Talk:Karkota dynasty

Page title
I think Karkota dynasty is a better title for this page than the Karkota empire. The boundaries of the empire change in course of time, but the dynasty is of lasting interest. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed; I believe the "empire" covers a certain (changing) area and was governed by several dynasties. A bit like referring to Ancient Egypt as "the Rameses Empire". Pol098 (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Needs sources, in particular for size
I made the following comment (edited) in the List of largest empires Talk page:

"There is one glaring anomaly for which the article on the empire needs some work: the Karkota Dynasty of Kashmir has recently been messed with in this table, but has a totally unreferenced article with what seem suspicious numbers. I've added a comment to its Talk page. The numbers in this table are totally incompatible with the listed rank (much too large). However, I'm not an expert, and haven't found any reliable sources on a quick search. I think the article is best titled "Karkota Dynasty" - there seems to have been a single region ruled by several dynasties. It originally had that name, but it was changed. The size needs to be sourced, in the Karkota article if not here. If somebody has the information, please correct relevant articles, but be sure to include sources." Pol098 (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Central Asia
, Regarding the claims of Central Asian conquest, see Andre Wink's first volume, which has a section on the Karkotas. I don't think this is an extraordinary claim by the way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * All Wink states is this: "the whole of the Upper Indus or Northern Panjab and the Kabul valley and the Western Himalayas". utcursch &#124; talk 01:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In the long term, yes. But in the short term, he says that Lalitaditya carved out his "Western empire in Central Asia, Afghanistan and the Panjab, between 720 and 730" (p.243). He also recruited soldiers from the "Western Central-Asian highlands, from Tukharistan in the upper Oxus valley..." (p.243) "The imperial system of Kashmir fell apart in a few years after Lalitidya's death. But up to 760 Kashmir's power in the Panjab appears to have remained strong enough to deflect Arab raiding..." (p.245)
 * We might even suppose that this incorporation of Central Asia in the Kashmiri empire was the invitation for the Central Asians to invade later! (OR) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, that ref looks good. I'll add it to the article. Thanks.
 * The "region" parameter is for generating categories, though -- it is not displayed in the infobox. So I'll limit it to South Asia -- there is no option to specify multiple regions.
 * utcursch &#124; talk 14:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Karkota Empire, India (derived).jpg
What is the source of this map: File:Karkota Empire, India (derived).jpg? The boundaries depicted here don't match even Kalhana's Rajatarangini. utcursch &#124; talk 17:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been off wikipedia for a long time now and don't remember the exact details anymore, but I think I had used a similar map in History of Kashmir. The shading was always inaccurate. The author of the map was probably trying to recreate the empire based on Lalitaditya's victories against kingdoms in North India. Even if the military victories are historically accurate they do not obviously automatically imply extension of imperial control. I had planned to improve the map but never got around to doing it. Amitrochates (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I just found out that this is very (though not exactly) similar to the one depicted in A Historical Atlas of South Asia edited by Joseph E. Schwartzberg. I'll add the source to the image page. utcursch &#124; talk 01:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Individual rulers
I tried rewriting the pages about the individual rulers of this dynasty other than Lalitaditya and there is a dearth of material to flesh out anything apart from six-seven line stubs. This article can easily contain all the information about non-Lalitaditya rulers without getting masive. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Recently added photos

 * How is this photo determined to belong to Durlabhavardhana's time? What is the source?This webpage is unreliable but states the corresponding citation at the museum, which mentions nothing about Karkota. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is CNG Coins an authoritative source on numismatics? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * 1) Museum photographs by User:Daderot are generally very high quality and very reliable: he takes museum notices literally for the captions of his pictures. could you by any chance help us confirm the identification of this picture (like, the photograph of the Museum tag for example)? TrangaBellam, for information, here are a few sources, which will give you a good sense of Karkota bronze sculpture. I will certainly find more sources as I dig into the history of the region:
 * A sophisticated blog on Himalayan sculpture (page about the Karkota dynasty) (I'm not claiming this has value as WP:RS, but this gives a good sense of Karkota bronze sculptures).
