Talk:Paratarajas

Eliminated unsourced assertion
Deleted the sentences saying that the Paratas are thought to be an offshoot of the Apracas. I have never seen such an argument and it seems like pure speculation. No source was provided. Rani nurmai (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Undoing previous edits on Jan 22, 2012
I undid the edits by an unidentified editor in November 2011. The person seemed uninformed, identifying the reverse swastika as a fire altar and claiming a source argued the Paratas were enemies of the Indians when the source said no such thing. The idea was to restore the text to its previous state. Rani nurmai (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ArjunaParataraja.jpg
Image:ArjunaParataraja.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Date
We are not bound to reproduce anything and everything written by a scholar. The assigning of dates has no rational basis; please cease. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We follow the sources, not personal views or personal opinions. Your views that the "dates have no rational basis" are irrelevant, since academics do venture to make educated guesses about these dates. The rational reason why academics do this is probably because broad dates for the Paratarajas are known, as well as their precise relationship between one another, which allows for rather close guestimates of individual reigns. This is exactly what is done for many ancient rulers when exact dates are not necessarily known. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I looked up the cited source and the impression it gives about the contents of the table, including the dates, is very different from the one I got from reading the current version of the wikipedia article. Tandon repeatedly calls the family-tree and the chronology he proposes, "speculation", "highly speculative", "an educated guess at best", "contain[ing] two speculative leaps", "highly speculative and very tentative", "tentative absolute chronology" etc and yet the table in this article simply presents the lineage and date-ranges as supposedly accepted, albeit "rough", facts. And for what its worth, even the dates are transcribed incorrectly from (either of the two ranges) Tandon provides on page 155. This is bordering on misrepresentation. I propose that iff other scholars have cited Tandon's proposed lineage and dates positively, we retain the current table in some form while properly attributing it to Tandon along with the qualifiers he himself emphasizes (as in, say, "Numismatist Pankoj Tandon has proposed the following highly speculative lineage and chronology of the Parataraja rules based on educated guesswork"). And if others have not (yet) commented upon Tandon's proposals, then this part of his work doesn't belong in a tertiary source like wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. "Numismatist Pankoj Tandon has proposed the following highly speculative lineage and chronology of the Parataraja rules based on educated guesswork" may be a bit over the top, but, yes, definitely, we can explain that the dates are an estimation based on known but approximate general dates about the dynasty and reconstructions of the lineage. The area being so narrow, I do not know if there are specific comments or endorsements of that specific point from Tandon... will try to check. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I sourced my additions to the table from Tandon (2021) [citations added] where he is highly confident of his chronology. This was aided in part by new finds buttressing his hypothesis as laid out in Tandon (2019).
 * Tandon, despite being from the discipline of economics, is highly regarded in these areas. For example, R. Bracey (Curator of the Kushan Coins Project at the British Museum) commends Tandon for bringing all evidence about Paratarajas to fore and producing an enviously coherent account of the dynasty in ONS (2010; editorial). Falk (2020) agrees with Tandon's ordering of Kings. Schindel (2016; p. 125) agrees with Tandon's ordering of Kings and date assigned to the last King but cautions that the absolute dates for the entire dynasty must be treated as hypothesis.
 * What Pat said about guesstimates is usually the rule but not here; for our subject, we do not know any broad date except perhaps a solitary evidence from the overstrike and some paleographic estimates. This is why I had removed the date column - that is highly speculative, as is evident from a cursory reading of Tandon's scholarship over the years and his reception by others. I have no opposition to including it in a note. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize there was a 2021 paper from Tandon. Great! पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Will read and add my 2c on whether a caveat lector note is still needed. Abecedare (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Where do you stand on the date column? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The date column is fine, as long as we have the caveats in place, as is the case now. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Baluchi
The part on Baluchi seems interesting and it is properly sourced from Tandon. Why insist on removing it? And please avoid systematically reverting the content of others, it is rude: this is long-standing content, and you should be the one explaining yourself on the Talk Page if your content deletion is reverted, not the other way around, see BRD. पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Tandon is idly speculating—that too, in a footnote—whether Baluchis descend from Paratarajas. Such speculation is undue for coverage in our article until other scholars take his musings seriously.
 * In another (quite colonial-tinted) quip, Tandon wonders whether the Baluchis' famed refusal to submit to any centralizing authority stems from [their ancestor] Paratarajas' fierce independence during a towering Sassanian presence. Maybe, add that too? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Sri Lanka
Pataliputra, can you cite the page where Tandon (2006) notes of coin-finds in S. Lanka? For someone who accused me of not providing page-numbers, you have cited the entire page-range of the article! TrangaBellam (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Tbh, I cannot even recall Tandon (2006) stating Loralai as the capital. That won't be an unreasonable guess but there also lies the prospect of it being the mint-town. Anyway, please provide the page-number for this claim. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is embarrassing but I am also requesting the page number for the claim about identicalness with Parthians. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

