Talk:Kashmiris/Archive 2

Edit-war
Given your experience with edit wars in South Asia topics, I would like you to monitor this page and ensure it remains on the last stable version so that newcomers to this article do not cite WP:BRD to restore the controversial new version which I reverted. That will be the best way to avoid edit war. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me )


 * Take a look at the consensus on Talk:Kashmiris/Archive 1 and bring some points that haven't been refuted. --RaviC (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * sorry but can you inform me if you are you going to self-revert yourself? You have violated 2RR. My Lord (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Which part of that discussion favours your preferred version? In particular the Gulshan Majeed content you keep on removing. Owais Khursheed  (Talk to me ) 16:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , this page is not under 2RR. Bring an administrator who knows these sanctions, like Regents Park, to be the judge of that if you are unsure. Owais Khursheed  (Talk to me ) 16:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything falling under India-Pakistan conflict is under 2RR. Read this thing carefully. My Lord (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

can decide whether this page is under 2RR. This page and especially the "Origins" section has no relation to any Indo-Pak conflict. Nevertheless, if the administrator decides otherwise, I will self-revert when I am next online. And 2RR only applies if it is done without discussion, which is not the case here. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me ) 16:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * What makes you think that Kashmiri people are not involved in the Indo-Pak conflict and why do you think that you reverted 2 times by complying with the rules when you initiated discussion after you reverted 2 times? My Lord (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It must be possible to merge both versions. I don't see why the specific mention of Indo-Europeans should be removed. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal #1
Notes

Sources Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  13:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC) / update  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * PS1: it seems to me that Kashmir, prior to the coming of the Indo-Aryans, must have been populated by people related to the IVC-people, that is, a mixture of Iranians and AASI. Present-day Kashmiri are a mix of ANI ((AASI + Iranian) + IE) and ASI ((AASI + Iranian) + AASI). This info could be added, with WP:RS (before I noted that genetic research is not being used in caste-discussions, but this topic is not about caste. If there are no objections, I'm willing to collect, and double-check, the relevant sorces. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time on the Indo-Pakistan Wikipedia War).
 * PS2: there is a difference between the Naga Kingdom from mythology, and the present-day Tibeto-Burman Naga people. According to Bhat, the Naga people come from Thailand; it seems to me that he is mixing up both mythology and contemporary ethnology. Frankly, Bhat is hardly WP:RS (I have another qualification in mind...).

Discussion of Proposal #1

 * Today's version is decent. But on the whole, we are just taking one source (Ashraf Bhat), who is not even a historian, and beating his wording to death. I don't see why we have to use his precise words in quote marks.

For Nagas, please see: There are loads of references to Nagas in Ancient India, but we don't know very much about them except that they probably worshipped or revered snakes. Reverence for snakes is widespread pretty much all over India. (Even Gurjara-Pratiharas in the 7th seventh century were using "kettle drum and snake", pratipad-haryam, as their flag. For all we know, "Pratihara" could have been a derivative of that phrase.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I also think we should not use any terms like "mythology" anywhere. We are citing historians or cultural scholars, and they are trained to extract reliable information from "mythologies". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I also don't think we should cite Gulshan Majeed, who doesn't seem to have published any peer-reviewed work in his life. The article cited here is a conference talk, and edited by himself. His claim that there is no archaelogical evidence of Naga presence is squarely contradicted by Handa. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I am replying both to Kautilya3 and the above proposal from Joshua Jonathan that was made in good-faith. I am reminding of Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 236, the discusion where uninvolved editors agreed that the source is not reliable and furthermore the publisher (Cambridge scholars) can produce bad quality of content but we can't tell the same for many other WP:RS. Still when I was restoring the consensus version I dedicated some parts of the content to this source. Current version is just better than the previous one. My Lord (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to removing all of Bhat, and search for other sources on the Nagas. NB: West isn't great either. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Its a shame this already solved subject is repeated every 6 months. I have to login just to make a few things clear again.

1. Genetic studies are generally unreliable and these studies are constantly changing their findings. There are error margins and issue of how reliable the methodologies are. Acceptable statistical modelling is constantly changing. In fact in the whole field the findings are subject to constant changing. When even the findings from genetic studies about the maternal origins of chickens keep drastically changing how then can reliance be placed on genetic studies of social groups? Its absurd. Genetic studies should be discarded and not be used on this article. Its disrespectful.

2. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of studies into the origins of Kashmiris and even fewer are available online. Thats why its much more feasible to have a list of the various theories that we know have been propounded. And for that the scholar Bhat is more than fine. He has served as an officer in various cross-disciplinary fields. It was already decided at [WP:RSN that he is an acceptable source for saying that "scholar so and so said this" or "historians said this or that". Of course if it was Bhat's own research then it would have been a different case. But since he is just saying that historians have said this or that, he is acceptable. The arguments for removing him are incredibly weak.

3. There is absolutely no evidence that Nagas ever inhabited Kashmir. There is no trace of them in Kashmir. No inscriptions, no archaeological evidence. Nothing. Unlike in the rest of India where Naga traces are still found. Numerous historians like Professor Gulshan Majeed, Professor Abdul Lone and Ahad have said this. All these are history professors at universities, Lone also teaches Indian archaeology.

Any authors (all Hindu) who have written about Nagas in Kashmir are merely regurgitating Hindu mythology, which historians like Lone note is their only source for the idea that Nagas ever were in Kashmir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeKashmiri (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * If "there are not a lot of studies into the origins of Kashmiris", it would still not permit us to use a source that is either way not credible. Sorry, but we don't evaluate author's credibility by his religion, you have to evaluate it with the publisher, credentials. Though some argue if information is commonly accepted or not and in this case, it is not. My Lord (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * FreeKashmiri, please note that your personal views constitute WP:OR and have no bearing on what goes into Wikipedia. There were two noticeboard discussions regarding this section: RSN and NPOVN. You need to consider the whole feedback and not pick and choose what suits your POV. If there is a division between "Hindu scholars" and "Muslim scholars" that is fine to note, except that we haven't been provided with any decent reading material from the Muslim scholars. In any case, I suppose F. M. Hassnain counts as a Muslim scholar:


 * So this division you imagine seems to be in your own imagination. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding Genetic studies are generally unreliable and these studies are constantly changing their findings: bullshit. I don't know what you are basing your opinions on, but you surely are out of touch with the recent genetic research. There's a pretty strong consensus on the migrations of Iranian farmers and Indo-Europeans into India, and the complex interactions of their descendents. That means: multiple studies basically confirm that Indians are related to Eurasians, due to Iranian and Indo-European migrations into India. If you think that those findings are incorrect, I'm looking forward to some very good sources for this WP:Red flag of yours. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Below is a survey of what can be found in journals like Science and Nature regarding the 'general unreliability' of genetic research. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


















 * Regarding the Nagas, after "Bhat further notes that "some scholars believe that Kashmiris belong to a 1200-year old race of the Pishachas and Nagas."[3][note 1]" we could add: "According to Om Chanda Handa, those Nagas were pre-Aryan, "Austro-Dravidian" snake-worshippers; they were not related to the later Naga-clans which existed during the time of the Kushana Empire." Reference: Om Chanda Handa (2004), Naga Cults and Traditions in the Western Himalayap.96-97. NB: note the discrepancy between Bhat's Tibeto-Burman Nagas, and Om Chanda Handa's Austro-Dravidian Nagas. Nevertheless, they seem to agree that those Nagas were not Indo-Aryans. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It is undue to give more prominence to the writer Om Handa (who himself admits the absence of evidence outside Hindu texts for Naga presence in Kashmir, p.57) over professional archaeologists and historians of Kashmir (Majeed, Lone, Ahad et al).

I do not know why a "Hindu-Muslim scholarship differences" twist is being given here. The actual issue is just one of fact and fiction.

There is simply no archaeological or other evidence for Naga habitation of ancient Kashmir and because of the total lack of evidence it's not acceptable to proceed here on the assumption that they ever lived in Kashmir. Historians have rejected the idea they ever inhabited Kashmir because as I said, the lack of archaeological and all sorts of evidence. The only source material for their presence in ancient Kashmir are Hindu mythological texts and that is the only source for those writers like Hassnain and Handa who have bothered to mention them. They have no real evidence.

Here's a comment of Professor Abdul Lone who teaches history and Indian archaeology at the University of Kashmir: "Nagas do have a historical base in the mainland of India. Certain temples shrines and sculptures there are ascribed to them. But as far as Kashmir Valley is concerned, except in the Nilmata Purana and the Rajatarangini, they do not exist. From the archaeological perspective, we do not have any concrete evidence of their presence in Kashmir. The sculptures ascribed to them in central India are completely missing from the archaeological record in Kashmir. Neither the Burzahom rock art nor the tiles from Harwan suggest anything to support the presence of Nagas in Kashmir. Scholars have argued that certain Naga tribes existed in Kashmir but that is only a projection of the Brahminical point of view propogated through the Nilamata Purana and the subsequent literature influenced by it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeKashmiri (talk • contribs)


 * , the Hindu-Muslim angle is what you started giving to this discussion. Here is what you said: "Any authors (all Hindu) who have written about Nagas in Kashmir are merely regurgitating Hindu mythology". Sure enough, all the scholars you are quoting are also saying similar things. It is all "Hindu mythology" and has no basis in reality.
 * And, these scholars don't seem to have published anything of their own. You haven't provided a single peer-reviewed source from any of them. Merely teaching at University of Kashmir (rated 71st in India, not ranked internationally, and with a relatively poor research rating ) doesn't necessarily make one an expert on these topics. We need to see views expressed in scholarly publications.
 * I am not sure on what basis you say that Handa's views are "undue". He has written an entire book on Naga cults, in addition to numerous other works and has a well-established track record. And, I couldn't verify your claim that he said there is an "absence of evidence" (on p.57?). Please provide a quotation. As far as I can see the entire discussion of Nagas in Kashmir starts on page 96 and goes till at least page 99, and he gives a variety of evidence: temples, cultural practices, place names, and Buddhist records. I see nothing here that throws doubt on anything.
 * I won't bother debunking the unpublished commentaries from your professors. But nobody has claimed any connection between the prehistoric Nagas of Kashmir and the historical Nagas in Central India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Replay by JJ:
 * I also can't find "the absence of evidence" at p.57 of Om Chanda Handa (2004).
 * Regarding the lack of evidence that Nagas ever inhabited Kashmir and The only source material for their presence in ancient Kashmir are Hindu mythological texts and that is the only source for those writers like Hassnain and Handa who have bothered to mention them; you may have a point here. Khalid Bashir Ahmad, Kashmir: Exposing the Myth behind the Narrative, referring to Majeed (2011), states that
 * Majeed could be re-inserted, but instead of
 * we should write
 * The Om Chanda Handa info could be moved to a note, together with Kautilya3's initial addition of info on the Nagas. I'll copy-paste a third proposal. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC) / update  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, JJ. I don't agree. Extracting historical information from mythified texts is always a tricky business and reasonable historians might disagree with each other. But those debates need to happen in the scholarly literature, not here on Wikipedia. The dissenting historians haven't done their job.
 * Khalid Bashir Ahmad, a retired civil servant, wrote up these dissents and (surprisingly) got it published by Routledge. This is a flaky source as far as I am concerned. The only academic review of the book, by Chitralekha Zutshi, shot it down as propagating biases. So, unless some other expert source vouches for it, I am not willing to touch this book with a barge pole. The citations in this book are meaningless. Ahmad quotes Majeed's views verbatim and cites Rajatarangini for it! This is hardly a scholarly piece of writing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Om Chanda Handa info could be moved to a note, together with Kautilya3's initial addition of info on the Nagas. I'll copy-paste a third proposal. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC) / update  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, JJ. I don't agree. Extracting historical information from mythified texts is always a tricky business and reasonable historians might disagree with each other. But those debates need to happen in the scholarly literature, not here on Wikipedia. The dissenting historians haven't done their job.
 * Khalid Bashir Ahmad, a retired civil servant, wrote up these dissents and (surprisingly) got it published by Routledge. This is a flaky source as far as I am concerned. The only academic review of the book, by Chitralekha Zutshi, shot it down as propagating biases. So, unless some other expert source vouches for it, I am not willing to touch this book with a barge pole. The citations in this book are meaningless. Ahmad quotes Majeed's views verbatim and cites Rajatarangini for it! This is hardly a scholarly piece of writing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The writer Om Handa admits while parroting the Naga myth "There must have remained wooden temples dedicated to the Naga deities at these sites earlier, but no evidence, except the traditions associated with these lakes, having strong Brahminical undertones now survives." The onus is on those who believe that Nagas inhabited Kashmir to prove it. Till date, they have not provided a shred of evidence, except for Hindu texts. That's why the views of such writers can't be preferred over historians who point to the lack of evidence for their claim. Its also unfair to describe Majeed et al as "dissenting" historians because there is no mainstream scholarly view in favour of the Naga theory in the first place. Its just been parroted by obscure writers who have no source, except Hindu texts. So its really them who have not done their job. Majeed and Lone have done theirs, which is to point out the complete lack of evidence for such writers' claims. Again, the onus is on those writers who think otherwise to prove their claim about Nagas inhabiting Kashmir. To write about Naga habitation in Kashmir as fact on an encyclopediac article is like writing the unsubstantiated theory (except in religious texts) of Creationism as fact in place of the solid-evidenced Darwin theory. Its WP:UNDUE. Bashir does not have to be cited, Majeed can do. But to describe Bashir's work as a flaky source, using Zutshi, who is not without her own biases, as gosepl is disingenuous. For starters, Bashir's book was received at its opening by the historian Professor Abdul Qayyum Rafiqui. As far as Hangloo is relevant, I read months ago on here a negative review of Hangloo's work by Heitzman that he provided no evidence such as archaeological for his chapter about ancient Kashmir (and Nagas), and his sources were once again, only the Hindu texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeKashmiri (talk • contribs) 12:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are engaging in a WP:FORUMy debate. On Wikipedia, we describe what reliable sources say, not individual editors' opinions on what the reliable sources say. You are welcome to have your views, and believe or disbelieve what the reliable sources say. But your views and beliefs can't influence what goes into Wikipedia. Your biases are clearly evident when you talk about "writer Om Handa... parroting the Naga myth" and "historian Professor Abdul Qayyum Rafiqui". The former is an established scholar, a fellow of the ICHR, whereas about the latter, we know nothing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * FreeKashmiri, your emphasis is "there were no Nagas in Kashmir." That's only part of what those authors say. They also say that there are stories, folklore, about Nagas in kashmir; and they argue that those stories have their origin in the Puranas. That's the whole story, according to those authors, not just 'there were no nagas in Kashmir'.  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, both Handa and Hangloo are referring to more than stories. They are calling the inhabitants of the Kashmir Valley before the arrival of the Indo-Aryans "Nagas", and they are calling them so because there is evidence of Naga cult in their culture. Hassnain mentioned Naga-arjuna and Naga-bodhi being among the first promoters of Buddhism in Kashmir. None of this depends on Nilamata Purana. But, once they accept the presence of Naga cult, the historians can then interpret the Nilamata Purana to extract historically valid information from it. As I said, reasonable historians can disagree on what is valid historical information and what is not. But to say that any mention of Nagas is mythical is not reasonable. This is just like the Hindu fundamentalists complaining about "Aryan invasion theory" claiming "there is no archaeological evidence". Evidence can be a variety of forms. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"The Nagas"

