Talk:Somnath temple

Mythology section
I don't understand the controversy in the Mythology section. What are the two views that are being distinguished? What does "Somnath may have been linked to this Prabhasa Pattana through mythology in some later century" mean? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Mythology is the section where it should be displayed about the story which is attached to Somnath Temple of that of how Hindu believe. Historical finding and literature about the historians must be placed or written in history section. So I believe it should be changed accordingly. -- Curious man123 (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * In Hinduism, the site (kshetra) is as important as the temple itself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It is important as much as temple but the mythology section need more information about the story which is attached to it which is missing and then the views about historian should be placed to give more meaning to the Mythology section. Curious man123 (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thapar
Thapar is among the pre-eminent historians of ancient India and her magisterial work on Somnatha has not only been subject to rave reviews (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.) but also has been cited over 200 times by other scholars. It is ridiculous to demand that her views be attributed without providing reputed scholars who have dissented to the observations under question that might necessitate such an approach. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Demanding is not about the removing of any sentence but rather no other pre eminent historian, that Romila Thapar is without any doubt, has give any solid support to the views on the book. The source you mentioned is definitely a review but it not reviewed by any prominent historian. So the views about that statement should to attached to specific historian rather than generalizing it. Curious man123 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you cannot write coherent English, please find another wiki (or less complex space) to work in. It is your claim that Shahid Amin, Kesavan Veluthat, Munis D. Faruqui et al are not "prominent historians"? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw, you are past the 3RR mark. Please self-revert. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess this is not personal debate on me, and name one more Historian of having another ideology( other than Marxist that you have mentioned) that had backed the claim and as far as my English is concern, it is nothing to do with any thin that it's still no with anything related to this. Curious man123 (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot understand everything of what you wrote but is it your claim that Thapar is a Marxist historian? Even if she were one, that won't have been a disqualifier but to quote from Santhosh Suradkar, Romila Thapar: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue:,
 * Without going into tangents, I request of you to present a comparably reliable source that actually disputes [Thapar]. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Re your revert here - I don't doubt Thapar's credentials. However, that claim by its very nature is just that - a claim. There can never be complete proof that all ancient Sanskrit texts (including those that haven't survived the ages) don't mention Somnath temple. Thapar has not found any mention in the texts she has reviewed for her scholarship. I do not see why attribution is controversial here or needs a scholarly counter-claim? Webberbrad007 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Somebody gave this example: "According to The New York Times, Joseph Biden was elected President." We don't attribute factual statements. What you are asking for sounds just as silly to somebody that is knowledgeable in history. It is not Wikipedia's job to doubt prominent scholars and start disputing whether they have done thorough research or not. Views are attributed; factual statements are not. Unless there are contrary views expressed by RS, it should not be attributed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You haven't read what I have written above and are instead trying to Strawman my argument.
 * There is a difference between "Biden was elected President" and "All ancient Sanskrit texts do not mention Somnath Temple". The latter can never be proven with 100% certainty given the potential loss of texts over the ages. Webberbrad007 (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not our job to decide onn such certainties. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. But it is our job to attribute it to the scholar when there isn't 100% certainty of a statement. Webberbrad007 (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. WP:YESPOV states:
 * Nothing more needs to be added. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How is this a fact?
 * What could be stated as a fact is that the texts Thapar reviewed did not contain such a reference. But to claim that there are no Sanskrit texts (now or those from antiquity which didn't survive) that included such a reference is to also claim that Sanskrit texts that Thapar hasn't reviewed have never existed.
 * I disagree and it appears that we are at an impasse. I am happy to invite uninvolved editors to opine. Webberbrad007 (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What you have posted includes
 * which fits the bill here. Webberbrad007 (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Two scholars writing in a journal by Tata Institute of Social Sciences express shock over the claims by Thapar, though they acknowledge her study was balanced.
 * Webberbrad007 (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here, shock is a synonym for surprise and they cast no judgement. Indeed, academic monographs often challenge commonly held misconceptions etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if they don't cast any judgement, their shock (whichever meaning of the word you choose to use) and their view that this is a claim by Thapar and not a fact is clearly stated.
 * Is it your contention that Thapar has reviewed all ancient Sanskrit texts that have ever existed to arrive at this claim? I doubt any scholar would claim such a thing, least of all an eminent scholar like Thapar. Webberbrad007 (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the dubious "well known fact that the Somnath temple was attacked all of 17 times by the Mahmud of Ghazni". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the dubious "well known fact that the Somnath temple was attacked all of 17 times by the Mahmud of Ghazni". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Unwarranted edits
, please explain what you believe was "speculative synthesis and source misrepresentation" when you removed sourced content here. Webberbrad007 (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you read the source and the content, you will see there is no connection between the two. Neither is it clear what the content is even saying. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Creator of the present structure (infobox)
, you an  which was itself a revert of an  by an IP user 5 months ago. With your revert, you left the note Reverting an unsourced edit. However, as I noted, my change was itself a revert of an unsourced edit, and the previous version (that I restored) is sourced in the body (see the last two sentences of the lead). If you can back up your apparently preferred version, which attributes the present structure to an ambiguous, amorphous, and unnamed body of Hindus, with a reliable source, please provide it here; otherwise, do us a favor and self-revert. Thanks. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I see you've changed it to The Somnath Trust; this is consistent with Thapar (2004) so I'm ok with this, though the body of the article might need some revision on this point. Brusquedandelion (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)