Talk:Pushyabhuti dynasty

Merge
I propose to merge Empire of Harsha into this page since it's about the empire of one of the kings of this dynasty. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  22:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge with suitable copyedit and rearrangement of text. Covers the same topic.--Nizil (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It is a reasonable proposal. Both are short, the dynasty would benefit from greater depth, and the empire material would benefit from greater context. Is there an advantage to merging to the dynasty rather than merging to the ruler Harsha? --Worldbruce (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good option too -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  12:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Though I propose to merge 'Empire of Harsha' page with 'Harsha' page because both page talks about same person. 202.41.10.3 (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Ratan Singh
 * I propose against the merging of 'Pushtyabhuti dynasty' page with 'Empire of Harsha' page. Because 'Pushtyabhuti dynasty' page talks about the dynasty while 'Empire of Harsha' page gives details about a great ruler. He is a very important ruler so he needs to be discussed in a separate page.
 * I also support not merging to the dynasty, but to the biography is ok. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed; formally proposed this on the Harsha page. Perhaps better to have discussion now on its talk page, Talk:Harsha. Klbrain (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Title
Anjana Motihar Chandra is not a historian - she is a freelance writer. The book is not WP:HISTRS-compliant at all. Hans Bakker (cited in the article) prefers the term Pushyabhuti (Puṣyabhūti) to describe the family, as do several other reputed historians. utcursch &#124; talk 14:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that absolutely makes sense. I was reading the book, and made the change based on it. I have no issue with the title. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC))

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2023
The information given in the article that Pushyabhuti Dynasty was a Jatt Dynasty is factually wrong.As per the interpretation of the ancient text either this dynasty was Bais Rajput or from Vaishya caste but certainly not from Jatt caste.

Please change the article otherwise it's misrepresentation of history. Abhimanyu200 (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a Jatt dynasty
Pushabhuti were not jat. Correct it. Jatt were not even present in northern India at 7th century. Ndnsnd (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2023
This is with respect to the Origin of Pushyabhuti.

In Arya-Manjushri it is written that Harshavardhan was a Bais. Now, Bais is also a clan of Kshatriya Rajput.

So, it cannot be said conclusively that Harshvardhan was a Viashya caste.

Please remove the mention of Vaishya caste in the origin section.You can mention that he was a "Bais" as mentioned in Arya-Manjushri, the primery source. Abhimanyu200 (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)