Talk:Shashanka

---

Personal website

Why is there a link to an unrelated personal website on this page? (removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.249.183 (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Continuing copyright issues

This article became a copyright problem of with this edit. Unfortunately, the attempted rewrite created an unusable unauthorized derivative work of that source. For an example of close paraphrasing, consider the following:

Very little information about the early life of Shashanka is known. It appears that he ruled for sometime as a chieftain (mahasamanta) of Rohtasgarh under the Gauda king of Karnasuvarna, who possibly belonged to the family of the Maukharis.... In fact, Karnasuvarna was the capital of Shashanka and the famous metropolis was situated near Chiruti railway station close to rajbadidanga (ie the site of Raktamrttika-mahavihara or modern Rangamati) in the Murshidabad district, West Bengal. The decline and fall of the Gupta Empire coincided with considerable progress in the outlying regions. Many obscure areas, which were possibly ruled by tribal chiefs and were thinly settled, came into historical limelight. This applied to the red soil areas of West Bengal, north Orissa and the adjoining areas of Madhyapradesh, which formed part of the Chhotonagpur plateau and were difficult to cultivate and settle.

The rewrite said:

Little is known about early life of Shashanka except that he ruled for sometime as a chieftain (Mahasamanta) of Rohtasgarh under the Gauda king of Murshidabad (Karnasubarna) of the Maukhari family. Karnasubarna was the capital of Shashanka and the metropolis was situated near Rajbaridanga (site of Raktamrittika Mahavihara or Rangamati) in Murshidabad district of West Bengal. With decline of Gupta Empire many obscure areas, ruled by tribal chiefs came to historical limelight including Rarh or the red soil areas of West Bengal, north Orissa and adjoining territories of Chattisgarh, which formed extension of the Chota Nagpur plateau that was difficult to cultivate and settle.

There are other passages that similarly follow too closely.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. So that it will not constitute a derivative work, any material used from that source must be completely rewritten. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Alternatively, if the material can be verified to be public domain or permission is provided, we can use the original text with proper attribution.

Please let me know if you have questions about this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

When was Bhubaneswar called "Bhubanesa". I think a proof is needed and we need to also attach a reference to the fact that he ruled Bhubaneswar too..As far as I know he ruled only north Odisha and Bhuabaneswar is down south.110.224.204.145 (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed stale POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

An old neutrality tag that appears to have no active discussion has been removed from this page per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant

The article has been edited extensively in the two years since it was tagged, at this time there is no obvious overarching NPOV problem, and there is no evidence of ongoing discussion of neutrality, so I've removed the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! Worldbruce (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

Regarding the recent edit warring by an apparently new user, I could verify one of the existing source which says Shashanka was a Kayastha, though it hardly matters! Would like to ping some experienced editors in order to avoid edit warring and maintain NPOV, since the edit warring user has come up with a source (snippet view) which supports their Brahmin claim. @Fylindfotberserk and Ratnahastin: would request your opinion here! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest we restore this stable version before all these caste cruft. And start from there. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favour of Fylindfotberserk's view. @Chen Xiao Kai: needs to follow WP:BRD and get consensus before adding a caste claim. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both, Fylindfotberserk and Ratnahastin. Ekdalian (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Recent poorly sourced changes

@~2026-36010-36

please discuss your proposed changes here. Gain consensus first. Ixudi (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Ixudi, I'm opening this discussion regarding your revert. Describing these changes as "poorly sourced" isn't accurate. The revised text is backed by multiple peer-reviewed books and well-established academic works by leading historians of early Indian history, including B. N. Srivastava, R. C. Majumdar, D. C. Sircar and B. P. Sinha. The current version of the article repeats claims that don't reflect the available historical evidence. I believe the revised version should be restored for the following reasons: The Magadhan native theory is contradicted by the primary sources: The claim that Shashanka was a native of Magadha isn't supported by the contemporary evidence. Bāṇabhaṭṭa explicitly refers to him as Gaudarāja (King of Gauda), while Xuanzang identifies him as the ruler of Karnasuvarna. As B. N. Srivastava points out, it makes little sense for a ruler native to Magadha to establish his capital at Karnasuvarna in Bengal while ruling Magadha. Presenting the Magadha theory as settled fact is therefore misleading. The Later Gupta connection is supported by epigraphic evidence: The Rohtasgarh seal-matrix identifies Shashanka as a Mahasamanta (feudatory) under Mahasenagupta in Magadha. This shows his presence there was in an administrative and military capacity, not evidence that he was native to the region. The Varendra origin of the Imperial Guptas is a recognised scholarly view: Several historians place the ancestral homeland of the Imperial Guptas in Varendra (northern Bengal) rather than Magadha. This is supported by the account of the 7th-century monk Yijing, who recorded that Sri Gupta, the dynasty's founder, built a temple for Chinese pilgrims near Mṛgaśikhāvana in Varendra. Within this framework, the Guptas originated in Bengal before expanding westwards. The revised text also removes outdated wording, fixes duplicated reference tags, and brings the section more closely into line with the available evidence. If there are any specific issues with the proposed changes, I'm happy to discuss them, but I'd appreciate source-based objections rather than a general statement that the material is "poorly sourced." ~2026-36010-36 (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Is the above paragraph generated using an LLM? The book is not available using conventional sources and needs to be verified by multiple editors as it is making an especially bold claim.