 * 2) CNG is the main provider of coin images on Wikipedia, and they are fairly reliable and used extensively here, but of course not directly RS, we're just fortunate that they provide us with their photographs of coins, and that they have a strong team of licensed numismats. They reference this coin in particular to the specialist works MACW 3659-60 (Vinayaditya); Donum Burns 1614. You will find plenty of Durlabha coins on the Internet ("Durlabha + coin" on Google). The coins of Durlabha have been identified as early as the 19th century by Cunningham p.43, and you can verify the image of the coin in Plate III No7.
 * These elements should help reassure you on the identification. Best regards पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * These elements should help reassure you on the identification. Best regards पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Greetings! Yes, I do try to directly copy information from museum notices next to the object. Although I make mistakes sometimes (alas) I think this is indeed information provided by the museum. I myself am not an expert, though. with all best wishes, Daderot (talk)
 * So what? Sackler makes errors all the time. 7th to 8th century? That's 200 years.  Which art historian at Harvard or elsewhere has vetted this?  We need the name and a publication.  Museum labels might be good enough for images on other WP pages, but they are not for those on India-related ones, where there is too much POV, especially not when User:Pat is adding them.  He has a long history of working in the gray-zone between dubious historical sources and semi-dubious historical ones. Need a proper source, chapter and verse. I have removed it.  Please proceed per WP:BRD.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm warning you, user:Pat, if you insist on making fringe and POV edits, you will do nothing but add evidence for you not being allowed to edit India-related history pages. The first source you had added is not RS, I have already told you.  Ancient India ends no later than the mid-7th century CE (in most sources actually in the mid-6th century CE), you cannot have the Ancient Kingdom of Kashmir in the 9th century; the second source says simply "Kashmir 9th century." It could be from Gilgit; it could be from Ladakh; it could be from the upper reaches of Jammu, where does it say it is from the valley, that it is from the realm of the Karkotas, that it is from before 855 CE, when the Utpala dynasty began.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, as our article says, the following period of Medieval India can be started at various dates: "One definition, used in the rest of this article, includes the period from the 6th century,[1] the "first half of the 7th century",[2] or the 8th century[3] up to the 16th century, ....". No doubt other definitions could be found. The last is cited to Stein, one of the books in the bludgeon-list you have taken to waving around. Your habit of compulsively completely dismissing RS sources that conflict with a point you're making is becoming tiresome. Johnbod (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, In my sleeping state I know more about Indian history than you will ever know. You are writing third-rate articles on Indian art.  If you are so sure about your sources, start an RfC.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable. Not only is this stupid, you should be banned for incivility. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is really where you have a key role as Admins I think, you cannot allow this kind of behaviour on Wikipedia: it is toxic and destructive. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please know we all support you, and are deeply grateful of your fantastic contributions to Wikipedia. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I am afraid you are wrong in your assesment of the reliability of Museums and official Museum websites, especially such highly regarded museums as the Metropolitan Museum of Art or the Arthur M. Sackler Museum. Using images and notices from these museums is not "fringe" or "non-RS" as you imply. Actually, already shared with you that these sources are in his opinion highly RS . Of course, museums might make mistakes, just as all scholars do from time to time, but they are sources we can generally rely on. On the contrary, individual opinions are not RS, unless you can back them up with RS sources.
 * This image is from the M. Sackler Museum, but you blanked it from the article because, according to you, "Sackler makes errors all the time" . That's not a good reason to remove the image. I humoured you and tried to find something else:
 * This image is from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, but you again blanked it, on the ground that it was from Kashmir (the modern region), so it could also be from Gilgit etc... Actually, my other MET reference says more precisely it is from the ​"Ancient Kingdom of Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir" , so it is indeed part of the historical territory of the Karkota Empire. This is good RS sourcing, until you can prove the contrary. Now, regarding the date, the Museum does say "9th century", which indeed might not be "exactly" within the 885 CE time limit for the end of the Karkota Empire. But someone educated as yourself should now that 25 years means nothing when making artistic assessments of ancient Indian objects from more than a thousand years ago. This sculpture is totally characteristic of the time period of the Karkota Empire, as also shown by the first photograph above by Sackler and the sources I have given above.
