Talk:Shah Mir dynasty

[Untitled]
Article merged: See old talk-page here

Merger proposal
It appears that the articles Sayyid Dynasty and Shah Miri dynasty refer to the same dynasty. Both articles refer to a dynasty which ruled Kashmir from 1339 to 1561 and was founded by Shah Mir.

"Sayyid Dynasty" seems to be the most commonly used name. There is an Encyclopedia Britannica article under the name Sayyid dynasty. The existing Shah Miri dynasty article has about 10 links to it and the Sayyid Dynasty article has about 74 links. Google searches for "Shah Miri dynasty" -wikipedia amd "Sayyid Dynasty" -wikipedia are roughly equal. Google Scholar, gives a slight advantage to "Sayyid Dynasty". Google Books gives a solid advantage to "Sayyid Dynasty".

I propose that Shah Miri dynasty be merged into Sayyid Dynasty, and that Shah Miri dynasty be changed to a redirect to Sayyid Dynasty.

I will place notices on the talk pages of the main recent contributors to both articles. After a week or so, I would be happy to complete the merge if that is what the consensus decides. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Seeing no objections, I will perform the merge. SchreiberBike (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shah Mir dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120811170123/http://www.kashmir-information.com/Baharistan/index.html to http://www.kashmir-information.com/baharistan/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Tell us about SAQIB SARWAR MIR
Saqib Sarwar mir ,he is from a village in district Kupwara (Darpora lolab). He is pursuing a BA from GDC Sogam. He once told that "Alhumdullilah, I'm muslim and this is the biggest gift Allah has given me i.e Emaan .He wants to become a full time preacher of Islam and also a Philanthropist .He is from Science background ,the reason to shift to humanities was one & only to crack civil service examination (UPSC) . He is bright , Genius and remains topper also .He wants to be a Religious scholar and is influenced by  some famous personalities like Abu ala mohdudi rh, Dr Israr , Dr Zakir Naik.        Huge love and respect for this Human being ❣️ 117.98.100.51 (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What does he have to do with Shah Mir dynasty? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Speculative statement
@Someguywhosbored No, wink mentions that he was "probably" an Afghan or Qaruna Turk from Swat, not just "Afghan". Then he states that he may have been even a Tibetan, another completely different origin. Perhaps your concern is about Afghan mention, then you should find a better source. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Again I don’t see how this warrants removal of sourced information. Wink states that he was most probably a Turk or an Afghan. Tibetan origin is a possibility but it’s not the most probable theory according to Wink, the other two options are far more likely. More importantly, why would this warrant removal? Evidently, there is much speculation as to the origin of shah mir. Much of it is written on the article.
 * “ Historian A. Q. Rafiqi states that some Persian chronicles of Kashmir describe Shah Mir as a descendant of the rulers of Swat. He thinks it more likely that he was a descendant of Turkish or Persian immigrants to Swat, who had intermarried with local indigenous peoples. It has also been suggested that he belonged to a family which accompanied the sage Mir Sayyid Ali Hamadaniand were associated to the Kubrawiya, a Sufi group in Kashmir”
 * should this be removed too? Doesn’t that look like there is a lot of speculation as to what the origin of the dynasty is?
 * Again, I don’t see how this warrants removal of information that is clearly sourced. Someguywhosbored (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Islam
The current edition cited in the article is EJ Brill's first Encyclopedia of Islam (1913 – 1936), and is a mere reprint of it in 1970. Thus, it clearly falls under WP:RAJ. I have added reference to second edition, but in my opinion the previous one should be removed as it is now outdated. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Sutyarashi I don't believe WP:RAJ falls under this category. The page itself does not mention Brill or the encyclopedia of Islam, (which is a significant source) and it only appears to apply to sources that refer to the Indian caste system or ethnography. Noorullah (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The first Encyclopedia of Islam relied heavily on British anthropology regarding South Asian topics. Even if we put this issue aside, the updated edition states him to be of Turkish origins instead of Afghan. Citing older version is totally unnecessary, especially for contradictory information. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sutyarashi Sure, you can remove it. Noorullah (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. Sutyarashi (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)