 * Khalid Bashir Ahmad writes:
 * What exactly does he mean with the Nagas? He further refers to a Shafi Shauq, stating:
 * So,, the Naga-folklore is older than the Nilamata Purana, and contains "intimations of old beliefs and rituals."
 * By the way, Khalid Bashir Ahmad also refers to Burzahom. From the Wiki-article:
 * I'll bet there is info on IVC & Naga-worship. For a starter, and for what it's worth: link.
 * This is an academic source which treats the nāgas: Shonaleeka Kaul (2018), The Making of Early Kashmir: Landscape and Identity in the Rajatarangini, Oxford University Press:
 * Unfortunately, I can't access the source further, but OUP seems better than authors such as Bhat and Ahmad. The source also says:
 * PDF available via Google; summarizes the story on the Nagas.
 * And here's another fine quote, from a Mohini Qasba Raina, Kashur The Kashmiri Speaking People, p.31:
 * Khalid Bashir Ahmad and professor Lone are kind of deviant? Which brings us back to the question: what are the Nagas they are referring to? According to Charles Frederick Oldham (late 19th century)(in Raina p.32),
 * Sounds reasonable. Anyway, this 'mythology' or 'folklore' should be mentioned; it's relevant. There-after, various interpretations can be mentioned. any chance you can access Shonaleeka Kaul?  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * PDF available via Google; summarizes the story on the Nagas.
 * And here's another fine quote, from a Mohini Qasba Raina, Kashur The Kashmiri Speaking People, p.31:
 * Khalid Bashir Ahmad and professor Lone are kind of deviant? Which brings us back to the question: what are the Nagas they are referring to? According to Charles Frederick Oldham (late 19th century)(in Raina p.32),
 * Sounds reasonable. Anyway, this 'mythology' or 'folklore' should be mentioned; it's relevant. There-after, various interpretations can be mentioned. any chance you can access Shonaleeka Kaul?  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Khalid Bashir Ahmad and professor Lone are kind of deviant? Which brings us back to the question: what are the Nagas they are referring to? According to Charles Frederick Oldham (late 19th century)(in Raina p.32),
 * Sounds reasonable. Anyway, this 'mythology' or 'folklore' should be mentioned; it's relevant. There-after, various interpretations can be mentioned. any chance you can access Shonaleeka Kaul?  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Anyway, this 'mythology' or 'folklore' should be mentioned; it's relevant. There-after, various interpretations can be mentioned. any chance you can access Shonaleeka Kaul?  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Khalid Bashir Ahmad's talk of "The Nagas" is the very first reason that stops me from taking it seriously. There is no such coherent class of people (or beings) established by anybody. During the historical times, various people called "Nagas" are mentioned in various parts of India. Chandragupta II is known to have taken a Naga wife. The Vakatakas, with whom the Guptas had marital alliances, are said to have had alliances with Nagas. It stands to reason that the Aryan people might have called any indigenous people that had a Naga-cult as "Nagas". But the Naga-cult has been squarely integrated into Hinduism now. The Naga Panchami is still celebrated every year. Vishnu sleeps on a giant cobra called Adi Sesha. Shiva wears garlands of cobras etc. If somebody has energy to study the phenomenon, this would make a brilliant example of the "Hindu synthesis" where various indigenous traditions were integrated into a coherent belief system that we call "Hinduism".