 * Your keep saying the expression "Ancient Kashmir" does not apply to this time period. Well, I'd like to see some RS for that. At least some scholars seem to disagree with you: see the title of the book by, which describes Kashmir works of art from the 5th to the 11th century.
 * I accept reverts when I'm in the wrong, that's normal, I do make mistakes. But your reverts against me are getting systematic, while you are illegitimately claiming as non-RS sources which ARE RS. I am pinging Admistrator, who hopefully can help: the language is again toxic, insulting and threatening, the intent is clearly vexatory. Can't this user tone down a bit, and have normal, civil, interractions with others? पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not getting involved here. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I am convinced about coins. Not about the sculptures. Siudmak's work (and Ulrich von Schroeder's) have images of Karkota sculptures, why not use them? 9th century Kashmir covers Avantivarman and others (855/6 onward) as well. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The crowned Buddha added by Pataliputra is dated by Siudmak (Pg 475, note 41) to Avantivarman or his succesors. Span is noted to be late ninth or early tenth. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Vajrasattva, Ancient Kingdom of Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir, 8th century CE.jpg
 * Good, that's progress, and that's collaborative work. Thank you for the search! At least, we're starting to see what the art of these dynasties looks like. Can you give the precise reference and quote, so that we can add the image to the pages Avantivarman of Kashmir and Utpala dynasty? I imagine the reference should be, but just give me the quote, I will add it.
 * Your previous post gives the impression you are thinking about taking images from the Siudmak book. Be carefull, these are copyrighted of course, we can't do that (but maybe you just meant "using Siudmak as a reference", which is great).
 * By the way, it is the same Siudmak who apparently uses the expression "Ancient Kashmir" to cover the sculptures from the 5th to 11th century CE.
 * , maybe you could help us categorize some of the Kashmir works from the Metropolitan Museum of Art by dynasties, if indeed Siudmak is this specific. The Metropolitan Museum of Art remains vague and generally only gives a century, the mention "Ancient Kingdom of Kashmir", and the provenance as "Jammu and Kashmir".
 * As for the Karkotas, the attached picture of a Vajrasattva might be more appropriate: the official site of the Metropolitan Museum of Art labels it "Vajrasattva, Ancient Kingdom of Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir, 8th century" . It has the added advantage of being Buddhist, so it shows the religious variety under the Karkotas.
 * पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am slowly rewriting the entire set of articles on Kashmiri history (until the colonial rule). Will deal with Utpala Dynasty and Lohara Dynasty after covering Karkota. And, add images accordingly.
 * That's the book. I indeed meant using the images from his book. But, yes, they violate copyright. I failed to remember that.
 * How is his terminology of Ancient Kashmir linked with photos? Everything in ancient Kashmir is hardly Karkota.
 * In the meantime, please don't add any image which isn't very clearly identified with Karkota. (The Bodhisattva Manjushri sculpture is very likely linked with the Utpala Dynasty, given its characteristic features. But I am trying to get it verified.) TrangaBellam (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. When you have the time, could you give the Siudmak quote for Crowned Buddha of the Metropolitan Museum of Art? As you might know, it is very difficult to obtain free images, but all Metropolitan Museum of Art images are public domain, such as these. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pratapaditya Pal (1973) dates the Vajrasattva to 9th century. In contrast to Met. Nothing definitive and we cannot use that.
