Talk:Gangaridai

Hello

Hello i m kind of new in wikipedia so far i have created this article and edited History of Bangladesh.I m particularly doing some kind of research on this topic.Please provide me with any other sources on this topic and leave me your comments and suggestions and offcource help me to give this article a wiki shape and and make this article a Good Article.Thank you.---nawab_of_dhaka

We can work on that. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is false and inaccurate; I nominate this article for deletion

First Alexander the Great never made it to Bengal region. He didn't even enter heart of India. He stopped at Punjab region in the fear of powerful empire of Magadha ruled by the Nanda dynasty.

Along with Bihar, Bengal forms the ancient kingdom Magadha. During the time of Alexander the Great, Bengal was ruled by Nanda dynasty.

Please read history of Alexander the Great and history of Magadha. Tarikur 17:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the article never says that Alexander went to the Bengal region. I have read from independent and dependable sources, that support the claim. Also, *this* article provides ample references to history research literature that support the information. So, there is no reason to nominate the article for deletion. Thanks. --Ragib 18:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The history part should be rewritten. I dont know, where from the writer got the idea that Gongaridai was an aryan Kingdom. Even Magadh wasnt fully aryanized back that time, let alone anything farther east. Recent excavation in Warry Boteshwar( the fort city is considered to be a part of this so called Gongaridai, more specifically bromhoputro civilization) proves that east india specially Bengal was not an aryan populated place back then. In Boteshwar, several foundings suggest that it was probably a dravidian kingdom, seals like harappa were also available to suggest the nativity of its citizens)---Parvez Alam

Most of the points above are well made. However the conception of aryanisaton of Magadha or for that matter any other ancient kingdom is irrelevent. This due to the fact that the Aryan invasion/influx theory has been soundly denounced by experts ranging from the fields of anthropological genetics to historians.

Read

Parvez Alam bhai, do read the above link. It gives a nice overview and also has the relevant references.

Also, Diodorus Siculus (first century B.C.) has this to say on the origins of the people of the sub-continent :

"It is said that India, being of enormous size when taken as a whole, is peopled by races both numerous and diverse, of which not even one was originally of foreign descent, but all were evidently indigenous; and moreover that India neither received a colony from abroad, nor sent out a colony to any other nation. The legends further inform us that in primitive times the inhabitants subsisted on such fruits as the earth yielded spontaneously, and were clothed with the skins of the beasts found in the country, as was the case with the Greeks; and that, in like manner as with them, the arts and other appliances which improve human life were gradually invented, Necessity herself teaching them to an animal at once docile and furnished not only with hands ready to second all his efforts, but also with reason and a keen intelligence. "

discovery of harappan like seals doesn't mean a Dravidian civilization. The vedic civilization is better seen as a pre-cursor to the Indus-valley civilization. Subsequent Indian religion and culture carried over much of the influence of the Indus valley civilization. 59.160.210.68 (talk) Nirvik. —Preceding comment was added at 01:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Aryan invasion theory, due to its very nature, can neither be proven or disproven. Virtually all of the "evidence" of a native Aryan culture comes from documents that are of Aryan origin. On the other hand, bulk of the "evidence" of the Aryan culture's being foreign comes from sources that are at odds with documents of Aryan origin. So, this will never be solved. However, the fact remains that a few different archaic ethnic groups have inhabited South Asia for a few millenia - Aryans and Dravidians being the most populous of these. It is undeniable that these population groups may have moved in large numbers at various times either by war or economic immigration. Much of the renunciation of any such migration theories has religious or political motives and are hard to take seriously. Whether Aryans are natives or not is hardly relevant to the study of the actual immigration patterns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.42.66 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Fair use rationale for Image:Ancient Indian Elephant.jpg

Image:Ancient Indian Elephant.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 Wikipedia: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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy

I think the factual accuracy of this article is beyond questionable.During the invasion of Alexander there were two kingdoms in eastern India - Magadha Empire which was also known as Nanda empire or Prasii (Prachi)and an united kingdom of Vanga-Kalinga which was known as Gangaridai according to the name of the capital city -Ganga.When Vanga was conquered by the Mauriyans the centre of power shifted from Bengal to Kalinga until it was conquered by Asoka.The Kalinga war had been mentioned as the 'Battle of the Gangaridai' in the poem Georgics by Virgil.And it is with the Mauriyan conquest that the Aryan culture starts to flow in Bengal.I never mentioned Gangaridai was an Aryan kindom ,may be it was a Dravidian kingdom ,probably the last Dravidian kingdom in the Aryavarta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.18.228.137 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A little help

With a little help this article could to wonders. Any takers? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Location of the kingdom

I think there should be some elaboration about this historical(?) kingdom's location and boundary. To me the kingdom if existed might have included parts of modern West Bengal. But there is no proof or citation that says that the Kingdom included modern Bangladesh. Any thought? Miniman77 (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"part of Kalinga Empire"

@Mamali panda: In this edit, you claimed that the Greek/Latin writers mention Gangaridai as a nation within the "Kalinga Empire". The source that you cited is page 38 of Natural History of Pliny (1855) edited by John Bostock. The book doesn't mention anything like this -- please provide a quote if you disagree. Pliny is already quoted in the article (Gangaridai#Latin accounts), and his quote doesn't mention any "Kalinga Empire". You also removed the the reference to the Nanda Empire, which is supported by a reliable source in the Political status section of the article body. Please provide a justification for this. utcursch | talk 13:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Utcursch: Ok, Pl give the prove that Gangaridai is the part of Nanda Empire.

We all are known that Gangaridai is the part of Trikalinga and the famous Historian Megasthenēs wrote in his book INDICA: "India, again, possesses many rivers both large and navigable, which, having their sources in the mountains which stretch along the northern frontier, traverse the level country, and not a few of these, after uniting with each other, fall into the river called the Ganges. "Now this river, which at its source is 30 stadia broad, flows from north to south, and empties its waters into the ocean forming the eastern boundary of the Gangaridai, a nation which possesses a vast force of the largest-sized elephants. ^' Owing to this, their country has never been conquered by any foreign king : for all other nations dread the overwhelming number and strength of these

animals. .*' [Thus Alexander the Makedonian, after conquering all Asia, did not make war upon the Gangaridai,t as he did on all others; for when he had arrived with all his troops at the river Ganges, and had subdued all the other Indians, he abandoned as hopeless an invasion of the Gangaridai when he learned that they possessed four thousand elephants well trained and equipped for war.]".

Pl, see another analysis

FRAGM. LVI.

Plin. Hist. Nat. YI. 21. S-23. 11.

List of the Indian Races.a

a This list Pliny has borrowed, for the most part from Megasthenēs. Cf. Schwanbeck, pp. 16 seq., 57 seq.

c v. l. Bracmanae. Pliny at once transports his readers from the mountains of Kaśmīr to the lower part of the valley of the Ganges. Here he places the Brachmanae, whom he takes to be, not what they actually were, the leading caste of the population, but a powerful race composed of many tribes—the Maccocalingae being of the number. This tribe, as well as the Gangaridae-Kalingae, and the Modogalingae afterwards mentioned, are subdivisions of the Kalingae, a widely diffused race, which spread at one time from the delta of the Ganges all along the eastern coast of the peninsula, though afterwards they did not extend southward beyond Orissa.