However, nowhere in India is the Naga-cult as prominent as it is in Kashmir and Himachal. There is no book equivalent to the Nilamata Purana elsewhere. Nowhere else in India is it believed that nagas live in springs so much so that the springs themselves get to be called "Nags" (Anantnag, Kokernag, etc. etc.) All this suggests that the people that came to be referred to as "Nagas" had an exclusive domain in the natural fortress of Kashmir Valley, and blocked the Aryan people from entering, at least for a while. But eventually they did enter, and the Naga-cult got integrated with the Aryan culture. It is squarely impossible to talk about the "Origins" of Kashmiris, without mentioning Nagas. R. L. Hangloo, an authentic JNU-trained historian, does a great job of extracting historical information from the traditions, which should be covered in detail in this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Mohini Qasba Raina is a homemaker, writing in a self-published book, with no credibility to determine what is the scholarly consensus. What needs to be pointed out here is that all who are writing about Nagas are relying on a mythologised text.


 * Reliable historian Professor Gulshan Majeed writes in his chapter in 'Approach to Kashmir Studies' that there is no evidence of Naga habitation in Kashmir. That can't be removed and because we know the pro-Naga camp is depending on mythology for their stance. This criticism from historians such as Majeed needs to be included i.e. that there is no evidence, no inscriptions or physical traces etc.


 * Hangloo is a poor source, to have on this article, especially for supposed "detail". This is a review of his work by Heitzmann


 * Heitzmann then goes on to indicate the pro-Hindu chauvinist bias of that book. If academic reviews note Hangloo has no historical research why should his work even be taken seriously?


 * A lot of the rest of the comments here are original research (like "All this suggests that the people that came to be referred to as "Nagas" had an exclusive domain in the natural fortress"). I will try looking up the Kaul book.


 * As for the "we know nothing" comment on AQ Rafiqi, well he is a senior professsor of history at KU. It doesn't matter if you know nothing about him,others do, he is a sufficient authority on kashmiri history for judging other works like Bashir's. A lot of the personal judgements of Bashir here are also original research. But Majeed will be better to cite  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeKashmiri (talk • contribs) 11:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * , can you provide a quote that verifies your claim "Heitzmann then goes on to indicate the pro-Hindu chauvinist bias of that book."? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I am still waiting for you to provide evidence of "Hindu chauvinism" of Ratan Lal Hangloo. Can you please get back about this?
 * AQ Rafiqi is of course well-known. But I don't find anything he said about either Ahmad, or Hangloo or the matter of Naga presence. This seems entirely irrelevant to the discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I said Heitzman indicates pro-Hindu chauvinism in Hangloo's work. This is implied in many words such as Hangloo's obsession with origins of Islam.

I am glad you now accept Rafiqi as well known, because at first you said you know nothing about him. What I said about Rafiqi was just that he endorsed the Bashir book, which in my opinion is itself not necessary to cite when there are historians such as Lone and Majeed available.

I looked at the last pdf book you linked but regardless of its obscure quality, the only content in it about Nagas was again discussion about Naga mythology, not Nagas as fact.

I have also just read Kaul and she describes the Nagas as a mere literary motif and calls the actual presence of a social group called Nagas in Kashmir unclear. Joshua I am happy to compromise with including the Kaul source. I don't approve the Bamzai source (what are his credentials?) because he wrote politically motivated works (forewords by Nehru) upon instructions from Sheikh Abdullah.FreeKashmiri (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Prithivi Nath Kaul Bamzai. Sheik Abdullah was prime-minster of Kashmir when he asked Banzai to write a history of Kashmir. The Nehru-foreword was in A History of Kashmir; Nehru was the first prime-minister of India. I don't see the political motivation here, and can't accept that as an argument simply bceause you state so. At least you'll have to provide some solid sources which explain that Bamzai's work was "politically motivated," and how it was politically motivated. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Bamzai (1994a), Culture and political history of Kashmir: 46 citations. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, just because Heintzman uses the term "chauvinistic", you have supplied "pro-Hindu" for your own good measure? This is completely uncalled for. It merely indicates your own biases and introduction of bad faith in discussions. I hope that you will stop doing this.
 * The footnote 23 (not 231) was not mentioned as example of any chauvinism by Heintzman. The footnote is indeed discussing the origins of Islam, but it is summarising the relevant discussion from two solid sources:
 * The footnote is added to what I regard as one of the most profound statements in the book:
 * In order to explain how he arrived at this conclusion, Hangloo gave an analysis of what Islam meant in the particular historical context, via the footnote 23. It is perfectly evidenced, entirely appropriate, and quite the right thing to do. The fact that Heintzman didn't understand why the footnote appears in the book, just as he didn't understand pretty much everything else in the book, by his own admission, merely points to his own shortcomings. I think this book review is content-free, and I suggest we stop discussing it. It adds nothing. You claim to be a student. Please go to a library, find the book and read it for yourself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The footnote is added to what I regard as one of the most profound statements in the book:
 * In order to explain how he arrived at this conclusion, Hangloo gave an analysis of what Islam meant in the particular historical context, via the footnote 23. It is perfectly evidenced, entirely appropriate, and quite the right thing to do. The fact that Heintzman didn't understand why the footnote appears in the book, just as he didn't understand pretty much everything else in the book, by his own admission, merely points to his own shortcomings. I think this book review is content-free, and I suggest we stop discussing it. It adds nothing. You claim to be a student. Please go to a library, find the book and read it for yourself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In order to explain how he arrived at this conclusion, Hangloo gave an analysis of what Islam meant in the particular historical context, via the footnote 23. It is perfectly evidenced, entirely appropriate, and quite the right thing to do. The fact that Heintzman didn't understand why the footnote appears in the book, just as he didn't understand pretty much everything else in the book, by his own admission, merely points to his own shortcomings. I think this book review is content-free, and I suggest we stop discussing it. It adds nothing. You claim to be a student. Please go to a library, find the book and read it for yourself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that a reputable historian has dismissed Hangloo's book in an academic review for his lack of research to back up the Nagas chapter and the book's chauvinism. It now would be original research to start making personal evaluations of James Heitzman's scholarly review of Hangloo's book. I trust that Hangloo's low-quality book will not be brought up here again. I am going to search up if there are academic reviews of Bamzai's book. Meanwhile, can you clarify what you mean by your comments on Bamzai. Do you mean he is not an WP:INDEPENDENT source because his "scholarly" work was part of his employment for the Indian and NC governments? The Mohini source is useless but your Koul source is good. Lets work on that. Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Did Heitzman dismiss Hangloo? Or is that FreeKashmiri's reading of that review? Regarding Bamzai, it seems solid to me. Ahmad, on the other hand, has been completely dismissed by Kautilya3. I think we either include several sources which are questioned, or we exclude all questioned sources. Some compromise will be necessary. 10:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!

