Talk:Kingdom of Kashmir

Page topic
[Link to the newly created page content being discussed]

Could you explain why an article on the ancient Kingdom of Kashmir shouldn't exist ? (and please drop the personal attacks and aspersions). पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * By a consensus of India and Pakistan Wiki Project editors, that history belongs to the Kashmir page where people can keep an eye on POV-prom,otion. You can't make up nonsense, spam it with pictures dumped from the Met and cited to their brilliant webmasters.
 * What personal attacks and aspersions? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Could you point me to the "consensus of India and Pakistan Wiki Project editors" that prohibits creating a page about a specific historical kingdom? I'm afraid it does not make sense to deny the creation of a page about a kingdom simply because there is a page about the history of the region. The content would be quite different, both in scope and level of detail. What "nonsense"? And no, providing relevant images from the Metropolitan Museum of Art is not "spamming" or "dumping" and not "cited to their brilliant webmasters", as their official website only reflects the descriptions and attributions made by the museum itself, and we are fortunate that their beautiful and informative imagery can be used on Wikipedia. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You've mostly cited the stub to a dubious source, a book written by a Sanskritist&mdash;probably a good one, certainly a prolific one&mdash;but not a historian. (See his other works here.)  One of his early works dates to 1916 So we are talking about scholarship and methodology of an earlier era.  That book was published in 1965 by Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar (literally, "Sanskrit Book Store")
 * You've also used the Britannica article on Rajatarangini ca 1148 CE. But that cautions the reader about Kalhana, "He (Kalhana) looked up a variety of epigraphic sources relating to royal eulogies, construction of temples, and land grants; he studied coins, monumental remains, family records, and local traditions. But his traditional conceptual framework, using uncritical assumptions and a belief in the role of the poet as an exponent of moral maxims, makes the idealizing content in his narrative, particularly for the early period, rather dominant."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to add something, please do so at Kashmir and please use the following sources first for establishing WP:DUE and before adding anything very specific. The ancient history section there is in poor shape, so it could bear improvement.
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any proof that the captions in the Met's pictures have been vetted for scholarship or written by scholars? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me suggest politely that I know a great deal more about this than you do. Beyond a certain point, wasting my time and preventing me from making more productive contributions to Wikipedia, is disruptive.  You have already once created a xenophobic song and dance at Talk:India.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your stub has 262 words; the Kashmir has 613 words. No fine print in WP:Summary Style about spinning off new articles considers 613 to constitute a surfeit.  Kashmir, moreover, is covered by ARBCOM's discretionary sanctions.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any proof that the captions in the Met's pictures have been vetted for scholarship or written by scholars? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me suggest politely that I know a great deal more about this than you do. Beyond a certain point, wasting my time and preventing me from making more productive contributions to Wikipedia, is disruptive.  You have already once created a xenophobic song and dance at Talk:India.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your stub has 262 words; the Kashmir has 613 words. No fine print in WP:Summary Style about spinning off new articles considers 613 to constitute a surfeit.  Kashmir, moreover, is covered by ARBCOM's discretionary sanctions.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any proof that the captions in the Met's pictures have been vetted for scholarship or written by scholars? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me suggest politely that I know a great deal more about this than you do. Beyond a certain point, wasting my time and preventing me from making more productive contributions to Wikipedia, is disruptive.  You have already once created a xenophobic song and dance at Talk:India.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your stub has 262 words; the Kashmir has 613 words. No fine print in WP:Summary Style about spinning off new articles considers 613 to constitute a surfeit.  Kashmir, moreover, is covered by ARBCOM's discretionary sanctions.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I am quite aware of the limitations of the Rajatarangini, and I said so in the article. Still, I don't think anybody can talk about the Kingdom of Kashmir and not mention the Rajatarangini in some way. That's not "nonsense".
 * You say "You've mostly cited the stub..." to Banerji: that's totally untrue, as it was only 2 references in the article, we could easily replace them, to which I would agree. You forget to mention the other references: Greene, Roland; Cushman, Stephen; Siudmak, John etc... I was also planning to use, which has quite a bit about the Kingdom of Kashmir of the early period, and a few others. Thank you for the other sources you are providing, I'll see what I can access.
 * I've never seen an editor challenge the photographic material and the identifications given by the official website of a well known museum such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Maybe could enlighten us on the legitimacy of using these? For reminder here is the page cache of the article I had started (before your blanking), with the MET photographs and their captions.
