Talk:Gupta Empire
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gupta Empire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months ![]() |
![]() | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Undue origin?
[edit]I've wanted to raise this question for a long time: Is the inclusion of the Bengal origin of the Guptas in the article fair, or is it undue? The below phrase is full of inconsistencies.[a] One might feel uncertain after reading this paragraph:
Another prominent[by how much?] theory locates the Gupta homeland in the present-day Bengal region in Ganges basin,[undue weight? – discuss] based on the account of the 7th-century Chinese Buddhist monk Yijing. According to Yijing, king Che-li-ki-to (identified with the dynasty's founder Shri Gupta) built a temple for Chinese pilgrims near Mi-li-kia-si-kia-po-no (apparently a transcription of Mriga-shikha-vana). Yijing states that this temple was located more than 40 yojanas east of Nalanda, which would mean it was situated somewhere in the modern Bengal region.[inconsistent] Another proposal is that the early Gupta kingdom extended from Prayaga in the west to northern Bengal in the east.
Almost all[b] modern academic studies conclude that the Guptas originated somewhere in eastern Uttar Pradesh. Do we really need to rely on older sources? Majumdar, a key proponent of the Bengal origin, was more aligned with nationalistic views. Ganguly, on the other hand (who doesn't goes beyond criticising all of the factors attesting UP origin), wasn't vocal[c] about the discovery of Sri Gupta's coin in the east UP and isn't considered an authoritative voice on the matter. The Bengal origin theory and its proponents mostly come from studies between the 1930s and 1970s --- works that are now considered outdated. We'll rarely find any recent academic research tracing Gupta origins to Bengal. So the question remains: should the minority view still be included on this page, or should it be confined to Origin of the Gupta dynasty if it's necessary? Given that newer studies have surpassed and conflicted the older ones, it makes sense to follow the latest research. For more evaluation of the sources, I'd be presenting almost all of the authoritative and putative studies in the origin of Gupta dynasty. Pinging @Koshuri Sultan, NXcrypto, Fylindfotberserk, पाटलिपुत्र, and Ratnahastin: for further inputs. – Garuda Talk! 12:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem mentioning alternate/older origin theories for the sake of WP:NPOV, albeit keeping it truncated. The whole section needs to be trimmed for that matter since we already have this article. I'd like to ping some of the other active users @Utcursch, Doug Weller, Gotitbro, PadFoot2008, and Worldbruce: for inputs. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk, to some extent, I agree with you. However, the issue of WP:UNDUE remains. We have only one modern source, i.e., Ganguly, who doesn't present a strong argument for the Bengal origin but rather argues against the consensus-driven conclusion. Apparently, he was unaware of the newly discovered Sri Gupta coin in UP. We should give due attention to this matter. – Garuda Talk! 13:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think we should lean towards WP:NPOV, as suggested by Flyingfotberserk. That said I'd like to hear more opinions around this topic. NXcrypto Message 13:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Please see WP:YESPOV, as it goes:
The neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.
- In this case. If you ask me, there's not sufficient due weight from the proponents of Bengal origin. – Garuda Talk! 13:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think we should lean towards WP:NPOV, as suggested by Flyingfotberserk. That said I'd like to hear more opinions around this topic. NXcrypto Message 13:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk, to some extent, I agree with you. However, the issue of WP:UNDUE remains. We have only one modern source, i.e., Ganguly, who doesn't present a strong argument for the Bengal origin but rather argues against the consensus-driven conclusion. Apparently, he was unaware of the newly discovered Sri Gupta coin in UP. We should give due attention to this matter. – Garuda Talk! 13:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Gupta's origin is disputed[d]. NXcrypto Message 13:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'd say not anymore. Please go through the sources added yourself --- almost all of those putative academics tend to follow the conclusion that the Guptas originated in UP. – Garuda Talk! 13:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think it is reasonable for the article text to say something like "The origin of the Gupta dynasty is disputed. Most scholars place Shri Gupta's homeland in the eastern part of modern day Uttar Pradesh, but other regions have been suggested." I don't think it would be undue to list the other locations that have been suggested, but going into the details of the arguments is clearly what Origin of the Gupta dynasty is for. At the same time, the existence of that article shows that a statement which did not acknowledge the existence of controversy would be inappropriate. Furius (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. It'd be more appropriate to keep the controversial or undue views confined at Origin of the Gupta dynasty, as it goes so far, we don't actually have any modern reliable academias attesting to any other concluding origins except the Lower Doab/East UP/Central Ganga valley regions. – Garuda Talk! 14:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- (responding to ping) I don't know why I'm pinged. I don't have any opinion on the matter, but I do note that many of the sources (Atlantic, Concept , Marg, Motilal Banarsidas publishers/publishing, etc.) cited for the Uttarpradesh origin are not from academic publishers. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- You were pinged because I'm not familiar with Majumdar's reliability, so I thought you might have more insight. Regarding the publishers, though, I think the fact that the works are authored by subject experts might matter more than whether they're published by academic publishers. – Garuda Talk! 08:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't really see why alternate origins shouldn't be included. They should be shortened according to their due weight but you can't say that they have no weight at all, since they are in fact supported by a few scholars. PadFoot (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Because the alternate origins comes from minority views, for that purpose we have Origin of the Gupta dynasty. No one is arguing about "no weight" or 0 weight, the fact that alternatives are supported by "few scholars" simply makes more convincing argument for WP:UNDUE. – Garuda Talk! 15:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I said "a few scholars" not just "few scholars", there's a difference between the two. If something has weightage and support among a section of scholars then there's no reason why it should not be listed. PadFoot (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then you can cite more sources below supporting the Bengal origin (please avoid old ones), because, as far as I know, there are few to no proponents of it in modern academic sources. – Garuda Talk! 15:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I said "a few scholars" not just "few scholars", there's a difference between the two. If something has weightage and support among a section of scholars then there's no reason why it should not be listed. PadFoot (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Because the alternate origins comes from minority views, for that purpose we have Origin of the Gupta dynasty. No one is arguing about "no weight" or 0 weight, the fact that alternatives are supported by "few scholars" simply makes more convincing argument for WP:UNDUE. – Garuda Talk! 15:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Is Ganguly[2] here who seems to be the only proponent of Bengal origin, the same as Dilip Kumar Ganguly? If yes, then he doesn't seem to be a scholar well-suited to history topics, please don't cite him. Tons of sources have been presented, but I just took a quick glance at two of them. The UNESCO[3] source actually concludes that the consensus among historians has settled on their homeland being in eastern Uttar Pradesh. Britannica[4] says the same and even further negates Magadha as part of their earlier territories, instead placing it as a later addition to the Gupta Empire. With that in mind, I think it's best to stick with what these sources say. I'd even suggest removing all other origin theories that aren't prevalent nowadays and only including the eastern UP origin. There's no need to give space to other POVs, at least not on this page. Koshuri (グ) 19:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, I don't know about D. K. Ganguly, but it certainly seems like he's different from Dilip Kumar Ganguly. One might argue whether "Abhinav Publications" is an academic publishing house. As for your suggestion to omit the other origin theories from the article, that seems like a radical approach. However, if someone puts more of his words here, it might be worth considering, but for now the suggestion from furius seems to me a balanced opinion. – Garuda Talk! 01:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, my bad. Although I'll point out that Abhinav Publications is a reliable publisher. My approach is not "radical", it's just based on the sources below. You should opt for RfC if you want this discussion to progress. Koshuri (グ) 11:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think we may need RfC for this, a local consensus of 6-7 editors would do. It's not like the discussion has become a wall of texts to consider for RfC. Let more editors join in the discussion. – Garuda Talk! 23:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- No, the discussion has pretty much progressed, so should we. I may start RfC by myself, no reason for being too bureaucratic. Koshuri (グ) 10:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Garudam: Could you provide the page number in which this particular quote is present? Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- No, the discussion has pretty much progressed, so should we. I may start RfC by myself, no reason for being too bureaucratic. Koshuri (グ) 10:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think we may need RfC for this, a local consensus of 6-7 editors would do. It's not like the discussion has become a wall of texts to consider for RfC. Let more editors join in the discussion. – Garuda Talk! 23:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, my bad. Although I'll point out that Abhinav Publications is a reliable publisher. My approach is not "radical", it's just based on the sources below. You should opt for RfC if you want this discussion to progress. Koshuri (グ) 11:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, I don't know about D. K. Ganguly, but it certainly seems like he's different from Dilip Kumar Ganguly. One might argue whether "Abhinav Publications" is an academic publishing house. As for your suggestion to omit the other origin theories from the article, that seems like a radical approach. However, if someone puts more of his words here, it might be worth considering, but for now the suggestion from furius seems to me a balanced opinion. – Garuda Talk! 01:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Sources, notes & references.
|
---|
Notes[edit]
Sources[edit]
References
|
Eh!
