Template talk:South Asia in 1400

Removal of sourced material

@PadFoot2008: As per the cited source, A Historical Atlas of South Asia, the region is listed as Gondwana. You need to demonstrate that the most reliable atlas on South Asian history is wrong. Please find the relevant page here: https://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/schwartzberg/pager.html?object=076

The onus is therefore on you and not on me to cite a source. Gondwana is clearly listed as a collection of petty states.Ixudi (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Gondwana is a region which was comprised of numerous tribal states, similar to the Deccan or the Punjab, etc. The maps lists polities (kingdoms, empires, dynasties, tribes) and not regions. PadFoot (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Gondwana is sourced. Your claim of "aboriginal tribes" is unsourced. The source is A Historical Atlas of South Asia. Unfortunately your opinion does not supersedes this. Ixudi (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Your claim is unsourced. The map doesn't say that Gondwana was a kingdom or dynasty. PadFoot (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a RELIABLE source for “aboriginal tribes” when referring to the year 1400 CE in India, yes or no? Ixudi (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Tribal states" could be preferable (less tricky then "aboriginal tribes") and would conform to Schwartzberg's description [1]. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Alright. PadFoot (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• @PadFoot2008: It is also unclear what your new source (Charles Eckford Luard. The Central India State Gazetteer Series) brings to the discussion: at the very least, you should provide a redeable page or a direct quote from that source, so that its meaning and relevance can be clarified. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I can only find this and this; it is unclear which is meant. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)