Well Kautilya3 is an editor and not a RS. Hangloo's book has got criticism from Heitzman. It has too many problems such as chauvinism, rush job (see quotes shown by FreeKashmiri) and to top it all off Heitzman says the Hangloo's first chapter, which held content on Nagas, has no serious historical research at all. Its sources are entirely Hindu mythology. I still can't find any reviews of Bamzai and I am guessing he is not WP:INDEPENDENT either. However, if you insist, then as far as the Nagas are concerned the sources to go with are the historians Koul and Majeed. I see no one's had an issue with Koul. Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * If you don't care what other editors have got to say, it's no use to come here. Majeed has been questioned here too. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

If one wants to question a source it has to be based on academics' criticism or other policy reasons such as failing WP:INDEPENDENT. I saw no policy or review based questioning of Majeed, unlike for the others. I am now going to wait here for a revert to the pre-dispute version: 20 May, per policy. Then we can move on 🙂 Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal #2
Notes

Sources I have removed some of Bhat's comments, and the comment from Majeed; and I added a comment from Om Chanda Handa. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  13:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of Proposal #2
Remember that we avoid quoting sentences from sources. West does say that Kashmiris are migrants from India so that had to be quoted as well. Current version of the section is really good, all it needs is the last paragraph ("According to Downie et al. (2016)"...) from your proposal. My Lord (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * West is quoted too. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal #3
Notes

Sources

I have incorporated comments by FreeKashmiri. I haver also added Kautilya3's initial edit(s) on the Naga's to a note. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  11:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC) NB:it's an open question, of course, to what extent the Nilamata Purana incorporated older, Kashmiri matrial. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  12:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal #4
Notes

Sources

Discussion of Proposal #4
I've added info from Kaul, Bisht and Shauq. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Prolonged edit-warring
I find it quite silly that some editors only appear here again at the moment that the page can be edited again, to start edit-warring again, whilst not, or hardly, partaking in the discussions here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  10:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes I am finding it annoying too. I even made a section on it. and I see Owais Khursheed made one too. But the answer to that is not more edit-warring. Policy says to keep the pre-dispute version. Read WP:NOCON. So I say you should restore the version as it stood on 20 May, for policy reasons. Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have already said above that if there are any new arguments, make them. But so far, I haven't seen them. The current consensus was not to restore the same problematic section (that already had most of its details rejected due to inaccuracy with the source itself). I am also fine without that whole section. It was unilaterally changed by Towns Hill, and once his problematic content was removed he started using socks to restore it or anything similar. --RaviC (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no "current consensus" (if there was why have been arguments going on here?) but what there is, is a wikipedia policy of WP:NOCON which says to keep the pre-dispute version until we resolve the dispute. There is no doubt that the dispute was caused by this edit on 5 June. So the version before that edit should be kept until the dispute is solved. This is a policy requirement and everyone will follow it. Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The bottom-line is that we are here to build an encyclopedia. Please engage in the discussions on the propoosals I've made; you can beat to death any proposal to go forward with your insistance on WP:NOCONSENSUS, and that's not what those policies are meant for. See also WP:IGNORE and You can't follow all the rules, all the time. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have proposed a way forward on Nagas, see my comment on Majeed/Koul. And WP:NOCON is part of an established policy, superseding WP:FATRAT which is just an essay. And WP:IAR does not apply here because there is no improvement that has been made on the mainspace and its application here does not have a solid case. I am still waiting for the revert back to 20 May. We can't ignore policy. Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you prove if there was established consensus for your "20 May" version? I have provided some links above that describe how the section was never free of disputes. Not to forget about the discussion on RSN as well as archives of this talk page. Please read WP:CONSENSUS a bit more carefully to know what constitutes as a "consensus". RaviC (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stick to the issue at hand. There was no dispute over this article for a long time. The current relevant dispute started since this edit. And policy says we go back to what was there before that edit which created the dispute. The burden of gaining consensus is on the ones making the new contested edit. Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reverted to the pre-dispute version. I will keep an eye on this page. No more policy violations will be allowed. Obaid Raza (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * RaviC, please stop the discussion about which version is "consensus." The differences are marginal. Please discuss improvements. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Summary of Hangloo's book / discussion of proposal #4
Since Hanglo's book is not available online, people are hesitant about accepting it as a source. Here is a quick summary. The book is called The State in Medieval Kashmir. As the name implies, it is not a comprehensive history of Kashmir, but rather an analysis of the state structures. Other than the introduction and conclusion, the book has four chapters: It is a short book as Heitzmann notes. Hangloo is not trying to construct his own history of Kashmir, but rather to interpret what is known from traditional sources (primary sources as well as other historical works), and extract an analysis of state and social structures. It is what is known as Marxist historiography, which disagrees with the traditional of view of history as being passed down by the rulers and elites, but rather views it as a grass-roots social process.
 * Historical roots of state formation in Pre-Sultanate Kashmir
 * Conversion to Islam and the consolidation of a social base of power in the sultanate
 * The Sayyids, Sultans and the State: A search for legitimacy 1339-1470
 * The incorporation of the Sultanate into the Mughal state

The book is dedicated to Harbans Mukhia, whom Hangloo describes as "my teacher". I suppose he must have been Hangloo's PhD supervisor at Jawaharlal Nehru University. The author's biography states:

Google scholar gives plenty of his publications. You can also find other works that cite his, which is ultimately the test of a scholar.