[edit]Now, please revert yourself [1]. PadFoot2008, you don't seem to understand. R. S. Sharma and T. R. Sharma are clearly distinguishable. Regarding Ashwini's works, I don't see an issue with using both. One provides brief insights into the topic, while the other adds more context. Both are justified in this case. – Garuda Talk! 15:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Apologies for the two Sharmas. The older Agrawal however is not required since, the newer one provides a much more detailed insight as you said above. PadFoot (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Now we discuss your rationale -- that both works of Ashwini shouldn't be used. This is vague and not backed by any guidelines. One is from the Wiley Online Library which doesn't dive much into the context, and the other delves deeper into the topic. You should completely revert yourself; a partial revert won't do. Please don't be so quick to revert others' additions. – Garuda Talk! 16:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that both works shouldn't be used — just that the same author shouldn't be sourced twice in the same reference. If you still fail to understand what I mean to say here, then I don't know how else explain it. PadFoot (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think I follow your same author reasoning. We can't just prefer a brief paper over an comprehensive study, it's not like you're starting any policy based argument. This is actually the first time I have ever encountered this "same author" problem. – Garuda Talk! 17:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that both works shouldn't be used — just that the same author shouldn't be sourced twice in the same reference. If you still fail to understand what I mean to say here, then I don't know how else explain it. PadFoot (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Now we discuss your rationale -- that both works of Ashwini shouldn't be used. This is vague and not backed by any guidelines. One is from the Wiley Online Library which doesn't dive much into the context, and the other delves deeper into the topic. You should completely revert yourself; a partial revert won't do. Please don't be so quick to revert others' additions. – Garuda Talk! 16:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
RfC on homeland
[edit]![]() |
|
Per the above sources & discussion. If any changes (or not) has to be made regarding their origins, then what it should be?:
- A) East Uttar Pradesh (UP) with no alternative pipe link: Modern academia(s) have moved on and shifted to the UP origin, so should our project.
- B) No change: Status quo.
- C) East UP with alternative pipe link: Per the suggestion of Furius ~ that slightly/indirectly including other minority theories wouldn't hurt.
Koshuri (グ) 09:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (RfC on homeland)
[edit]- A) East UP with no alternative pipe link: As a proposer, no need to be inconsistent when almost all of the newer sources give the same conclusion by countering others. Koshuri (グ) 09:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Given policy (including WP:DUE and WP:NPOV more broadly, and WP:AEIS in WP:NOR – WP siding solely with UP would at least be analysis, evaluation, and interpretation all at once), I don't think we have any choice but to indicate that the curretly most-favored origin is eastern UP, but also link to Origin of the Gupta dynasty for a summary of the debates about this. (I don't much care about the specific wording used to do these things.) We perhaps need not dwell on what the alternative proposals are in this particular article (especially not in its lead, which might say "probably originating in eastern Uttar Pradesh"), but WP is not in a position here to hide the fact that there are alternatives and continued academic debate about them. A growing preponderance of RS converging on UP doesn't make UP a cold hard fact, like that gravity exists. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use Indian English
- B-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in History
- B-Class vital articles in History
- B-Class India articles
- High-importance India articles
- B-Class India articles of High-importance
- B-Class West Bengal articles
- High-importance West Bengal articles
- B-Class West Bengal articles of High-importance
- WikiProject West Bengal articles
- B-Class Bihar articles
- High-importance Bihar articles
- B-Class Bihar articles of High-importance
- WikiProject Bihar articles
- B-Class Uttar Pradesh articles
- High-importance Uttar Pradesh articles
- B-Class Uttar Pradesh articles of High-importance
- WikiProject Uttar Pradesh articles
- B-Class Indian history articles
- High-importance Indian history articles
- B-Class Indian history articles of High-importance
- WikiProject Indian history articles
- WikiProject India articles
- B-Class Pakistan articles
- Mid-importance Pakistan articles
- WikiProject Pakistani history articles
- WikiProject Pakistan articles
- B-Class Bangladesh articles
- Mid-importance Bangladesh articles
- Help of History Workgroup of Bangladesh needed
- WikiProject Bangladesh articles
- B-Class Nepal articles
- Mid-importance Nepal articles
- WikiProject Nepal articles
- B-Class history articles
- High-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- Wikipedia requests for comment