Talk:Somnath temple/Archive 1

"occupation" vs "control"
A user by the name TEK has reverted my efforts to make the article seem as neutral as possible; and free from any POVs. I believe that the article should state control instead of occupation, since it makes the efforts by the Indian Govt. to liberate the area seem illegal. The overwhelming majority of people in Junagadh reject any claim that the region is anything other, and has been anything than an integral district of India. Would anyone else believe otherwise? --92.20.213.74 (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is one of those India-Pakistan debates that would last till the end of time if it didn't exhaust everyone. NPOV is something I agree with always, but your words above ("makes the efforts by the Indian Govt. to liberate the area seem illegal") express one POV on the issue. A different POV would say that the Junagadh issue shows selective application of rules by India - i.e. supporting the ruler of Kashmir against the "general population" of the state and conversely supporting the "general population" of Junagadh against the ruler of the state. We need to present both sides of the argument and the word "control" does not seem appropriate here. Instead I would recommend "stabilisation" followed by a few words to say that this was seen as an occupation by the Pakistani side. Green Giant (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Prabhas Patan
I'm proposing a merge since these two articles seem to refer to the same thing. Clifflandis (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Somnath refers to the temple, Prabhas to the place.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Somanth is a small town in Junagadh district. It does not refer to the temple but to the town or to the Jyotirlinga in the temple. Prabhas Patan is often referred as Balukha (Balkha) tirth. I think a separate article named Somnath temple has to be created and the present article should give info about the town. -- WorLD8115  ( TalK )   16:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Somanth refers to the temple, where as Prabhas Patan is the place in which it is located. Yessrao| Sushanth 11:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessrao (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose: I propose this page may be developed as Indus Valley Civilisation site, instead of merging with Somanath page.Rayabhari (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Asaru-L- Bilad quote
MY EDIT
 * (cur | prev) 21:26, 28 February 2014‎ Clapkidaq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,407 bytes) (+2,107)‎ . . (rv unexplained deletion by pov warrior see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.wikipedia/u4dJIwvCQc4) (undo)

was reverted because of reason it is not reliable source. BUT Asaru-L- Bilad is a reliable historian as is Elliot, from whom the citation comes.

I let others decide if this quote is noteworthy for this article. THANS<.--Clapkidaq (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
You seem to have recently added a huge amount of material without any sources and a single edit summary. Can you please added sources for your content? Otherwise, I am minded to delete it all. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, . This addition is based on my own experience of journey to this place. If you can see I have merely rearranged infromation already avaialble on page in mythology section by creating a new section on Bhalka Tirth. So, I don't think this needs to be deleted. I have also added a new section on connectivity of this place. This one is based on experience and I'm constrained at this time to add references. If you can help in it, most welcome. This can be cross checked from Gujrat Tourism's site. If you wish I should do it, I request you to please wait till Sunday. Other than these I have worked only on formatting,spellings & resizing & refitting photos only. I have also corrected few titles by removing Hindi from titles & placing them in main text. Regards.--Manoj Khurana (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, - Added reference in railway section. Will try to add more by Sunday. I'm also planning to create a new page for Bhalka and keep only brief information about that on Somnath page.--Manoj Khurana (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Whenever you do rearranging, you should state that in the edit summary, because rearrangement confuses difference-tracking. I see a new paragraph on Lord Krishna, which is the main thing that needs a source. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi,. I have added the references and also rearranged/cleaned up a little. Please consider removing the tags. Thanks.--Manoj Khurana (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Manoj, thanks for adding references. However, my tags were really meant for the content that was already present, a lot of which is still unsourced. The tags are helpful to invite editors who can fix things as well as to ward off editors who might think of adding more unsourced material. If you can help more, please do so by all means. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Somnath to the Antarctic?
I have added a citation request for a small unsourced paragraph in the "Architecture" section which states: The temple is situated at such a place that there is no land in straight-line between Somnath seashore till Antarctica, such an inscription in Sanskrit is found on the Arrow-Pillar called Baan-Stambh erected on the sea-protection wall at the Somnath Temple. This Baan-Stambh mentions that it stands at a point on the Indian landmass, which happens to be the first point on land in the north to the south-pole on that particular longitude. From somnath.org, I note there is a paragraph stating: The Kalash at the top of the Shikhar weighs 10 tons and the Dhwajdand is 27 feet tall and 1 foot in circumference. The Abadhit Samudra Marg, Tirsthambh (Arrow) indicates the unobstructed sea route to the South Pole. The nearest land towards South Pole is about 9936 km. away. This is a wonderful indicator of the ancient Indian wisdom of geography and strategic location of the Jyotirling. The temple renovated by Maharani Ahalyabai is adjacent to the main temple complex. This is probably the source of the Wikipedia paragraph, but since it is a pretty significant claim and "somnath.org" cannot be regarded as being neutral on such a matter (especially given the sentences about "Indian wisdom"), I think it would be better to have this verified by a reliable source. Green Giant (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Although it might verge on original research, I tested the veracity of the claim by drawing a line directly from Somnath to the South Pole on Google Earth, and found that the Kerguelen island of Grande Terre lies on that line. If it was a tiny outcrop of rock, I might have been convinced but Grande Terre covers 6675 km2. In order to fulfill the claim, the temple would need to be located either some 24km to the southeast (a place called Muldwarka) or some 300km to the northwest in the district of Kutch. I have therefore removed the paragraph until such time as there is a reliable third-party source. Green Giant (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you perhaps considered that closer to the south pole the land mass shift over the years and the south pole itself shifts 10km every year? So given that the Somnath Temple was originaly constructed way before the 1st Century, then Kerguelen Islands would not have been in the straight line from Somnath to South Pole! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.89.131.67 (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