Heitzmann, who seems to be an archaeologist, didn't like the fact that there wasn't enough archaeological evidence used in the book. But it is not completely blank. For example, one sentence (p.20) narrates:

and the footnote 14 says:

I see nothing to indicate that this is not an authentic historical source. Other scholars might disagree, in which case, we also describe what they say. There is no question of WP:CENSORSHIP. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that post. But most of it is not relevant because Hangloo's historianship (except for his obscure prominence as one,shown by the low cites) is not what is in dispute nor how many chapters the book has. The issue is that Heitzman, a more prominent professor of history with a doctorate in history, expert on South Asia to boot, finds that Chapter 1, which is the only place where Nagas find a presence in Hangloo's work, is coming from Hindu mythology and is backed up with no evidence of research. The sources are Nilmata Purana and the Rajatarangini. This reiterates Professor Majeed's concern about the lack of evidence for Nagas outside the Hindu sources. Personal assessments of the historians' reviews cannot be admitted due to wiki's OR rules. wrt to Hangloo because its such a faulty source the WP:CENSORSHIP argument does not hold unless the objections to Professor Lone (who is a better source) are also abandoned. Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , can you point me to where the term "Hindu mythology" occurs in the Heitzman review? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 4.1
Regarding unless the objections to Professor Lone (who is a better source) are also abandoned: this boils down to either fully including, or fully excluding, per WP:NPOV, the following two alineas from proposal #4:


 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  14:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

, I would have been okay with this if this was an article on Nagas but its too UNDUE for an article on origins of Kashmiris because there are so many theories of origins, the Nagas being only one of them. (there are others theories too i.e. non-Aryan Central Asian immigration, historian Tudor Parfitt's linkages to Israelites backed up with his own genetic research) To preserve NPOV with the other theories, my proposal is to give the Naga business no more than 1 or two sentences. A good model would be:

Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That would violate WP:FRINGE if you are going doubt their existence without consensus in academic circle. There is scholarly consensus that Nagas were original inhabitants of Kashmir. You need to find a strong argument against that. Razer ( talk ) 15:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 4.2
Not fringe; Koul is quite clear here, and I have to agree that the Nagas are mythology, though the stories on them may, or may not, be based on history. Arguing that "[t]here is scholarly consensus that Nagas were original inhabitants of Kashmir" is not helpfull here; please don't do that.

Yet, DarSahab's proposal (thank you for participating in the discussion; that's helpfull) gives an "interpretational" emphasis; some editorializing, so to speak. The alinea on the Nagas should start with Kaul, who states that nagas are central to Kashmir mythology, but that it's unclear if they were real people or not. Koul makes clear that nagas are central to Kashmir mythology, so it's not just one of "so many theories of origins"; it's a central theme, and deserves more than one or two lines. By starting with "Some believe that ancient Kashmir was inhabited by Nagas, based on sources such as Nilmata Purana and Rajatarangini," the centrality of nagas to Kashmir mythology is ignored, and the focus shifts to portraying a specific interpretation as a belief, and an argument about the nagas being a historical people or not. But that's a specific issue, which is being fought out then here at Wikipedia. And that's not what Wikipedia is meant for. A factual presentation, based on Kaul, which seems to be the most WP:RS here, starts witht he notion that the nagas are central to Kashmir mythology, and makes clear that there are differing interpretations on the meaning and the origins of these stories. And not an argument about whether those nagas really existed or not. It's about stories, and the interpretations of those stories; the "real" existence of those nagas is a secondary question, part of the interpretation-part. My minimal proposal was/is as follows:

If we merge this with DarSahab's proposal, it would be something like this:

There is still a problem, though, with the stance of Majeed and Lone, who write about "the" Nagas, while others merely mention the possibility that there were pre-Aryan inhabitants who worshipped nagas. So, for an extended alinea (or two) on the nagas, I'd prefer my extended version from proposal #4, simply because it gives more info, and contains footnotes with information on the (im)possibilities of some stances. Please read it, above. Nevertheless, thanks for joining the discussion, and for coming with proposals. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  16:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments

 * Support Joshua Jonathan's Proposal 4.1. I think it has a good balance of all the sources. The argument that "this is not an article on the Nagas" is nonsense. "Nagas" is the term being used for the original inhabitants of the Kashmir Valley, who were there before the coming of the Indo-Aryans. You can't have a section on the "origin" of the Kashmiris without talking about them. Neither can you have a section on the history of Kashmiris without talking about them. "Nagas" is the term to describe them in the Kashmiris' own traditions. Nobody here or among the scholarly community invented them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. You refer to my proposal #4, I suppose? Nevertheless, it may be better to use the "pre-Aryan inhabitants," instead of "the original inhabitants." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Some believe" is too vague, and non-neutral; "some argue" is better. And "author X argues" is better than "some argue." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Nagas are a part of the realm of mythology. They have no place in real Kashmiri history. I think DarSahab has already made a major good faith concession by allowing the inclusion of a little bit of the (Naga) myth because ideally the Origins section should only include facts. No more than 2 sentences would be needed for the myth stories and their interpretations. Ideally, there should have been zero.

But hang on...I was reading S.R. Bakshi and he says So the Burusho people were the original Kashmiris. I read in Downie et al too that the closest ethnic group to Kashmiris genetically are the Burushos among others (Kalash, Baloch, Sindhi). This Bakshi source refers to Nagas but I notice with the same careful attribution-to-Nilamatapurana as the other sources.

