the term, bhadratmaja or 'born of genteel parents' there is an underlying effort to present the Pala Dynasty as of noble descent, although neither source emphatically asserts such a lineage. The Kamauli inscription of Vaidyadeva describes the Pala kings as belonging to the Surya Dynasty, and in the story, Udayasundari, of the poet Sodhdhala, the Pala kings are also said to be of the Surya Dynasty, born of the family of Mandhata, but it is doubtful that either of these claims is based on fact. In Sandhyikara Nandi' s Ramacarita Dharmapala is hailed as the glory of the Samudra Dynasty; Taranatha too suggested a close connection between Dharmapala and the Samudras, and in the Dharmamangal of Ghanarima there ls the suggestion of a relationship between Dharmapala's queen and the Samudras. It is not unlikely that linked with these claims involving the name Samudra also a word for 'sea' -there is a suggestion of some relationship between the Pala kings and the ocean-going men of Gauta or the maritime proto-Australoid Polynesian community. In the Ramacarita and in Taranatha's history there is mention of a claim to Ksatriya status made on behalf of the Pala kings, but in no way is such a claim extraordinary, for in the Indian Aryan-Brahmanical tradition a king was always a Kshatriya. The Manjushrimulakalpa described the Palas as dasajibinah or 'born of slaves', while Abul Fazl described them as Kayasthas. At any rate, it is quite clear from all of this that they were not born of a noble family or caste; such a thing was, indeed, rare in the dynastic history of those times.

  Further quoting his observations from page 336

  The credit for this legacy belongs basically to the Pala kings themselves. They were Bengalis, their homeland being Varendri. They were characteristically Bengali in the establishment of their dynasty, making no claim to the nobility of Puranic Brahmanical society. Apparently the popular tradition of the sixteenth century held them to be outside of the three top castes, but it would seem that the inferences of Taranltha and the writer of the Manjushrimulakalpa were more historically accurate. Taranatha said that Gopala was born of the seed of a certain tree-god from the womb of a kshatriya woman. Undoubtedly this story is connected with totemic lore, yet it is not entirely untrue or unhistorical, there being in it a reflection of the society outside of Puranic Brahmanism.

  From all these mentioned sources I found some more details that can be incorporated in this article, but not the caste things. I agree with TrangaBellam's input above as well. Fazl's statement can only be included if modern historians supported this by finding substantial basis of it, just mention of this is not enough. Thanks.Dear Debasish (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Debasish is Nitish Sengupta a historian? Nobita456 (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The genre is popular history. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Didn't get you,but sengupa needs to be a historian to be included in this article. Nobita456 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Nitish Sengupta is not a historian, he is an Economist see. we cant cite him in history-related articles. see WP:HISTRS Nobita456 (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• I was pinged about this related to the dispute resolution page. Although I do not have much context/interest in these lineages, my suggestion is the same for all caste related disputes on wikipedia - a no-brainer approach. 1)Identify all reliable WP:HISTRS sources 2)If a statement is sourced from a reliable WP:HISTRS source, we can allow it. If we suspect it is fringe but the source is high quality (academic), then we attribute it to the source. 3)No personal opinions or WP:OR. I also confess that I have not read the above discussion in depth, just browsed through it quickly and did a quick search for origin. Academic scholar Andre Wink(BRILL), mentions that (a)the founder of the dynasty was from a line of Brahmins who converted to Kshatriyas. Academic scholar Ronald Davidson(Columbia University Press) gives two opinions (b)As per Abul-i-Fazl the founder came from a family of kayasthas (c)But, as per manjushrimulkalpa, he came from a family of menials. Thus we have three opinions (at least) by two reliable sources. I am not sure why there is so much dispute. We should simply mention all three opinions (or more if there are any) from all WP:HISTRS sources. If you feel it necessary, please attribute it to the source.LukeEmily (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with luke,that we should give all views.but at first we must indenfy are they come under WP:HISTRS or not,Thanks.Nobita456 (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, LukeEmily for sharing your opinion; fair & logical indeed! Ekdalian (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

All three opinions (mentioned by LukeEmily above), along with their Buddhist leanings, are now covered in the article. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Absurd GDP

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)

Citations

@Wham2001 citations generated by template are no showing in reuse option. Eduardo2024 (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@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)

Now it is ok, thanks Eduardo2024 (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@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)

Pinging @पाटलिपुत्र and @Vif12vf also for their opinions who contributed in this page recently, Thanks, Eduardo2024 (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

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 {{harv}}/{{sfn}} 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)