The Gangaridae or Gangarides occupied the region corresponding roughly with that now called Lower Bengal, and consisted of various indigenous tribes, which in the course of time became more or less Aryanized. As no word is found in Sanskrit to which their name corresponds, it has been supposed of Greek invention (Lassen, Ind. Alt. vol. II. p. 201), but erroneously, for it must have been current at the period of the Makedonian invasion : since Alexander, in reply to inquiries regarding the south country, was informed that the region of the Ganges was inhabited by two principal nations, the Prasii and the Gangarīdae. M. de St.-Martin thinks that their name has been preserved almost identically in that of the Gonghrīs of South Bahār, whose traditions refer their origin to Tirhūt; and he would identify their royal city Parthalis (or Portalis) with Varddhana (contraction of Yarddhamāna), now Bardwān. Others, however, place it, as has been elsewhere stated, on the Mahānadī. In Ptolemy their capital is Gangē, which must have been situated near where Calcutta now stands. The Gangarides are mentioned by Virgil, Georg. III. 27:—

In foribus pugnam ex auro solidoque elephant Gangaridum faciam, victorisque arma Quirini.

" High o'er the gate in elephant and gold The crowd shall Caesar's Indian war behold." (Dryden's translation.)

d v. 1. Pumas. The Prinas is probably the Tāmasā or Tonsa, which in the Purāṇas is called the Parṇāśā. The Cainas, notwithstanding the objections of Schwanbeck, must be identified with the Cane, which is a tributary of the Jamnā.

e For the identification of these, and other affluents of the Ganges see Notes on Arrian, a. iv., Ind. Ant vol V. p. 331.

(22.) This river, according to some, rises from uncertain sources, like the Nile,a and inundates similarly the countries tying along its course; others say that it rises on the Skythian mountains, and has nineteen tributaries, of which, besides those already mentioned, the Condochates, Erannoboas,b Cosoagus, and Sonus are navigable. Others again assert that it issues forth at once with loud roar from its fountain, and after tumbling down a steep and rocky channel is received immediately on reaching the level plains into a lake, whence it flows out with a gentle current, being at the narrowest eight miles, and on the average a hundred stadia, in breadth, and never of less depth than twenty paces (one hundred feet) in the final part of its course, which is through the country of the Gangarides. The royalc city of the Calingae is called Parthalis. Over their king 60,000 foot-soldiers, [S. 136] 1000d horsemen, 700 elephants keep watch and ward in "procinct of war."

a For an account of the different theories regarding the source of the Ganges sec Smith's Dict. of Class. Geog.

b Condochatem, Erannoboam.—v. l. Canucham (Vamam), Erranoboan.

c regia.—v. l. regio. The common reading, however—"Gangaridum Calingarum. Regia," &c, makes the Gangarides a branch of the Kalingae. This is probably the correct reading, for, as General Cunningham states (Anc. Geog. of Ind. pp. 518-519), certain inscriptions speak of 'Tri- Kalinga.,' or 'the Three Kalingas.' "The name of Tri-Kalinga," he adds, "is probably old, as Pliny mentions the Macco-Calingae and the Gangarides-Calingae as separate peoples from the Calingae, while the Mahābhārata names the Kalingas three separate times, and each time in conjunction with different peoples." (H. H. Wilson in Vishṇu Purāṇa, 1st ed. pp.185, 187 note, and 188.) As Tri-Kalinga thus corresponds with the great province of Telingāna, it seems probable that the name of Telingāna may be only a slightly contracted form of Tri-Kalingāna, or ' the Three Kalingas.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamali panda (talk • contribs) 14:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned in my comment, the proposal that Gangaridai may have been ruled by a Nanda king is supported in the Political status section of the article.

Yes, Megasthenes mentions Gangaridai, but doesn't state that it was part of Trikalinga (which is not same as Kalinga) or "Kalinga Empire".

Pliny mentions Gangaridae and Calingae together: one of the interpretations of this is that these two were branches of the Kalinga tribe: this is mentioned in Gangaridai#Other section of the article. This is not at all same as Gangaridai being a part of the "Kalinga Empire". utcursch | talk 15:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Utcursch: pl give me any written evidence about Gangaridai under Nanda rule. was meghasthenes, Pliny or other historian clearly written this? Is Nanda ruler called Gajapati? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamali panda (talk • contribs)

As the sentence says, this is a presumption - the reference is cited in the article, in the Political status section: A. B. Bosworth 1996, pp. 190-194. What has "Gajapati" got to do with this? utcursch | talk 20:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Gangaridai Map and Neutral territory?