 * You still haven't pointed me to the "consensus of India and Pakistan Wiki Project editors" that supposedly prohibits creating a page about a specific historical kingdom: as far as I know, I am completely abiding by Wikipedia rules in creating this page. There's no way Kashmir can accomodate the amount of factual detail the article Kingdom of Kashmir would deserve.
 * I strongly object to your characterization of "a xenophobic song and dance at Talk:India" when I only have been asking for a proper representation of a modern India, proper representation of the Hindu faith, and relevant imagery (a discussion you have been postponing for months now despite many promisses). Quite ironic for you to make this accusation, given all the things you have been writing about Hindus (I am being kind).
 * I suggest we restart this article (Kingdom of Kashmir) on the right foot, taking into account those of your above comments which are actionable and legitimate. My start is ... just a start. Don't worry, it will be a 30K article in no time. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Not a snowball's chance in hell. Take it to another forum if you like and waste more time. Please read the archives of WT:INDIA, Talk:Kashmir, and the talk pages of Jammu and Kashmir (state), Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) for the consensus.  There is a reason that those latter pages have no history sections ...  This is all the time I have.  I consider your endless argument here to be disruptive.  Please also STOP pinging me repeatedly.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Those pages too like yours attempted POV-forks in their histories and were removed. The latest doozy is Kashmiris. I'm wise to them all.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Pat, F&F, what do you mean by captions? The file metadata is from the Met's catalogue, & any commentary would be written, or at least checked, by Met curators. What is the issue here?  What picture?  Of course these are not infallible, but should certainly be treated as a strong RS. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment Johnbod. The MET pictures in question and their captions are in this article (a start, gallery at the bottom of the page), which has been blanked by Fowler&fowler.  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Pat, you attempting to create the fiction that there was a single Hindu "Kingdom of Kashmir." You are doing so by tinkering with longstanding Wikipedia pages that aver they were separate dynasties: Karkota Empire, Lohara dynasty, and Utpala dynasty in several remarkable edits that I have just reversed:
 * On the page of the medieval chronicle Rajatarangini you have changed "kings of Kashmir" to "Kings of the Kingdom of Kashmir" (reverted here);
 * on the page of Utpala dynasty you have changed, "Hindu kingdom which ruled over the Kashmir region" to "Hindu dynasty of the Kingdom of Kashmir, which ruled over the ancient Kashmir region" (reverted here)
 * On the page of Karkota Empire you have added a picture with caption, "Vaikuntha Vishnu, Kingdom of Kashmir, 775-800 CE" (reverted here),
 * On the page of the Lohara dynasty, you have added the picture of a coin with caption "Coinage of Harsa ("Harshadeva"), Kingdom of Kashmir, 1089-1101 CE" (reverted (reverted here))
 * User:Pat, If you continue this kind of OR, synthesis, not to mention edits that mirror the Hindu nationalist conception of single Hindu states in various locations before the Muslim conquest of upper India, I will move to have you topic banned from India-related history topics. Mind you I am not implying anything about you, let alone making a personal attack; I am only describing your edits.  I will not reply further on this little-watched page, but, User:Pat, if you revert any of my edits, or otherwise engage in edit-warring, I will bring this topic up at WT:INDIA (and advertise concurrently at Talk:India), as a prelude to going to ANI.  Let this serve as a warning.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But there was only a single ruler of Kashmir at a time (no doubt with rather changeable borders), wasn't there? The ones from the Met do say "Kingdom of Kashmir" in the metadata. We keep talking about China or England/Britain etc through the various changes of dynasty. Kashmir or the Kashmir Valley anyway, is relatively well-defined by geographical factors, & it is not surprising if it has been a rather more permanent territory, when a really big empire was absent, than most of India. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Met's caption "ancient kingdom of Kashmir" is the handiwork of some clueless webpage writer. I see nothing beyond those four words in 80 picture captions.
