Talk:Pañcāla

Merge in discussion

Merge in. The discussion regarding merging in Panchala Kingdom (Mahabharata) has been going on for more than 3 years, but was not properly tagged here back in 2013 (nor in the interim). Cpt.a.haddock quite understandably reversed my merge in, requesting discussion here. For the earlier discussion, see Talk:Panchala Kingdom (Mahabharata). My view is that the Panchala Kingdom (Mahabharata) article is described as "are largely attributed as mythological", and that such material is best contextualized in the presence of historically-sourced material. This is consistent with the only other 2 views expressed on the other talk page since 30th April 2013. Klbrain (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't Merge: There appears to be a loose demarcation between mythological Indian kingdoms and historical ones. For example, there's a Kuru kingdom (Mahabharata) and a Kuru Kingdom; there's a Magadha Kingdom and a Magadha; there's a Gandhara Kingdom and a Gandhara … The articles on the kingdoms in the context of Indian epics tend to be poorly written/sourced, overly detailed, but focus on the role of the kingdoms in literature and the characters connected to them. The articles on the historical kingdoms are better written and sourced and tend to mention the epic kingdoms in concise terms. IMO, there is room for both articles, but there needs to be a clear distinction between their ambits, better interlinking, and a consistent naming system. The quality issues are chiefly with the articles on the epic kingdoms than the historical ones. It would also be hasty to only consider merging the Panchala articles without considering the rest.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Cpt.a.haddock. This article is about the historical Panchala janapada, while Panchala Kingdom (Mahabharata) is about the legendary kingdom in a semi-fictional work. While the Mahabharata kingdom is obviously based on the historical janapada, that article contains a lot of fictional details, which cannot be included here. At best, this article should include a line or two ("Panchala kingdom also appears in Mahabharata, where its king is ..."). utcursch | talk 14:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds clear; I'll remove the merge templates. Klbrain (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• North India in 540 BCE.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Kannauj

An Ip has re-inserted [1] again

This editor @Joshua Jonathan is consistently doing edit wars in different articles by removing sourced content and isn't neutral but defending his POV. Maybe i should report him to Arbitrators.

the following info:

[Pancala] [...] which is identified as Kanyakubja or region around Kannauj.

References

• wheeler, James Boy (1869). The History of India from the Earliest Ages: The Rámáyana and the Brahmanic period. N Trubner. p. 432. - 1869, Raj-era source, to be avoided. Quote: "It has already whether the Raj of Panchala, possessed by Raja Drupada, extended as far as kanouj";
• Bibliotheca Indica, Volume 270. Baptist Mission Press. 1848. p. 38. - 1848, also Raj-era source; doesn't even mention Kannauj or Kanyakubja.

Furthermore, I'd moved info on the Mahabharata which was contained in the Vedic period to the appropriate section, namely "In Mahabharata"; and I had moved the mahabharata-section downwards, after the historical sections, since the Mahabharata is a primary source, and not a historical document. All of this probably escaped the attention of this trigger-happy IP. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)