1) I did add the "trade with Sri Lanka" part in April 2022 . Strangely it does not appear in "New Light from the Paratarajas" but in another document by Tandon: THE COINS OF THE PᾹRATARᾹJAS (excerpt: "Coins are found mostly in Balochistan but a small group was found as far as Sri Lanka, indicating a robust trade"...), so I probably mixed up the sources. Now, although this is clearly an analysis by Tandon, the PdF is probably not officially published (it was presented in the XV International Numismatic Convention in Taormina, Sicily (September 21-25, 2015) per ), so I am not sure that we can use it... I have no objection to removing that part then, it's minor anyway. 2) The content about "Loralai being the capital" was added by an anon user from Duluth, Georgia back in 2013 . I guess Loralai was probably the capital of the Paratarajas, but we can only say that it was the main area where their coins were found. 3) It seems the Parthian identification (with the wrong reference) was also provided by the anon user from Duluth, Georgia in 2013. Clearly deserves cleanup. ...Being an open encyclopedia is "a gift but also a curse" and no contributor is perfect... Still, even if mistakes or approximations can be found from time to time, and need to be cleaned up, I wish you would not systematically delete all the refs of other users  before you start your own editing (that's unheard of), or replace the refs of others by your own, without even actually better referencing the sentence in question. We build this encyclopedia by cooperating with each other, not by wiping out the work of others before we start our own. पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In other words, you was edit-warring with me to retain a string of factoids, none of which can be sourced to the appending citation. While removing my citation to a more recent paper, where Tandon discusses the location of Paratarajas in detail.
 * When you restore content, you take ownership of the content — so whether it was originally added by someone else from Georgia is immaterial.
 * I nuked the refs because the article was filled with misuse of citations — like the one we are discussing here  or in the section on classical sources below. When I check five refs and find four of them to be improper, why shall I bother screening all of them? It is better to start afresh.
 * After all this wastage of time and bytes, you have self-reverted to what I had suggested from the outset. Thanks for that. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact the near totality of these refs were perfectly correct, even if you can find one mistake or two. "Nuking" all the refs of an articles is not the way to do it. Please work with others, rather than against them. No need for drama here: I appreciate your work, just also respect mine. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Classical Sources
Tandon (2006) states outright that he is copying the section on mentions of Parata/Parada/similar words in classical literature off Mukherjee (1972) without bothering to verify them. Regrettably, Mukherjee (1972) is not a reliable source and I will appreciate if editors can take the initiative to verify the accuracy using secondary sources. Else, the section needs to be removed. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Herodotus
Okay. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Resolved. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Periplus
Tandon (2006; p. 202) mentions Periplus of the Erythraean Sea to locate one "Paradon" beyond Oman, i.e. "on the coast of modern Baluchistan."However, Lionel Casson's 1989 monograph (p. 73) on the text—mostly reproducing Hjalmar Frisk's crit. edition—notes the area to be "Παρσιδὦν", which is accurately transliterated to "Parsidai." The manuscript features (p. 259) "Παρ[]óδòν", which was (reasonably) emended by Muller to fit Ptolemy's Parsidai. Not really seeing how can one end up at "Paradon"; maybe, Schoff's faulty edition was responsible?Anyway, Tandon's conclusions stand. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Resolved TrangaBellam (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Arrian
Messed up. Need to be nuked. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Resolved. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Ptolemy
Poor source: Intermediate region of Gedrosia is "Paradene"; the Parsir(d)ae dwell near the frontiers with Carmania.Consult Ptolemaios Handbuch der Geographie (2006) for details. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Pliny
1 and 2.
 * 1 - Resolved. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Strabo x3
Radt, Stefan (translator) Strabons Geographika. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Coin forgeries
Interesting - not the first author to accuse Peshwar of housing such a workshop. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 2 TrangaBellam (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have this book linked in your last post (Seals, Sealings, and Tokens from Bactria to Gandhara (4th to 8th century CE)), in case you are interested. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Standalone Pages
I am a bit curious about whether you, Pataliputra, feel yet that Yolamara needs his own page. Why or why not? I think the historical evidence is far better than the Nezak King! (PLEASE, this is not an invitation to create the page.) TrangaBellam (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * In any case, we need redirects for each ruler except Arjuna. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Wales famously said: “Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge”. With this encyclopedic ideal in mind, I tend to think that any significant subject for which knowledge is available should have its own entry on Wikipedia. Individual rulers are generally significant subjects, and if scholars have bothered to study and discuss them, then it is clearly worthwhile and legitimate to have an entry for them in the encyclopedia. In the world of Internet, there is no real value in trying to reduce page numbers and centralize rulers on a single dynastic page (Of course, I am not advocating the creation of myriads of stubs either: content has to be relatively significant). Arguably, on the contrary, having individual pages actually facilitates navigation (in-page links are cumbersome and completely unreliable over time), and opens up the potential of adding more detailed information when new discoveries or new analysis become available. That said, I am not so interested in the Paratarajas as to make individual pages of their kings at this point. Thank you for the invitation though :) पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Coin legend
Is an average reader expected to know Brahmi? Do you mean to do this for each ruler? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is fairly customary to give transcriptions of the coin legends in the original language when possible (see Latin, Greek etc...). And many people who are interested in this subject actually will have a level of understanding of Brahmi. I think one example is probably enough though, as it is sufficient to give a sense of the readability of the legend, its structure, and how it is transcribed and translated. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that the Brahmi coin legend in question is directly sourced from:  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think that our articles shall be drafted with specialists as the intended audience but since there is no governing rule, it boils down to editorial discretion. What do and  say? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If it was on a simple image I might have been against it. But I'm not too sure when it's like that tbh. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Tor Dherai
, can you geolocate the site of "Tor Dherai"? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The closest place we can locate is Duki, which is its district headquarters. This hillock seems to be marked as "Tor Ghar" in the survey map. Everything in that area is marked "Ghar" and there is no "Dherai" in sight. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! TrangaBellam (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Link to a reference
How to link Schopen (1996) in endnote e with the reference in the bibliography? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * . I have done it now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

To do

 * Write a decent lead.
 * Read Tandon (2009).
 * Upload more coin-images. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The fate of the Tor Dherai potsherds

 * It appears to me that Lal is correct. Any opinions? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that Lal is correct. Any opinions? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)