Talk:Kingdom of Daśapura

Factual accuracy

This article suggests that "Kingdom of Malwa" was a specific polity that existed during 350-1562 CE. That is completely inaccurate: Malwa was nothing like the Delhi Sultanate or the Vijayanagara Empire which could be called a single kingdom/empire ruled by different dynasties. This content belongs at Malwa#History. utcursch | talk 14:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Utcursch,No WP: RS uses the word Kingdom of Malwa instead of it historians like R.C Majumdar, Satish Chandra and U.N Day have said that there were different dynasties ruling the reigon of Malwa and that too was changed a number of times for example; this was the size of Malwa under parmara dynasty 1 and under Khalji dynasty it was something like this 2. Hence, it should be nominated for deletion. Rawn3012 (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources mentioning the Kingdom of Malwa. I've added a few of them. Also, every kingdom was ruled by a dynasty historically. Seperate articles for ruled kingdoms and dynasties exist. Such as the Russian Empire and the House of Romanov and Kingdom of France and the House of Bourbon and the Capetian dynasty. PadFoot2008 15:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific: which source in the article establishes that "Kingdom of Malwa" was a single polity from its supposed establishment by the Aulikaras until its conquest by Akbar (which is what the article claims)? During the period beginning with the Aulikara rule and ending with Akbar's conquest, Malwa was not a single polity with a somewhat unbroken administrative set up, unlike the Vijayanagara Empire.

Here is a journal which cursorily menitons "Avanti, which formed the western part of the great kingdom of Malwa, was ruled by the eldest sons of the Buddhist emperors of Magadha". Why not update this article to claim that the "Kingdom of Malwa" existed since the pre-Mauryan period? Imagine combining the articles Russian Empire, Tsardom of Russia, Principality of Moscow, and others because a few different sources call them the "Russian kingdom" in passing manner.

This should be moved to History of Malwa, unless you can present solid sources that support the claims being made in the article lead. utcursch | talk 22:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is a very poor comparison. Those entities had seperate names hence separate articles. The entities referred in this article have the same name. Have a look at Kingdom of Poland or Kingdom of Hungary. Additionally, the article doesn't suggest that it was a single polity, rather a "monarchy". PadFoot2008 17:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't a single polity, what establishes its start date and end date? What makes you exclude the Avanti kingdom or the Holkar kingdom from it? Please present some reliable sources that discuss the history of these multiple polities under the single title called "Kingdom of Malwa", otherwise this is just original research. utcursch | talk 23:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Utcursch, alright, I've now removed the Malwa Sultanate as it already exists as a separate article. I have also split this article into two separate articles for the two polities, instead of one singular article. PadFoot2008 02:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question still remains: what source supports the existence of an entity called "Kingdom of Malwa" that covers Aulikara and Kalachuri rule but excludes their predecessors and successors? The end of the Aulikara dynasty and the origin of the Kalachuri dynasty are both uncertain, and statements like "Yashodharman died without any heirs... Seeing this Krishnaraja seized power are pure conjectures (not to mentioned unsourced). There is no certainty about any connection between the Aulikara and the Kalachuri rule (unlike, say, the Sangama dynasty and the Saluva dynasty which ruled Vijayanagara)

Instead of making these arbitrary changes, you could have just moved the article to something like History of Malwa. 21:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)