 * Cf. Pal 1975, pl. 28, a standing bronze Buddha in the Seattle Art Museum, ca. early tenth century has similar heavily corded loop folds down the torso; and ibid. pl. 29, a bronze crowned Buddha in the Metropolitan Museum, dating from the late ninth or early tenth century also has the stylised feature of the stomach muscles showing through the garment. This note is in the chapter The Sculpture of Avantipura. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pal revises this to 8th century in 1975 (Bronzes of Kashmir, fig 59 A), reiterates in 1978 and Von Schroeder dates it to Karkota (18D, Pg 122). Will be adding Vajrasattva. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! Please add a one-line quote when you can, as it often helps finding the right page on Google Books. I will help with the formatting of the refs if you're not familiar. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * To summarize, please stop adding any photo for now. And, do not use captions or headers of resources from Met (other than in describing the features) or similar museums as a reliable source. They are often (unnuanced and) wrong, as I show above. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll be looking forward to your contributions. The important thing is that we can document properly the art of Kashmir and illustrate these pages with the photographic material they deserve. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

He are some of the images which I uploaded from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. There are about 80 images available with the Search "Kingdom of Kashmir". I'm also adding the Kartota image from Sackler. पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * A curator of Harvard Art Museum informs me that the Bodhisattva Manjushri sculpture is on a long-term-loan from a private collector, who wishes to stay anonymous. It was the collector who assigned the date as Karkota dynasty and the museum (or their art-historians) do not have any idea about how (s)he arrived at such a conclusion. (Their notes additionally mention that the sculpture was found in Tibet.) TrangaBellam (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am afraid to conclude that F&F's comments about the general reliability of museum-captions etc. seem to be accurate. If we do not get reliable sources supporting such museum-provided captions or descriptions, we cannot use them in articles. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good work! We'll probably end up finding the sculpture in a source somewhere. You're wrong about F&F's comment though: this is an image taken by an individual in a museum, who reflected the museum label of the sculpture in his description of the photograph. That's not to say that museums or their official websites should not be used as a source: they are generally excellent sources, authored by the curators of these museums, and are strong WP:RS (see User:Johnbod's evaluation here). Obviously mistakes or divergences in appraisal happen, as do mislabelings, as for any academic work (see how different academics have different interpretations/datings of the same sculptures, or even the same academic at different periods of time!). Of course, if we can have print references, it's all the better. But Wikipedia is not going to stop using images taken in museum, or free images from their official websites, just because no print references are otherwise available: we just reference these images from the museum, and if another reference comes along we just use it to balance the claim of the museum, as for any other source. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you TrangaBellam, I didn't see your post earlier. The best strategy in the face of such poor quality editing is to use impeccable sources, not to get embroiled for now in the issue of littering of the article with pictures, but soldiering on with  WP:DUE, making the point that even the best-known of the Kashmiri-Hindu kingdoms, e.g. Karakots,  are not known by their dynastic name in most general histories of India, only Lalitaditya is.  A reader reading the lead should be aware of what due weight is. Similarly, showing the map to display maximum geographical extent in this instance is POV.  For most of the Karakotas dynastic life, their kingdom lay in the valley; it collapsed precipitously after L's death.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Book
Can anybody access this edition of Rajatarangini? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.academia.edu/36983254/TWO_CURIOUS_KIDARITE_COIN_TYPES_FROM_5_TH_CENTURY_KASHMIR_by_Joe_Cribb_and_Karan_Singh
 * https://www.academia.edu/32663187/Early_Medieval_Kashmir_Coinage_A_New_Hoard_and_An_Anomaly
 * https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1vw0q36.8 TrangaBellam (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I do, but you can access all these sources (especially 1 and 2, academia.edu) by registering on the site. It's free and very convenient. I can access 3 also, but I think you can too by registering. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I just noted them down and can access the articles hosted over academia.edu; my institution does not have access to this particular JSTOR chapter. Can you email? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, sorry, I tried but it seems my Wikipedia access to JSTOR doesn't work for this book. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Map
Almost all scholars reject Kalhana's details of Muktapida/Lalitapida's conquests as vastly exaggerated and running contrary to other sources. I wish to see some author specializing in pre-modern Kashmir who uses these maps. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC) TrangaBellam (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi I added a source for the current map: . I don't have other sources for Karkota maps, sorry.  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wrote this post after that. Schwartzberg reads Rajatarangini as absolutely accurate in its depiction of conquests but that is not a mainstream view. The map, if added, need to be suitably captioned noting this caveat. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's possible, I don't know, but you need a reference to state that of course... पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming majority of scholarship (not, of course, a trade paperback recently published by an expat Pandit engineer in Australia (view here)), the Karkotas are referred to as a "dynasty" not an "empire." The page name will need to be changed back to "Karkota dynasty." Many sources attest to that.  I will soon round up the sources. There is rampant grade inflation of dynasties in the South Asia-related pages.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mind either way, and the support for "Karkota empire" seems indeed rather slim . But, strictly speaking, dynasties are only a "chronology of rulers", and at one point we'll have to explain what Kingdoms or Empire they actually ruled: these kings did not exist in a void. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Background
Regarding. The point is that the Karkota Dynasty replaced the Alchon Huns in Kashmir. It's an important point to give appropriate background to the rise of the dynasty. पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * His son Lalitaditya Muktapida replaced some dynasties, too. Shall they form "background", as well?