Please provide a link to the book so that we can discuss. Ixudi (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Ixudi, and no, this is a human editor presenting cited history. The sources are standard academic texts available in university libraries and databases like Google Books and Internet Archive. Here are the verification links for the primary sources and monographs:B. N. Srivastava (Sasanka, King of Gauda): https://ia601409.us.archive.org/23/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.119634/2015.119634.A-History-Of-Indian-Buddhism_text.pdf. It directly addresses the primary accounts of Bāṇabhaṭṭa (who explicitly calls him Gaudarāja) and Xuanzang (who records his capital at Karnasuvarna, Bengal). B. P. Sinha (Dynastic History of Magadha): Preview available on Google Books. Pages 131–133 explicitly detail the Rohtasgarh seal-matrix proving his role as a Mahasamanta (feudatory governor) under Mahasenagupta.D. C. Sircar (Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India): Searchable snippet on Google Books. Pages 122–124 establish the Varendra (Bengal) origin of the Imperial Guptas based on Yijing's travelogues detailing Sri Gupta's temple near Mṛgaśikhāvana.R. C. Majumdar (The History of Bengal, Vol I): Full text available on Internet Archive. Pages 59–61 detail the academic rejection of the Magadhan origin hypothesis.The claim is not "bold"; it is the mainstream academic framework based on primary epigraphic and literary records. Let's look at the text directly to ensure the page accurately reflects these verified sources. ~2026-36010-36 (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Apologies some of the links got corrupted for some reason here are the actual links replacing them:

B. P. Sinha (Dynastic History of Magadha):https://archive.org/details/dynastic-history-of-magadha-cir.-450-1200-a.-d. Pages 131–133 explicitly detail the Rohtasgarh seal-matrix proving his role as a Mahasamanta (feudatory governor) under Mahasenagupta.

D. C. Sircar (Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India):https://archive.org/details/studiesingeograp0000sirc/page/n2/mode/1up Pages 122–124 establish the Varendra (Bengal) origin of the Imperial Guptas based on Yijing's travelogues detailing Sri Gupta's temple near Mṛgaśikhāvana.

R. C. Majumdar (The History of Bengal, Vol I):https://archive.org/details/history-of-bengal-1-ed.-r.-c.-majumdar-1943.Pages 59–61 detail the academic rejection of the Magadhan origin hypothesis. ~2026-36010-36 (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

You have linked every other source which has already been included in the article but have still yet to link the actual source you are citing. Please provide a link to “Srivastava, B. N. (1965). Sasanka (Shashanka), King of Gauda. Uttar Pradesh: Lucknow University” so that we can check and verify the claims you are making. Ixudi (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Ixudi,Those are all the sources I am citing; Srivastava is one part of a broader academic consensus. Per Wikipedia sourcing policy (WP:BKC), physical books do not require an online link to be valid sources. Srivastava’s 1965 monograph is a standard academic text available in research libraries globally: Rijksmuseum Research Library Catalog: https://library.rijksmuseum.nl/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=139369*

WorldCat/OCLC Listing: OCLC Number 2125744.

The core claims, that Bāṇabhaṭṭa calls him Gaudarāja and Xuanzang places his capital at Karnasuvarna, are primary historical facts corroborated across all the other linked sources (Majumdar, Sinha, Sircar). Since the text accurately reflects the consensus of both the physical and digitally available sources provided, there is no policy-based reason to block these updates. ~2026-36010-36 (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I’m unsure what exactly you are linking here. It seems to be a random link that contributes nothing to the actual discussion. The source you added makes a bold claim. It remains in the article however it has rightly been labelled as “verification failed” because no one can actually check what it actually says. Ixudi (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Ixudi, Apologies for the incorrect link in the previous post; the correct catalog listing for B. N. Srivastava's monograph is here:

Rijksmuseum Research Library Catalog: https://library.rijksmuseum.nl/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=226741

To clarify Wikipedia policy: a print source cannot be labelled "failed verification" simply because it is an offline, physical book that requires a library visit to read. If that is what you meant by "no one can actually check what it is saying", then that is not consistent with policy. If, however, you were referring to my mistake in linking an unrelated book that I had saved for another matter in the previous message, then that is a fair point. Per WP:OFFLINE, reliable print sources are completely valid and do not require a URL. Furthermore, the "bold claim" you are contesting, and I assume you are referring either to the Magadha origin theory being treated as improbable and rejected by most modern historians, the latter being the general consensus, or to Bāṇabhaṭṭa calling him Gaudarāja and Xuanzang stating that he ruled from Karnasuvarna. Either way, all of these points are already verified within the digitally accessible sources provided and already present in the article (R. C. Majumdar's History of Bengal and B. P. Sinha's Dynastic History of Magadha). Because these facts are fully cross-verified by multiple independent, accessible academic texts, the "verification failed" tag is, from what I have gathered, policy-wise, incorrect. ~2026-36010-36 (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)