Talk:Pañcāla

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

India: History Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.^[1]^[2]

References

^ wheeler, James Boy (1869). The History of India from the Earliest Ages: The Rámáyana and the Brahmanic period. N Trubner. p. 432.
^ Bibliotheca Indica, Volume 270. Baptist Mission Press. 1848. p. 38.

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)[reply]

Infobox

@PadFoot2008: Do you have sources to verify your edits? It is factually wrong to claim that this kingdom existed for that long. Nxcrypto Message 14:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How am I claiming anything at all? The lifespan earlier said that it existed from 1100 BC to 400 AD, I corrected it to 1100 BC to 340 BC. I didn't even extend it. PadFoot (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, the period still looks long. Do we have any source for supporting the either info? Nxcrypto Message 01:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] wheeler, James Boy (1869). The History of India from the Earliest Ages: The Rámáyana and the Brahmanic period. N Trubner. p. 432.

[2] Bibliotheca Indica, Volume 270. Baptist Mission Press. 1848. p. 38.

[1]

[2]