 * Rajatarangini notes that Yudhisthira (II), successor of Pravarasena (II) (son of Toramana), was succeeded by Lakhana-Narendraditya (p. 85-86, Intro, Stein 1900). Stein finds the exact identity of Lakhana-Narendraditya to be doubtful, in light of some coins etc. Anyways, he is followed by his brother Ranaditya who supposedly rules for 300 years! Then came Ranaditya's son Vikamaditya (40 years rule) followed by the other son Baladitya. Then, Karakota. How do you see Durlabhaka Pratapaditya dethroning Yudhisthira (II)?
 * Witzel (1990) p. 31-35 discusses the curious case of Ranaditya and relevant topics. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Dani writes on the basis of this 1973 work (which I have not read; based on an UoLondon 1966 dissertation) but if this indeed resolved the conundrum successfully, Witzel and others would have taken notice. I reject using this source, for now. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi On Wikipedia you are not supposed to erase referenced content, just because it conflicts with your own personal evaluation of primary sources. This is called Original Research (WP:OR) and is not acceptable here. The references being used in the segment you removed repeatedly are good ones, and simply explain how the Karkotas came to replace the Alchon Huns/Hunas in Kashmir, which is extremely relevant to this article: I could also cite this book, which you could use to express doubts about all scholarly interpretations surrounding the Rajatarangini: Again, you cannot just erase referenced material just because you don't like it, or even because you don't find it convincing. However, you can try to improve on it, balancing it by bringing alternative sources etc... That's called collaborative editing. Also keep in mind that repeated reverts of referenced material is an offense that can cause you to be blocked from editing. पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have read Bakker and how is it relevant? Says roughly the same stuff, I had already written in the section on sources.
 * Stein's is a critical edition (the best) and not a primary source. Obviously, it is old and newer interpretations will take precedence. Do you find Witzel's article from 1990 to be a primary source?
 * Kim Hyun Jin notes :- ...Khinkhila was then apparently succeeded by King Yudhishthira, who seems to have been the last independent Hephthalite Hunnic ruler of northwestern India. According to the differing interpretations of the available evidence, he (or perhaps his predecessor) was either forced to submit to the Western Turks around 625 AD and then eliminated before 630 AD or alternatively continued to rule in some capacity until the middle of the seventh century AD... He cleverly omits mentioning Karkota/Pratapaditya and introduces significant factors of doubt on multiple aspects unlike Dani. (Cites Dani's work, though.)
 * This omission and introduction of doubts is not surprising given Dani's assertion Khinkhila was succeeded by his son Yudhishthira who, according to the Rajataranginı, ruled for 40 years (until c.670), when he was dethroned by Pratapaditya, son of Durlabhavardhana, the ruler of the Karkota dynasty. is demonstrably false. Also, the UNESCO volumes were more of an exercise in political monkey-balancing than scholarship.
 * I need to read Melzer's 2006 commentary on a manuscript and Biswas' work before adding a fair summary of the issue. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am reading Biswas as well as Melzer now. Will comment tomorrow. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * From a quick glance, Biswas engages in a fair deal of revisionism.