 * As for "ancient," Ancient India, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere ends after the Guptas (550 CE) or at the very latest after Harsha (7th century CE), but the Met's captions stretch ancient from the 5th century to the 13th century and every century between. The Met also has a semi-scholarly timeline in which The Kingdom is described more honestly as: Independent Kashmiri kingdoms, 6th–14th century
 * User:Pat's Kingdom of Kashmir mysteriously ends after the Hindus got creamed. The Muslims who ruled Kashmir from the 13th to the 16th century were hemmed in by the same Himalayas and Pir Panjals. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * PS By "Hindus" I mean "Hindu rulers." The Muslim dynasty probably did not leave any artifacts for the Met to mislabel, but they did change the hearts and minds of the people of Kashmir; the valley thereafter became 95% Muslim. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Fowler&fowler: I had the intent of continuing the list of rulers and describing their accomplishments until the last ruler of the Kingdom of Kashmir (including the Muslim Shah Mir dynasty), down to the annexation to the Mughal Empire, but you blanked the page before I could even get there. Note that I had already written "After 1339, the Kingdom of Kashmir was taken over by the Muslim Shah Mir dynasty.", so there's no denying their role. It's not an issue about pre-Islam or post-Islam or whatever (I, for one, have no interest in this sort of partisanship). It's only about describing the period during which Kashmir functionned as a more or less independent entity. Actually there is a lot of visual material from the Muslim period too, especially in the area of architecture (see Shah Mir dynasty article). To Johnbod's point, it's very strange to have articles about the various dynasties, and nothing about the actual kingdom they ruled, including their art, their diplomatic relations with China and Tibet, the way they resisted to the Muslim invasion but then embraced Islam (as did Sūhadeva (1301-1323 CE) apparently) etc... I suggest you let the article run its course, participate to the editorial process as anyone can, and even do a regular WP:AFD at the end if you judge the article really should not exist. May I say you are not allowed to block an article like this in contravention of Wikipedia editorial rules.
 * To Administrators: I started this new page about the ancient Kingdom of Kashmir. But User:Fowler&fowler blanked it a few hours later, and reset to a redirect to the more general History of Kashmir. Looking at the argument above, this blanking seems largely unwarranted and vexatory in nature, for reason that are beyond me (Fowler&fowler seems to perceive me as a "Hindu enemy" or whatever). Please see the supporting comments by User:Johnbod above. The discussion seems to be going nowhere ("Not a snowball's chance in hell" per Fowler&fowler), effectively blocking the normal editorial process. I trust that it doesn't make sense to deny the creation of a page about a specific ancient kingdom simply because there is a page about the general history of the much larger Kashmir region. I am only asking you to uphold my right to create and develop an article on an ancient kingdom, subject of course to the usual scrutiny of fellows editors, including a regular WP:AFD later if necessary (rather than arbitrary mass blanking upfront), and to please restore the page content  so that I can develop it without being accused of Edit Warring. PS: I am considering developing this article under the new title Ancient Kingdom of Kashmir, to avoid ambiguities as much as possible, and it will cover the political entity centered on the Kashmir Valley (much smaller than "modern" Kashmir), during the period from the 6th to the 16th century CE.  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - How is "Kingdom of Kashmir" different from Kashmir? Why is this new branding as a "Kingdom" necessary? Where are the sources that establish it as a topic, i.e., establish WP:GNG? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the proposed article, still to be developed. Kashmir is a geographical region, not a political entity, which, moreover designates a much larger region that the historical Kashmir Valley in which the Kings of Kashmir were based. I also plan to use (among others):
 * the extensive description of the early "Kashmiri kingdom" in
 * the details about the Kings of Kashmir in
 * the description of the "Kingdom of Kashmir" under the Muslims in
 * Historian Manohar Lal Kapur wrote the book "Kingdom of Kashmir: Political & Cultural History of Kashmir from the Earliest Times to 1586 A.D.", which is interesting for its title and its scope, but I don't have access to its content:
 * पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am afraid none of these sources do what you claim, viz., establish "Kingdom of Kashmir" as a separate topic from "Kashmir". Manohar Lal Kapur is in fact identifying the two. So we have to treat it as a subtopic of the History of Kashmir. But, if it is a subtopic, then its scope is not clear. Witzel says for example that there was a Kashmiri kingdom in ancient times and then it got "reestablished" after the end of the Kushan Empire. Your write-up never talked about this discontinuity anyway. It seems that your write-up is just a hook to hang some pictures on, not a real topic.