edit warring by IP editor
An IP editor is edit warring to remove sourced content. He began with removing portions of a direct quote with misleading edit summaries. When i reverted and added more reliable references, he is now removing the entire quote because he doesn't like it. He is even claiming google books should not be used as a source!. The source i am using is Sir Henry Miers Elliot's The history of India, as told by its own historians: the Muhammadan period; which is one of the most authoritative compilations of original accounts of Islamic historians of India.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced gates content
You have reinstated unsourced content removed by an IP user. According to WP:BURDEN, it is now your responsibility to supply the RS supporting the content. Can you do so please? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have added refs directly in the article. Please check it out. And if you can not read due to Snippet view in the Google books, search Mahadaji Shinde somnath ujjain in Google Books as this shows more text than snippets. :) Regards,--Nizil (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. None of these is a reliable source for history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? I can not understand. I ref I cited are books and the text of original proclamation. --Nizil (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you are talking about the second paragraph. The current dispute is about the first paragraph, which you have reinstated after deletion. You then cited a tourism book and a pilgrimage book, which are not reliable sources for history. If these are the best sources you could find, the paragraph has to go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Timings
There are timings added in the lead of article. I have not removed them yet but I think they do not belong here as Wikipedia is encyclopedia and such timings belong to Wikivoyage. Should I removed them?--Nizil (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the clean-up. I think it is best not to mention that K. M. Munshi was a Cabinet minister, because there is some ambiguity as to whether he was wearing that hat in doing the temple work. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Timings are moved to Wikivoyage/Veraval article.-Nizil (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Images

 * Historic Images of Somnath British Library --Ekabhishek (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

in the earlier version there used to be a painting of soldiers with javelins inside the temple and amazed at the installation of idol which was hanging in air. Made of loadstone it was uniquely placed by magnetic effects between the canopy  and floor magnetic effects. That was how the temple was famous. Pl reinstate the original version of the article. there is much deletion of info from this 89.211.163.48 (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Gems of Sree Somnath Temple
From Leisure Hours Among the Gems by Augustus Choate Hamlim (1884)

"The famous Hindoo Temple of Sumnat(Somnath) was, in the days of its perfection, one of the most renowned of all the shrines of India, and must have been a structure of wonderful richness, when it's 56 pillars, incrusted and inlaid with multitudes of precious stones, sparkled in the morning light. Even at the present day its ruins, though despoiled of their ornaments, are very beautiful and impressive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.83.162 (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations
Parts of the article look like copies from some of the listed websites. Of course, the Wikipedia article may be what was copied. Robin Patterson (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Somnath temple ೨.jpg

Destruction of Somanatha
Hi, this is regarding recent discussion with  and   In view of ongoing discussion regarding the topic in above mentioned talk pages, I have rephrased my edit as following: The purpose of the raid could have been political, economic in nature of which undoubtedly iconoclasm was also one of the motivation. However, there is another apocryphal narrative from a contemporary chronicler Farrukhi Sistani, who established connection to an idol of "Manāt" from Ka‘ba with Somanatha, which said "Somanatha or Somnāt (as it was often rendered in Persian) was a garbled version of su-manāt — referring to the goddess Manāt.'''
 * Please take time to review the above proposed edit. Thanks. Santoshdts (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please add that Thapar quote which I had proposed. -Nizil (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As you rightly said, the story of Manāt is questionable and has no evidence. I have included that as questionable narrative, I think it would be appropriate, if I add However, there is another apocryphal narrative with little or no evidence, from a contemporary chronicler.... As expanding the section with “little or no historical evidence” would not help the encyclopaedia. Your comments please. Thanks.
 * OK, go ahead. Please do not forget to sign your comment. -Nizil (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry, I missed to sign my last comment and glad to see we arrived at consensus. Thanks.Santoshdts (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Romila Thapar:

I propose no changes be made to this normally sleepy article while everybody is busy dealing with COVID-19. is not engaged in summarising what the reliable sources say, but rather to say what he wants to see while making little concessions to reliable sources. To truly summarise the reliable sources, he needs to focus on the phrases I highlighted above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Iam trying to edit this sleepy article as I find it bit incomplete in that particular section. It just mentions Mahmud came, raided plundered and took away some million dinars. I just wanted to add the Motive for doing so, as available in RS. The extract you have quoted is been discussed in almost all the works of modern Historians. And the last sentence from your quote says "some taking it seriously, others being less emphatic and insisting instead that the icon was of a Hindu deity.", Iam not taking any side in this discussion and, I have summarized the same in my second sentence However, there is another apocryphal narrative with little or no evidence, from a contemporary chronicler. however if you still feel the second part of my edit reffering to manat is inappropriate, I am willing remove it and keep the first sentence as it is, which deals with his assessment of iconoclasm, Irrespective of the idol being of Hindu or Pre-Islamic Arab deity Manat. Thanks Santoshdts (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Review and cleanup
The current article is an odd state, given its importance and sensitive controversies surrounding it. In the current version:
 * there is a big section on history. Ok, that is indeed important and needs NPOV, WP:HISTRS and mainstream scholarship.
 * the rest of the article is weak, hardly anything about the temple. It has a significant WP:Coatrack section about some gate in Afghanistan (a note would suffice here), something about South pole cited to OR on google maps, and such.
 * some other parts are cited to non-WP:HISTRS, non-WP:RS sources.
 * there is little about the Somnath temple, its architecture, what does one see outside and inside (mandapa, artwork), its relationship to Hindu traditions, its significance and notability, what else is in / near this complex and how is it related / notable, and other aspects.

I will try to address some of this, add in the missing parts (such as the floor plan image) based on scholarly literature, do some clean up, may be move subsections into more relevant articles, summarize much more peer reviewed scholarship. I welcome collaborative suggestions and comments. Or perhaps, someone can do the clean up and expansion, save me the effort.
 * – Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For someone attempting to introduce NPOV, asserting the "seventeen plunder campaigns" as an undisputed fact? Shall I cite some more examples or sources, that you missed?
 * P.S.: I suggest that you engage me at the talk page rather than try to edit-war and remove the tag with patronizing rhetoric. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I suggest that you engage me at the talk page rather than try to edit-war and remove the tag with patronizing rhetoric. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

KM Munshi's last laugh The first mass-revert
I haven't read Munshi's book. But if somebody had read it and wrote a Wikipedia section on it, I expect it would look like like this. There is no authentic history book anywhere which has a narrative with titles like "First destruction", "Second destruction" and so on. So, how is it possible for Wikipedia to have it? The secion says:

No. This article of Van Der Veer does not give any historical version. Van der Veer is not even a historian. He is a Hindutva scholar and he is describing the Hindutva POV on Somnath. See his footnote 9. In addition to Munshi himself, he is also covering ASI, whose version of "history" was already Hindu nationalist in 1947. And he also explains why:

I don't see where the ASI has even proved that the site of the current temple is the same as that of the "original" temple, whose location is known with pretty good accuracy from Al-Biruni.

But where is the evidence that the original temple was even destroyed? The original version of the page said:

This has been replaced with a huge section called First destruction, without any authentic source describing such destruction at all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You are badly mistaken here.
 * Have you read Romila Thapar's book on Somanatha? carefully? She does go through these destructions in sequence. Yes, she does not break her discussion into sections titled "First, Second...." She prefers to cover them in separate paragraphs over many pages. That is more a question of style, not substance.
 * Romila Thapar's book on Somnath temple also has many pages on inscriptions, and if she considers the many named inscriptions relevant... so should we. I am puzzled by your wholesale deletion there along with all the scholarly sources. Your edit comment makes no sense. Perhaps you can explain better, why Romila Thapar and others are wrong in including and discussing inscriptions in the context of Somnath temple. It is highly relevant and due, given what and how scholarly sources include these inscriptions.
 * You admit "I haven't read Munshi's book," yet you have jumped to a conclusion that is very unlike the care I have long respected you for. Your conclusion is implied in your unhelpful and loaded title "KM Munshi's last laugh". I urge you to get a copy and read. You will see that the sections I added, neither cited nor included his views in First-Fifth destruction and rebuilding subsections. The only two places I included him are two: one from a scholarly journal paper by Rosa Maria Cimino where she mentions Munshi's view and Dhaky's view – then compares them. Second, in the 1951-rebuilding section... where he was a key political player and was/is mentioned with Patel etc. So, your accusations are strange, to say the least.
 * Have you read ASI report, or the WP:SECONDARY source published by Dhaky and Shastri after ASI's excavations in 1950/1951? I urge you to read it, and you will see that you are wrong again. Thapar presents her viewpoint. But we strive for NPOV that includes all significant sides of mainstream peer reviewed scholarship. Dhaky/Meister edited and wrote the many volumes of Encyclopedia of Indian temple Architecture... which are the most respected sources among scholars for temple history and architecture, and the best quality sources here. Dhaky presents a different view than Romila Thapar. He does explain his reasons why the excavated temple remains were pre-Mahmud (pre 11th century). Dhaky publications are well known, much cited in the matters of "temple" architecture and history, and this is a temple article. For NPOV, we need Thapar view, Dhaky view, and all major views. Please read the other sources I had cited.
 * On Peter van der Veer... his paper is indeed on Somnath, Ayodhya and Hindu nationalists. He is a scholar. His peer reviewed paper includes many pages on Somnath, and on pages 93–94 he, as a scholar, provides a summary, along with citing a para from Thapar (one of the ASI Director General, not Romila Thapar). It is a concise summary, and he uses the word "historical" at several points. He does not say anywhere that this specific summary is the Hindutva summary, nor offers an alternate historical summary. Peter van der Veer's context is indeed how and why the 1951 temple was proposed, justified by Hindu nationalists, and rebuilt. So if you object for good reasons, then we can cite other scholarly sources. The para will remain the same.
 * Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (ps) Kautilya3: since you have emphasized this above... "Historians expect the damage to the temple by Mahmud to have been minimal because there are records of pilgrimages to the temple in 1038, which make no mention of any damage to the temple", let me address this as a postscript. This (your preferred old summary) is a gross misrepresentation of the source, and I am disappointed that you blindly trusted the old version. Thapar is not at all saying or implying "damage was minimal" etc. Thapar is discussing the Narendra inscription of Kadamba king, from 1125 CE, about 100 year after Mahmud's attack. Thapar and other scholars say that the temple was repaired. You removed the inscription summary and scholarly translation.... but if you check the source and read it, you will see that the inscription mentions Somnath in Saurashtra in the passing, and it is not a treatise on Somnath temple or site or such topics (it is prashasti-style inscription, it talks about ships going to Lanka, etc, it is a very long inscription and about something entirely different). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am yet to read the remainder of your reply but Thapar was hardly misrepresented. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, B. H. Thapar's conclusions from the Somnath excavations have been criticized by Ratnagar (2004) and Davies (2011). I need to check them. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Sarah, I found the expanded content extremely distressing, in its size and the whole slant. I think it would be similar to Munshi's narrative, which I haven't read myself, but have read about in secondary sources. I don't intend to read the book either, because it is fiction, not history. I have sampled your content and found it to be lacking in fidelity. I have given examples above.