 * She proposes that (1) Xuan Xuang visited Kashmir not during Durlabhavardhana's reign but rather some Huna king, on a reading of coins, (2) Durlabhavardhana and Durlabhaka Pratapaditya be accommodated between 657 and 712, (3) Durlabhavardhana was a local rajah subordinate to the Huna emperor, (4) Durlabhaka Pratapaditya gained the throne by ousting Yudhisthir — the last Huna ruler and (5) Ranaditya, Vikramaditya, Baladitya et al never existed at all or were some local rajahs subordinate to the new king Durlabhaka Pratapaditya.
 * This is obviously a very fringe view and reputed specialist scholars like Tansen Sen, Siudmak, Witzel etc who have published recent work on the Karkotas have not even bothered to mention her arguments in their works (support is far distant). See WP:FALSEBALANCE.
 * TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't know about Biswas. Your view on "History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The crossroads of civilizations, A.D. 250 to 750", published by Unesco, seems unnecessarily harsh, as even your reviewer praises the quality of its contributions in respect to the history of the region. I've also found this interesting quote from Pratapaditya Pal (History of art, but nice summary):

""Before the Karkotas came to the throne, Kashmir may have been occupied by a long succession of foreign rulers or tribes. Certainly both the Kushänas and the Huns were present in the area for centuries. Indeed, the history of Kashmir begins to take shape only with the foundation of the Karkota dynasty around AD 625. The immediate predecessors of the Karkotas appear to have been Huns...""

पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Dani states that he is drafting the section entirely on Biswas' views and that's why she is relevant or or worth being detailed about.
 * My linked review is of volume four. Unsure how it can praise volume 3's coverage of Kashmir. (The reviewer notes that the references are stale, sources abused and overall, the volume is incomplete and utterly disappointing.) TrangaBellam (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

More info needed
In respect to the sentence "However, Gudrun Melzer notes that Biswas did not take into account a different chronology proposed by two German historians (Humbach and Göbl), which has since received eminence.", it would be interesting to know what the eminent chronology in question is.... otherwise the sentence is a bit useless... पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will be quoting from Dokumente zur Geschichte der iranischen Hunnen in Baktrien und Indien in a day or two. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, can you quote the lines from Hans Bakker where he supports Historically, the rise of the Karkotas in 625 CE followed the rule of the Kushans and the Hunas in the region of Kashmir? I don't have the book and Gbooks don't work. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Bakker is interesting in that he is very recent and authoritative, and describes the rule of the Alchon Huns in Kashmir in the 6th century, in the context of the Rajatarangini: Other sources are interesting too: Again, Pratapaditya Pal: पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "One passage that may refer to the Hunnic intrusion into Kashmir during the sixth century, in particular to Mihirakula, may be singled out here; it stands isolated from the chronicle's treatment of the other kings whose names indicate Hunnic descent". in
 * "Kashmir, which had submitted to them [the Western Turks / Turk Shahis] as it had to the Hunas, became independent and a rival of the Sahi imperial kingdom (...) The agent of Kashmir's political success was Durlabhavardhana (c.626/7-662/3), of a new dynasty. According to Kalhana, poet-historian of Kashmir, this new dynasty, named Karkota Naga after it serpentine founder, a Naga, replaced the family that had ruled in Kashmir since the formation of that country and its permanent settlement by humans." in
 * "After Huna rule, by the end of the sixth century , Kashmir entered its greatest period of political and cultural attainment with the Karkota dynasty ( AD 600 - 855 ) , including its greatest period of temple building ." in
 * That quote hardly says the line you cited to it. Anyways, that section will be further expanded.