 * Speaking in plain terms, it is perfectly common to have a page on "History of X" when "X" is a well-defined area at the present time. It is also normal to have pages on specific dynasties. To do something in-between, there needs to be a sufficiently strong reason to do so. I am afraid I don't see it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * These sources do establish clearly the entity known as "Kingdom of Kashmir" or "Kashmiri Kingdom", that's what counts here. If historian Manohar Lal Kapur can write a whole book about the "Kingdom of Kashmir" and Witzel describe its detailed timeline, then there no reason why we cannot write an article about it too. We have countless articles about ancient kingdoms on Wikipedia, there's no reason why this should be an exception. Such articles are different in nature, scope and content from articles about geographical regions, dynasties or regional histories, and they are complementary: nobody blanks "Akkadian Empire" simply because there is an article on "History of Mesopotamia", or "Kingdom of England" for the reason that there is "History of England". Now, regarding content... if, in your opinion, what you are seeing looks like a "hook to hang some pictures on", it is only because this article is a start, and Fowler&fowler blanked it barely 8 hours after I initiated it. Much more is to be added if we want to be exhaustive. Nowhere has the amazing art, coinage or architecture of the Kingdom of Kashmir been properly covered on Wikipedia, that's a shame, and this article can remedy it. Just let the normal editorial process move forward, let the content creators do their job, and once this is done, you can freely challenge the final result with an WP:AFD or WP:RfC if you think the article is inappropriate or redundant, not the other way around. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not blank it. I removed a POV fork in the history of a disputed region.  You are not the first.  There have been dozens before you.  Take it to Jimbo Wales if you must.  That page will be created over my metaphoric dead body.  I have contributed enough to India-related topics and their history to know what is garbage. Again, read the Law of holes.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course you blanked it, whereas the proper way would be to let the contributor make his case, amend the article as necessary, challenge the sources, and possibly go on with WP:AFD or WP:RfC. I should also say that threatening postures are irrelevant and ineffective, rather counter-productive, and quite unworthy of an educated mind. Just give me a proper, academic, reason why an article about this otherwise well-documented subject should not exist. If you can show me a few reliables sources that explain that there never was a Kingdom of Kashmir, I would be much more open to your arguments. Nothing else stands on Wikipedia. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, you create the garbage in one fell swoop and I have to run around in law-abiding circles for evermore. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Or take it to ARBCOM which has instituted discretionary sanctions on Kashmir-related issues. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's only the way it works on Wikipedia. I have already provided multiple sources etc... to make my case about the Kingdom of Kashmir. If you don't have academic sources to back up your claims that "there never was a Kingdom of Kashmir", then your claims are unfortunately worthless. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When your work needs improvement, not deletion, I am perfectly capable of judging so and improving so. See the changes wrought painstakingly in the lead of Brahmi script in the last few hours.  See also the sources I have used at Talk:Brahmi script and compare them with the previous citations.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will take this as a veiled compliment of my work on Brahmi script... encouraging. But it's impossible to understand your compulsive rejection of the beginning of my (referenced, and yet to be more referenced) work on the Kingdom of Kashmir, especially when you are not providing a single academic source to your constantly reinterated claim that "there never was a Kingdom of Kashmir". Surely we can find some common ground here, such as collaborative editing, or possibly simply balancing the argument: if you do have sources claiming that a Kingdom of Kashmir never existed, we could of course mention it. If the plural "Kingdoms of Kashmir" is more acceptable to you, as you seem to imply higher up, I would be ready to go along with that, but I cannot find reliable sources corroborating such a title at this point. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't start digging an Ancient kingdom of Kashmir. Its most illustrious of Karkotan goldern-ager, Lalitaditya, finds his one foot (a) squarely in India's early medieval period, and the other (b) squarely in the northwestern marches of India's Middle kingdoms, both ancient only as WP pages. Perhaps you can call it: Early-medieval Hindu chiefdoms and kingdoms of the Kashmir valley as conceived in a late-medieval history.  Be warned it might be redirected to Rajatarangini   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * F&F, please; your points are well made, your language runs the risk of undoing your own good work. पाटलिपुत्र; as far as I can see, your sources aren't substantiating your points. To reiterate, you need to show that there was a kingdom in Kashmir with a larger history than that of any individual dynasty, but with a coherant history shorter than the history of Kashmir the region. This cannot be done with throwaway references to the "Kingdom of Kashmir"; the ones I've seen so far are not obviously different from shorthand references to a specific kingdom in that region. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this rational, balanced, and persuasive language. I only have a marginal interest in the Kingdoms of Kashmir (I've never really edited in this specific geographical area), I just felt weird that there is nothing specific on the Kingdom or Kingdoms of Kashmir in Wikipedia, whereas the expression "Kingdom of Kashmir" appears quite often in the literature, in artistic circles etc.... as shown above. Even the target for the "Kingdom of Kashmir" redirect never really mentions the Kingdom or Kingdoms of Kashmir at all, which is a bit surprising, as if there was some kind of suppression effort going on. There would be many kings, but no kingdom worth mentioning? How can that be? As a matter of fact, nothing really covers the very important artistic production or coinage of the Kingdoms of Kashmir on Wikipedia, which I believe is a huge gap for an encyclopedia. By the way, I wouldn't quite characterize these kingdoms as "Hindu", as they were evidently also very Buddhist, perhaps mostly at the beginning, and also very Muslim, towards the end. I'll keep my eyes open for more literature.  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)