@Kautilya3: - Can you please check sources for the map posted in Infobox? It looks wrong and unsource, also unclear on what this "neutral territory" is based on, along with unclear extent of Gangaridai territory in Ganges (Nanda Empire extension would be better reference). Gujarat and Rajasthan are shown as being part of Alexanders Empire when they were not. 117.198.121.126 (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the whole infobox was nonsense. I removed it. The map is wrong too, for the reasons you mention. I have no idea what "neutral territory" is supposed to mean. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that POV map. I've restored the old Ptolemy map that was in the longstanding version, as can be seen in this version edited by Utcursch. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Gangaridae and Gandhara

Utcursch: Gandhara and Bactria are overlapping regions, and possibly synonymous as well. The Jstor sources, including the article on Graeco-Bactrian Art and Gandhara and and the article on Bactro-Gandharan Art, confirm the integral links between studies of Bactria and Gandhara.

Ptolemy's map shows that Gangaridae has a coastline on the Gulf of the Ganges (Bay of Bengal). Hence, the identification with Gandhara is highly improbable due to Gandhara's landlocked location in the far northern reaches of the Indian subcontinent around the Khyber Pass. It seems the only reason Gangaridae is being linked to Gandhara is because both spellings start with the letter "g".

I feel you are disproportionately insisting on Gangaridae being Gandhara, when most scholarly, archaeological and historical sources consider otherwise. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

My position is quite the opposite: I believe that Gangaridae is not same as Gandhara (and that's why not worth mentioning in the lead). The lead summarizes the Identification section: the alternative identifications are not just Gandhara, but also larger part of Bengal (not just the delta) and a larger part of the Ganges basin.

Your additions outside of the lead section are irrelevant or unsourced. What has Gandhara being known as Bactria got to do with this article, especially when the sources you cite don't even mention Gangaridae (or Gandaridae)? If you're trying to argue that the Graeco-Roman writers would have described Gandhara as Bactria rather than Gandaridae, you need to find a source which states exactly that. See WP:NOR / WP:SYN.

The article already makes it clear that the theory identifying "Gandaridae" as Gandhara and distinct from "Gangaridae" is obsolete. utcursch | talk 13:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

"Gangararhi"

@CharlesWain: There are no sources that mention the spelling "Gangararhi" for this topic. Ignoring Wikipedia, Google Search returns exactly two results for the term "Gangararhi":

1. A Facebook page about a caste group "Gaudiya Mahishya Samaj... peasant militia of Chandrabanshiya Gangararhi descent"
2. The Mahishyas: Formerly a Dominant Caste of Bengal, a self-published book from 1909 that mentions Ananta Barma a 11th-century "sovereign of Gangararhi, the low country on the right bank of the Ganges, Tumluk and Midnapur"

Even ignoring the reliability of these sources, they do not equate "Gangararhi" with the territory mentioned in the Graeco-Roman sources. utcursch | talk 15:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The spelling "Gangararhi" does not belong in the lead unless mentioned in several reliable sources. If a source implies that a region known as "Gangararhi" in the 11th century or later can be identified with the Gangaridai of the Graeco-Roman sources, that opinion can be mentioned in somewhere in the Identification section.

The Bengali-language source added by you (Gangaridi - Alochana O Parjalochana) is effectively a self-published book: Its preface mentions that the book reproduces the editor's articles published in a journal of the Gangrididae research centre, which was established thanks to the sole effort of the author (Narotam Haldar of Kakdwip). The academic credentials of the author and the journal edited by him are unclear (the preface describes him as an anthropologist, not a historian). utcursch | talk 15:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

utcursch, There are numerous Bengali sources where Gagaridae is written as Gangararhi (Bengali: গঙ্গারাঢ়ী).CharlesWain (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is Firma KLM. Please have a look.CharlesWain (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, not Bengali Wikipedia: as per WP:V, "Gangararhi" should be mentioned as an alternative spelling in the lead (or anywhere in the article) only if reliable sources mention that spelling.