 * Inden, as I noted, goes with the Baladitya-theory and rejects Biswas' reading of Durlabhavardhana being some mere subordinate rajah. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really mind either way. Let's just summarize what's available in terms of proper historical analysis, besides the account of the Rajatarangini. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Different Khingila
Your note: "Göbl notes Khingila to precede Toramana, based on numsimatic evidence....". Göbl here is actually refering to a much different Khingila, from a much earlier time: Khingila I (c. 440 - 490 CE) p.372, so I'm afraid this remark (and probably the whole sentence) has no bearing on the chronology of the Karkotas. Cheers पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have clarified with additional details. I had never said that the Khingilas are same. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, but how is the sentence relevant to the chronology of the Karkotas then? It's two centuries before... पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why did I write the second paragraph in note d — what is the context? Also, Biswas' theory stands upon a lot many assertions, one among them being the chronology she so carefully crafted since the start. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand the English, sorry. The second paragraph in note d makes sense, but the first seems irrelevant. Also, if Gudrun Melzer is critical to the whole of Biswas's chronology of the Alchon Huns, it is really not relevant here. You need to trim down and focus this paragraph, otherwise it's nearly impossible to understand in the context of the Karkotas. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If I remove the first paragraph, Melzer notes that Narendraditya Khinkhila was "most probably" a different ruler does not make any sense. There exist a quite-reputed scholar (may be more, I need to read) who challenges Melzer and deem both to be the same ruler.
 * So, the second paragraph (which is very relevant to Biswas' arguments) necessitates some description of the other Khingila, because he is not mentioned earlier in our article. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The quite-reputed scholar being A.D.H. Bivar. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Vajraditya Coin image
Alexander Cunningham does not assert that the coin was minted under Vajraditya (he expresses a probability; Pg 44). Also, Stein has borrowed quite a lot from Cunningham's work but notes Vajraditya's reign to not have any historical evidence. It can be (thus) said that Stein did not agree with Cunningham's hypothesis.

So, we are left with Mitchiner (3650). What do they say? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Things left to do

 * Expand society+economy from Dominic Goodall's critical edition of Kuttanimata.
 * Expand sculptures from John Siudmak - Looking for someone to help.
 * Expand literature from Bronner - Nearly done. 2 notes to add. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Joe Cribb material
Re. your repeated deletions This is referenced material. In what sense do you think it is a "Misinterpretation of Cribb"? पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Tansen Sen (or Siudmak) impress upon us that the relevant Chinese sources never mention the regnal span of any Karkota ruler. They only mention significant events like :- (a) Ambassador XYZ sent by King ABC of Kashmir to Chinese Court in 20. (b) King ABC conferred with a title in 24. (c) King DEF asks for military help in 28. Thus, we can say that ABC was succeeded by DEF between 24 and 28 but not that ABC ruled till 24. Cribb's usage of the phrase a contemporary of serves to this effect, which your framing fails to imply. His citations (Stein and Kuwayama) take a similar approach.
 * The date-span mentioned by me over our article is taken from Tansen Sen, whose entire research is based on Chinese and Tibetan sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So, it's just a matter of wording right? We can very well use the same expression as Cribb "a contemporary of" in this case... it's not a reason to mass-revert really. Please note that I just wrote "for the period 713-720 CE", which does not imply dynastic dates, but indeed a window of contemporaneity. In such cases, please just edit cooperatively with you preferred wording, rather than erase everything. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We are not having any shortage of space and shall strive to make the specifics, as clear as possible. Do not use phrasings which makes sense iff the audience is well versed in pre-medieval history of Kashmir. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand your English above. So we agree on "a contemporary of" right?  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Also, you need to get competent or leave editing these areas. I cannot go on correcting your misconceptions or errors. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What you are mistakenly calling my "misconceptions or errors" is old content from 2017 which has nothing to do with me : just check your own facts before telling an established user to "get competent". You do not seem to understand that Wikipedia is based on academic references and collaborative editing: you cannot just erase properly referenced material and say 'I'll write something later". Wikipedia is based on collaborative editing: we have to respect the contribution of others if they are properly sourced, we correct them if they can be better worded, we balance them with other sources if there are conflicting views. Your status as a standard Wikipedia editor does not give you any special right to otherwise override or blank the contributions of others without very good justification.  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You had edited that particular line with an edit summary of "adjusting intro". You seem to be indeed engaging in an approach of pushing through your edits without waiting for consensus and NPOV. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This doesn't change a thing to the fact that this content is not mine, so your accusation of "misconceptions or errors" is grossly misplaced. You should have the honesty to recognize it. As for Yudhishthira (Huna_king), you said that there were too few sources, which is right, but when I add new academic sources to try to boost the article you delete them ?? That's ridiculous. Let the editorial process go on, and if we have to delete the article down the road, it's fine. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Pat is the most noxious of the gray-zone editors I have had the ill fortune of encountering on WP in my 14 years. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that he has littered WP with is reliable.  When the admins return in the summer I will begin to remove his garbage at least from the more prominent India-related pages.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The damage that he has done to WP is immeasurable. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Fowler&fowler, you are again making a fool of yourself. I could also retort, with a mountain of references, that you are unfortunately the most incivil and toxic contributor "I have had the ill fortune of encountering on WP"... and that shamefully, given your otherwise educated veneer, you should probably be banned from Wikipedia for your glaring incivilities towards other contributors, and your rabid anti-Hindu/pro-Muslim/pro-British rethorics and assorted POV contributions. I am pinging Administrator, who I believe knows a lot about your patterns of misbehaviour, and who, although by far one of the most respected and popular contributors of longstanding on Wikipedia, is another of your recent victims. Have a nice day.  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My post was addressed to TrangaBellam who has found himself wading in the Slough of Gray-Zone Despond, as I before him, and Ms Sarah Welch and Kautilya3 before me have. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Only the sinful sink under the weight of their own misdeeds in the Slough of Despond... पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

So have you read Bunyan, or are you just lobbing off the WP page which I had linked in order to have the last word? Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My kids are great fans of the 2019 computer-animated film . You see, nobody has the exclusivity of cultural pedanticism anymore... Have a nice day Fowler&fowler पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question. Have you read Bunyan?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes or No. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Joe Cribb material (continued)
Why are you deleting the Chinese dates referenced from Joe Cribb ? If you do not have a good reason to delete it, it has to stay. You cannot just say "no consensus" and zap referenced material, just making gratuitous accusations of "incompetence" to an established user... you have to make your point about the specific issue at hand and your specific rationale for deleting. पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 06:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your line Lalitaditya Muktapida is otherwise known from Chinese sources, as he is mentioned in the Chinese Tang Dynasty Chronicles, as a contemporary of the 736-747 CE period (or the similar line over Candrapida) impresses upon any average reader that the Chinese sources assign a regnal span of 736-747 CE. As I have argued, that is not the case. Please do not copy words from specialist publications without understanding the context in which they are used and accordingly, simplifying them. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your "impresses upon any average reader that the Chinese sources assign a regnal span of 736-747 CE": not at all. First, these are the exact words of the author Joe Cribb, following your claim that my previous version suggested regnal date, which it did not (Why would I want to suggest that these are regnal dates anyway? I really don't care). It is a bit rich from you to challenge the exact, unambiguous, words of such a reliable source as Joe Cribb. Second, the English in this sentence is very clear that these are not regnal dates, but just the dates for which Chinese sources mention him. If you do not have a problem with the Chinese sources and with Joe Cribb in themselves, then what would be your preferred wording?? पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I repeat Please do not copy words from specialist publications without understanding the context in which they are used. I plan to discuss the dates assigned by Chinese sources in a note. And, every referenced information need not be added to our article. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a better reason, I'll be looking forward to your content. But note that you can't erase referenced content on Wikipedia, just saying "I'll write something later". Until you write something reliable, the referenced content should be reinstated. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Name capitalization
I think that the page should be moved to "Karkota dynasty" to match other dynasty pages, such as Ayyubid dynasty, Tang dynasty, or Utpala dynasty. Is there any reason why this page has dynasty capitalized? PikaSamus (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi
can you please semi-protect this article for indefinite time? Zero valuable contributions from newbies except caste-warring. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Semi won't help. I've indef ECP-ed the article. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2022
2409:4063:4E9B:24CF:795:57A6:2EEF:3ADE (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC) Karkota was a Kashmiri brahmin dynasty.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)