But more importantly, it says "Nagas", "Picasas" were just old names for the Burushaskis, Dards and Sanskrit speakers. So that settles it then. The old Hindu tales didn't get the names right, thus creating the mess we have here. I think anyone who wants to mention the Nagas will have to insert this identification caveat. Just "original inhabitants" won't fix it. Dilpa kaur (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not going to fly only because you are saying that they should be treated as myth and hence deserves no place here. There is considerable amount of recognition of their existence in scholarly literature than what you are supporting as inclusion, we can't omit only because you think. My Lord (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Come on, My Lord, be reasonable. Dilpa kaur is ok with mentioning Nagas, as long as we identify them with the Burushos. All the objections of "mythology" vanish in thin smoke. That is progress indeed! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "No more than 2 sentences would be needed for the myth stories and their interpretations. Ideally, there should have been zero", when you read it you know that omission is possible. Article on Burusho people article makes no mention of Nagas as of now. "Perhaps" is not definitive, hence there are chances of engaging in WP:OR unless it has been made clear that Nagas, Picasas are identified as Burusho. While I maintain that there should be separate paragraph for Nagas and other original inhabitants, this new finding about Burushos can be included in the same paragraph but without any original research. My Lord (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Folk stories about origins are also facts an such; Wikipedia is not restricted to "hard" facts, such as biological facts, but also includes "soft" facts, such as the human sciences. See Kaul:
 * But, apart from that: interesting addition; thanks! I would hesitate though to call them "the original inhabitants"; after all, the earliest inhabitants must have been hunter-gatherers, who (much) later mixed with Iranian agriculturalists; this mix mixed with Indo-Aryans, and this new mix then mixed with southern mix of IVC-AASI, and whatever came there-after. Quite complicated, isn't it? And to make it still more complicated: ethnicity is not so much defined by genetics, as by culturally determined identities -the "soft" facts. That is, genetically, Kashmiris have a complicated genetic history, while for most present-day Kashmiris their ethnicity, c.q. cultural identity, has its roots in Indian history, that is, the subsequent influences of pre-Aryan local cultures, Aryan cultures, Buddhism, Vedic culture and subsequent Hindu influences, and Islamic culture and the subsequent reaction against Hindu culture. Any genius around here who can summarize this background in a few more lines than this, and provide the relevant references?
 * NB: what, actually, do we mean with "the" Kashmiris? If they are an ethnic group, then what defines their ethnic identity, other than the fact that they speak Kashmiri? Shouldn't we just call them "Kashmiri speakers"? And where's the source for "ethnic group"? Munshi writes about Kashmiri seakers, not about an ethnic group. From Ethnic group:
 * These similarities seem far away for the Kashmiri-speakers, given the deep divide between Muslims and Hindus... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , your own source then goes on to tell that the Rajatarangini's coverage of the pre-Ashokan period is mainly fictional. So whats the use in clarifying that these already unreliable sources got the names of people wrong? These fiction stories and myths should have no space in an encyclopedia.
 * These similarities seem far away for the Kashmiri-speakers, given the deep divide between Muslims and Hindus... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , your own source then goes on to tell that the Rajatarangini's coverage of the pre-Ashokan period is mainly fictional. So whats the use in clarifying that these already unreliable sources got the names of people wrong? These fiction stories and myths should have no space in an encyclopedia.


 * I also disagree with your excessive reliance on the Downie et al study; as FreeKashmiri said genetic studies are too inconclusive for social groups. For example on the Greek and Jewish ancestry conundrum the Downie's research says, "It is also possible that the Southern European and Mediterranean admixture seen in the Kashmiri individuals represents Greek or Sephardic Jewish ancestry" and it also says the study's conclusions may not be accurate because of the small sample size and the genetic changes over time "Another potential explanation for the lack of Greek and Jewish ancestry in the Kashmiris is that the Kashmiris sampled here are not representative of those who lived when the supposed admixture event took place more than 2,000 years ago. The same is true of the putative Greek and Jewish ancestral populations. As previously discussed, there is archeological evidence to suggest that the ancient Greeks were in the Kashmir region. Another limitation of this study is the small Kashmiri sample size". They also had methodological deficiencies "There are, however, a number of possible reasons why recent Greek or Jewish admixture might be undetected in these analyses. It is possible that more cryptic admixture, in the form of specific Greek or Jewish autosomal haplotypes, exists. Tests such as rolloff, ALDER, and GLOBETROTTER can detect admixture by utilizing linkage disequilibrium and haplotype data. However, this study did not have sufficient SNP density (93,666 autosomal SNPs) to capture linkage disequilibrium and haplotype structure. High-density genotyping array or next-generation whole genome sequencing, applied widely in diverse populations, would provide these data". So why bother with this inconclusive study? In fact we can't rely on any genetic study. As another example Tudor Parfitt's own earlier genetic testing found the Jewish Cohanim gene in Kashmiri men. Now the Downie study contradicts that but also at the same time thinks its own results are inconclusive. So do you see the problems with these sort of studies?


 * GMD Sufi says in his history that Kashmiris are descended from various peoples from Central Asia and adjoining areas, and some Jews, who settled down in the same space and mixed with each other genetically over time (no different to how other ethnic groups have been formed). Christopher Snedden also says similar in Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris "Ethnic Kashmiris have a history and culture that goes back thousands of years. They have long ago assimilated invaders, immigrants and interlopers and their descendants from Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia and Tibet." Even Downie's inconclusive study (wrt to Greek/Jewish ancestry/while of course admitting a Mediterranean/Southern European admixture) has a similar conclusion, "Instead, the results suggest that the Kashmiri population, and nearby surrounding populations, share genetic ancestry broadly with west Eurasian and South Asian populations."Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Which is in line with Narasimhan et al. (2018). Sigh... Regarding we can't rely on any genetic study, that's a personal opinion; see my extended reply above, and Downie et al. themselves: High-density genotyping array or next-generation whole genome sequencing, applied widely in diverse populations, would provide these data. This way, there won't be many "facts" left to include. But that's also not the aim of Wikipedia; the aim is to represent what the relevant sources say, not to determine the WP:TRUTH. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * DarSahab, while it is true that the Nilamatapurana and much of the Rajatarangini is composed of dubious content, the pro-Naga POV camp today, while ironically still basing their entire claim on that same debunked corpus which describes the Nagas as "half-serpent"-"half men", have conveniently changed their arguments. Their present claim is that instead of half-serpents, as their source material claims, the Nagas were simply human worshippers of the snake. It is this ex post facto claim that Majeed's work deconstructs, pointing out the lack of evidence for this cult, such as the absence of temple remains and inscriptions, unlike in the rest of the subcontinent. :While there is zilch satisfactory evidence proving the existence of this snake-worshipping cult in Kashmir, you also need to remember that as far as the exact history of the origins of Kashmiris are concerned, its basically unknown. According to Henny Sender there's no satisfactory historical work on the origins of Kashmiris, because any works the Pandits wrote was to push legendary theories of descent from Kashyapa Rishi (the Nilamatapurana claims him as the the first ancestor of the Kashmiris, who was allegedly taught by Nila the snake-deity to start the Naga cult for his descendants). When they did not push that they promoted the theory of Aryan origin, partly because the Pandit scholars were fascinated with elevating their own Brahminical status to compensate for the disrepute brought about by their associations with Muslims. (see pages 9-11 of Henny Sender's 1981 thesis "The Kashmiri Brahmins (Pandits) up to 1930: Cultural Change in the Cities of North India"). :So in that case the incompetency of the Pandit scholars leaves us only with the genetic studies for any religious-interest free information (if we want an Origins section at all). These scientific studies indicate a complex genetic ancestry. Ironically you quote the Downie et al study (while refusing to entertain it in full!) to substantiate Snedden's solid point that the ethnic Kashmiris have absorbed ancestry from many places. :You may also find it interesting that Kashmir Valley was traditionally a “shatter zone”, which people moved through in peace and wartime. The Valley was a refuge area for people, linking Central Asia and Iran. Thats what Snedden is pointing out. :I accept your point that the study's research on Greek/Israelite ancestry was self-admittedly incomplete. We can include that. But the remaining conclusions are pretty much in line with the only previous genetic study of Kashmiris, which while similarly inconclusive on the Jewish point, found the Kashmiris to be pretty similar with the ethnic groups in Pakistan. Dilpa kaur (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is an even better proposal: Dilpa kaur (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The archaeologists' Nagas
One of the objections raised above was that there was no archaeological evidence of Nagas. But the archaeologist Jonathan Mark Kenoyer is quite happy to accept the legends of Nagas:

The archaeological/geological facts seem to be the following:



Not true. The Kennoyer source calls Nagas a legend. Legend, according to the Oxford Dictionary, means "a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but not authenticated." There's no mention in the source of any archaeological evidence supporting the, existence of a people called Nagas, contrary to your claim that "archaeologists are happily accepting Nagas." Your second quote is from an earlier page and it does not even say there is any archaeological evidence for the Naga inhabitants. That quote is actually about Kashmir's geological origin and prehistoric (presumably hunter-gatherer) inhabitants. It doesn't say the 400,000 years old people were Nagas. This is what the source text actually says when it comes to the Nagas: "According to the Nilamata Purana, Kashmir was first settled by people who were called 'Nagas'. They lived around the springs that fed Satisaras, the Sea of the Goddess (an ancient lake in the valley of modern Kashmir). Unfortunately for the Nagas, the evil demon Jalodbhava and is black-hearted henchmen...(Then it goes on to summarise what the mythology is)". The source is not saying Nagas existed. Its just describing the mythology and attributing it to the Nilamata Purana, without stamping it as fact. As in the rest of the sources, the Nagas are only referred to as a part of the fable Nilamata Purana, not as fact. Finally the source text ends with this "What are we to make of this story? Who could have composed it? And how could they have possibly known about the prehistoric history of the region. That is an unanswered question, the kind of puzzle that scholars hope to be able to solve one day." Kennoyer says the scholars are still to figure out what to make of this story. So this source is not supporting the existence of a social group called Nagas. FreeKashmiri (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I said "Kenoyer is quite happy to accept the legends of Nagas". I think Duh! would be an appropriate response. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Architects' Nagas
This is from

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent Reverts
Hi User:Joshua Jonathan, thanks for your desire to improve the article on Kashmiris. I noticed that you restored a source published by "Cambridge Scholars Publishing", whose reliability was questioned at WP:RSN. I replaced information cited to that reference with a more reliable one. Would you mind explaining why you wish to retain the former? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * apologies for the messy editing. This issue has been discussesd before extensively; see Talk:Kashmiris/Archive 2. I wrote a propsal, which also treated the Nagas and Pisachas, placing them in context. The sentence you added,


 * seems to be too simple in that respect. Your source also says that the accpounts about Nagas and Pischachas are largely legendary; if you quote Shali, you'll have to quote that part too. I'd still prefer my extended proposal, but alas, any serious change to the Origins-sections seems to be impossible... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I actually agree with your edit attributing the statement with respect to Nagas and Pisachas. My main contention was your restoration of content sourced to a single book by "Cambridge Scholars Publishing". What are your thoughts on that? I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 07:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I have no particular thoughts on CSP. Most sources on this tpic are questionable, so the best approach seems to be to balance all of them, with attribution and proper quotes. Otherwise, they'll be merely used for pov-pushing. But the status-quo on this section makes it impossible to do this... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * In my edit, you will have noted that I removed the content sourced to "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" per this discussion. The original revision that I supplanted it with is buttressed by ABC-CLIO, an academic press; there are scholarly sources on this topic available and we should use them, I think. I hope this helps. Respectfully, AnupamTalk 08:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * what do you think? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Talk page archives also show that there has been no agreed version for the section since it has been always disputed. I also agree that everything is disputed here and some of the mentioned hypothesis (Jewish and Middle Eastern origins) are completely rejected by every single scholar. You had removed the entire section for this very same reason.  I would support blanking that section entirely as alternative. Shashank5988 (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it is fine to get rid of the #Origins section. It is all mythology, either old mythology or new mythology.

Personally, I find Parpola's strong two-wave model of Indo-Aryan migrations as the most satisfying model in explaining all the observed facts. According to it, a first group of Indo-Aryans migrated to the subcontinent as early as 2000 BCE, probably coming through the Hindu Kush mountains, and a second wave of Rigvedic Indo-Aryans came around 1500 BCE via Arachosia. The second wave people probably called the first wave people by names such as "Nagas" and "Pishachas" due to their distinctive customs. But over time, these distinctions disappeared. I don't think the history of Kashmir would have been much different from that of the neighbouring Gandhara. The Buddhist sources club the two together as Gandhara–Kashmira. No special "Origins" need to be proposed for the Kashmiris. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Who were those first Indo-Aryans? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to removing the section as the current version is largely sourced to a reference that fails WP:RS. Thanks, AnupamTalk 06:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Copy-vios?...
could you take a look at this? It seems to me that this editor does not understand what a copy-vio is. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  11:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * is well aware that adding lengthy quotes is considered a copyright violation, per WP:COPYQUOTE. This situation is not acceptable for the legal safety of Wikipedia.Dilpa kaur (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to admit, I see your point in this particular case. Nevertheless, I suggest you discuss such matters with experienced editors before jumping to conclusions. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)