Secondly, "Gangararhi" or the alternative transliteration "Gangaradhi" (which a few English-language books actually mention in connection to Gangaridai) is not undisputedly believed to be the native name of the territory that the Greco-Roman writers call Gangaridai. It is a theory of some scholars, such as Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, that "Rarh/Radh" may be a a short form of the name "Gangararhi/Gangaradhi" with the prefix Ganga- "dropped for the sake of brevity". The actual identification of Gangaridai with Rarh is just a theory, as is the derivation of "Rarh"/"Radh" from "Gangararhi"/"Gangaradhi", not a universally-accepted fact. It should not be mentioned in the lead as a fact. utcursch | talk 16:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Utcursch, Are you only objecting to mentioning it in the lede? CharlesWain (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It can be mentioned under Gangaridai#Rarh region as a theory with a reliable sources to back it up. There are a few English-language sources that discuss "Gangaradhi". utcursch | talk 12:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear @CharlesWain and @Utcursch, here are my two cents:

About the sources:

1. "The Mahishyas: Formerly A Dominant Caste Of Bengal" by Pyari Mohan Das (1909) is not a self-published book. It was published by the Buckland Press, a notable early 20th-century printing establishment, but is incorrectly listed on NDLI as self-published by the author.
2. "Gaṅgāriḍi, ālocanā o paryālocanā" by Narottama Hāladāra (1988) is not a self-published book either. Google lists its publisher as "De Buk Sṭora". Initially, I thought that "De Buk Sṭora" is just the transliteration of the Bengali spelling of "The Book Store". Searching within the text using “বুক” (buk) [1], reveals the address: 13, Bankim Chatterjee Street. Bankim Chatterjee Street is renowned for its bookstores and is located near Calcutta University, Sanskrit College and University and Presidency University, Kolkata. It is also known as a hub for students, scholars and book lovers, often referred to as a part of Kolkata’s "Boi Para" or book neighbourhood. After some more research I found that "De Buk Sṭora" was actually "Dey Book Store" a famous book store and publisher, with "Dey" being a common Bengali surname. Furthermore, in its inner cover it says: "All Rights Reserved to: Gaṅgāriḍi Gabeshaṇākendra (Gangaridai Research Centre), which shows that they were likely the actual publisher or institutional supporter behind the content. So, the book was probably published institutionally by the Gangaridai Research Centre but primarily distributed via Dey Book Store. In any case, it has at least one publisher and one research centre behind it, showing that the book is not self-published.
3. "Paścimabaṅga darśana: Puruliẏā" by Tarundev Bhattacharya (1979) is also not a self-published book. It is published by Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay also listed as Phārmā Keelaema in some sources. It is a recognised publishing house in Kolkata.
4. There are other books that could be used as sources, as @CharlesWain indicates here.

About reliability, I acknowledge that just because a book is not self-published, it doesn't immediately makes it a "reliable secondary source", just as self-published sources could be deemed "reliable" if the author was an established expert on the relevant field.

Further considerations:

1. I agree with @Utcursch in these points:
   • If the term Gangararhi or Gangaradhi is not equated by reliable sources with the territory mentioned in the Graeco-Roman sources, it should not be in the lede (or definitely not in the first sentence). Especially if it is not an undisputed fact, it shouldn't be presented as such.
   • These sources establish these name in Bengali and not English.
2. Yet, we also have to consider the inherent systemic bias towards articles of the global south. To be clear, I'm not saying that anyone here has a personal bias, but that it's very difficult to apply the same criteria (with the same rigorousness). There's unevenness in access to sources, availability of citations standards, the transliteration of non-English terms etc. We need flexibility and use common sense to counter this bias.
   • In this light, we should not use Google Search as an important criterion, especially in a part of the world where internet is not as prevalent. There are tons of offline reliable (and non-English) sources that shed light to this topic that is underrepresented in WP.
   • Also, the lack of a standard romanisation contributes to the lack of search results. One has to search with all possible combinations of possible romanisations, which is a tedious task.
   • For example, a book published in the early 20th century in India couldn't have gone through the rigorous academic processes or strict peer review as expected today by modern standards. But that doesn't mean that The Mahishyas doesn't reflect the perspectives, narratives, and terminology used by the Bengali community at that time, which can be invaluable for understanding historical context, especially when cross-referenced with other historical works.
   • Even though Gangaridae Research Centre might be "established thanks to the sole effort of the author (Narotam Haldar of Kakdwip)" (I did not check this info), and that might shed some doubt on the reliability of the source, the author is established as a subject-matter expert in anthropology. And here, I tend to differ from you Utcursch, and say that anthropologists often engage in historical research within their field (anthropology intersects significantly with historical studies). Moreover, his book has been cited by multiple peer-reviewed academic articles (you have to spell his name with two "t"s to find that). I think these establish that the book could be used as a reliable source.
   • It should also be considered that English often adapts different romanisation of local terms, so even if the sources establish a name in Bengali, English WP must represent at least a romanised version of that name.
3. The equivalency of Gangaridai with Rarh is not "just another theory". Its due weight shouldn't be reduced to "some scholars support it, while others don't". I mean not all theories have (nor should have) the same due weight. @Utcursch, from our previous conversation about this topic, I know you had prominently presented D. C. Sircar's view on the etymology of Gangaridai (Gangaridai is the plural form of "Gangarid" (which is derived from the base "Ganga"), and means "Ganga (Ganges) people"). However, Sircar is no expert on linguistics, nor Ancient Greek. His books on history could have been cited by peer-reviewed journals, still referencing him on a subject he has no expertise is not reliable, especially when his theory is linguistically untenable and inconsistent. I'm a linguist with studies in Ancient Greek. And just through linguistic common sense, I had explained how this theory was untenable in our previous conversation. (How A. Greek doesn't have an epenthetic "r".) In contrast, we have several sources supporting the Ganga-Rarh derivation. I never had the time to research these sources in depth. If these sources are reliable, we should also update the WP accordingly.

Sorry for the wall of text. --Universal Life (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no bias against the Global South here: the article cites several ethnic Bengalis who do not equate Gangaridai with Rarh (e.g. R. C. Majumdar, D. C. Sircar, Dilip Kumar Chakrabarti, and Nitish K. Sengupta). As for the sources:

• The Mahishyas: Formerly A Dominant Caste Of Bengal itself states that it was published by the author and printed by the Buckland Press. It really doesn't really matter though, because the book doesn't discuss Gangaridai at all.
• The preface (ভূমিকা) of Narottama Hāladāra's book states that he established the Gangaridai Research Centre and that the book is a collection of editorial articles from the Centre's journal. That's why I mentioned that it's effectively a self-published book. I don't see any evidence of "Gangaridai Research Centre" or the author being regarded as authoritative by mainstream historians. If there are "multiple peer-reviewed academic articles" that cite the book, feel free to cite them as sources.

I've not commented on other sources, but if Gangaridai being same as Rarh is the most widely-accepted theory, there must be several reliable sources including English-language ones that proclaim that. In fact, if we are finding only Bengali-language sources that dismiss other theories in favour of this theory, we must be wary of their bias as Upendra Nath Roy writes here while discussing Chatterjee's identification of "Gangaradhi" with Rarh: "the Bengali historians have taken history simply as a means of glorifying Bengal and Bengalis rather than revealing the truth".

Maybe Gangaridai was indeed a Greek transcription of "Gangaradhi/Gangararhi", but if we want to mention that term in the lead as an alternative name, we need WP:RS/WP:HISTRS-compliant sources which describe this as the most widely-accepted theory. Similarly, your opinion as a linguist would be more valuable if it was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. utcursch | talk 23:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)