Talk:Vanga kingdom

Requested move 26 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Feel free to start a new RM if evidence is found that "Banga" is more common in the reliable sources. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Vanga Kingdom → Banga Kingdom – Reasonable transliteration of বঙ্গ is Banga in all romanization standards. --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC) – nafSadh did say 02:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The ancient kingdom is called Vanga in Sanskrit sources. [1][2][3][4]. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose without evidence. —  AjaxSmack  20:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Etymology of Vanga

What is the meaning of Vanga? — HenryLi (Talk) 04:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@HenryLi: The name is not found in early Vedic literature per Macdonell (so likely not to be of Vedic Sanskrit/Indo-Aryan origin), could be ultimately of Dravidian origin. The exact origins are unclear though. Gotitbro (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"Indo-Aryan"

The article had been stable without the mention of Indo-Aryan in the lead for years now, until an IP decided to contravene that judgement. Ironically enough the reference that was added even mentions Vanga as non-Aryan.

These claims were then re-inforced by a new user Indohistorical, who has added different refs (which aren't exactly WP:HISTRS or WP:SECONDARY) which further still don't support the claims. Let us analyse the refs that were added:

Encyclopedia of India ([5]) says this: "The name "Bengal" (or Bangla) comes from Vanga or Banga, the name of the ancient deltaic kingdom." It talks about the etymology nowhere is Indo-Aryan mentioned either explicitly or implicitly.

Banglapedia ([6]): "Vanga an ancient janapada or human settlement in Eastern Bengal." The only mention of Indo-Aryan is this, "In the Baudhayana Dharmasutra the Vangas are mentioned in a list of peoples who lived in regions beyond the zone of Aryan civilisation in the neighbourhood of Kalinga." Which quite emphatically contradicts what is being claimed.

Globalsecurity.org: "Different sects of people came and established their estates, including Aryans in the post-Vedic period." To be noted that the Vangas are from the Vedic era.

Ascribing [POV] ethnicities, which is mostly avoided due to sketchy historical accounts, to past kingdoms and empires has increased recently on Wikipedia mostly by users who are not familiar with wiki policies and drive-by edits by IPs. Even if the sources were upto the mark (which they aren't) ethnicities would be avoided in the WP:LEAD.

Following precedent I removed the ethnic origins from the lead which as mentioned had been stable without it for quite some time. But this is being re-added without discussion (as appealed to) or even basic following of WP:BRD.

PS: IMO, from what I can gather, the Vangas were originally non-Aryan (as also indicated by the etymological origins) and subsequently mixed/merged with the Aryans in the Late Vedic/post-Vedic era. But that is still no reason to include any of these ethnic origins in the WP:LEAD, though the Aryan etc. ethnic theories can still be added in the body but still not in the lead. Gotitbro (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)