Yes, the temple was repeatedly destroyed, yet it was also rebuilt each time and stood for a long time in between the destructions, even under Muslim rule. NPOV requires that we pay attention to all aspects equally, and in moderation, in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, because that is what encyclopedias are supposed to do. A Munshi-style narrative will not be acceptable. If you were to use Romila Thapar as the source, there would be little cause for objection. Note that her analysis was much later than Dhaky and Shastri, and she has taken much material from it. And she also possibly discarded much material from it. We need to keep in mind that archaeology is not history. Neither is archaeology a precise science. There is much scope for interpretation. ASI seems to have claimed that the "original" temple was at the same site, but your own source (MS Khan) states that it was at a different site. All ASI material has to be counted as WP:PRIMARY, and can only be used when validated by secondary sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand you are distressed. I am not suprised given what I have sensed about you in our correspondence offline and online over the years. The old version may make you less distressed at a personal level, but personal distress is not the goal of wikipedia. If you look up significant content-related ARBCOM cases, you will see that the initial votes of ARBCOM committee members affirm that wikipedia seeks as its goal... "high quality articles", not articles that cause less or more stress to one set of readers/editors. Wikipedia seeks WP:COMPREHENSIVE articles based on a balance of mainstream peer reviewed scholarship. This is particularly important for difficult topics. And this article is one of those difficult topics.
 * You are right that we summarize. And summary is what I had added (see below), if you go and read sources such as Thapar. For example, Romila Thapar dedicates entire Chapter 4 on Somanatha-related inscriptions. If you read other scholars and scholarly translations of the inscriptions for context along with the commentary on Somnath temple therein, you will see that the Inscription section you inappropriately removed is a short summary – less than 1/20th – of what is in the scholarship. So, summary is what we have... if it "distresses" you, please don't cook up wiki-lawyering allegations "this is not summary" etc. It is a good faith summary. As always, I encourage you to review the sources independently and welcome you to revise each summarized para.
 * On ASI, their 1950-51 excavation was significant and substantial (not exhaustive). The places they dug were over an area at several locations, not very far away. If you read the scholarly sources I cite, you will get more details about the 11th-century Somnath temple and the one they demolished to rebuild in 1950–51. Not only ASI, all non-Indian scholars including one I cited separately agree that the data and report establishes there was a substantial temple that was badly damaged (See the dozens of photos of foundation / ruins / panels found in the Plates in the report). You are welcome to expand/revise the summary after that source.
 * The old version talks of unknown temples from 7th, 8th century and earlier – which is all not mainstream scholarly history of Somnath temple. Melton does not say on the cited pages that "this is the popular tradition" which your version falsely claims. Please evaluate whether Melton is the right source for this article.
 * TrangaBullam's quote above does not support "Historians expect the damage to the temple by Mahmud to have been minimal because there are records of pilgrimages to the temple in 1038". Explain to me, K3, how the following supports that summary:

The Kadamba king, ruling in the region of Goa, records his pilgrimage to Somanatha by sea and lists the places he visited.[6] This inscription was issued in 1038 and, presumably, on his return. It could suggest that the temple at Somanatha was not destroyed but desecrated, since it seems to have been repaired fairly quickly and revived as a place of pilgrimage so soon after the raid. Had the temple been destroyed, surely some mention of the raid and the destruction would have been made by the royal pilgrim. But there is a puzzling silence on this matter. Neither is the raid mentioned nor is any credit given to the patron who might have repaired the destroyed temple. – R Thapar
 * Thapar is explaining that it is unclear how extensive was the destruction / desecration, she adds the temple "seems to have been" have been repaired quickly, that there is "puzzling silence" on this in the source, etc. The quote above does not support the summary we have. Nor does the context of Thapar if you read the whole page and the next. Please check. Also note she mentions only one pilgrimage, not pilgrimages.... etc. (fwiw, I feel that this sort of misinformation and misrepresentation should distress you as an editor who seeks a quality article).
 * Thapar cites only one source there ([6] in the quote above). That is about an inscription that mentions the Kadamba king's purported journey in 1038. But if you read Thapar's "might have, could suggest, etc" and the cited Moraes source she cites, the king neither reaches nor saw Somnath, his ship was wrecked on the way, he is stranded, etc. So, this summary is wrong. Thapar is saying that temple seems to have been "repaired quickly", which is relevant here.
 * Where do we go from here... I had another 3 to 5 days of work in mind to polish up the inscription and history and few other sections. But, given where we are, I urge you to consider the following revised version. You and I have a serious content dispute. Let us invite someone experienced such as to please step in... request JJ / that editor to help after considering all the sources and summaries. I hope a more WP:COMPREHENSIVE, higher quality integrated article will then result. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Romila Thapar wrote:
 * Your tendency seems to be that, since she left it as a question, we will answer it for her. That doesn't fly. She is saying these narratives are all baloney. Whether you believe them or not, we can only write what is confirmed by authentic historians.
 * In terms of where we go from here, we start with the two authentic souruces: Thapar and Yagnik & Sheth. If there are facts mentioned by them, which are not presently covered, please bring them up and we can discuss how to cover them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the inscriptions, you will have to do an RfC. I am absolutely clear that they don't belong here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If all of you agree on section below, please readd it in the article for now. In current article, the history section abruptly ends. The past history can be added/expanded once the disputed issues are settled.- Nizil (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If all of you agree on section below, please readd it in the article for now. In current article, the history section abruptly ends. The past history can be added/expanded once the disputed issues are settled.- Nizil (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3: Your new quote is not in the context of 11th-century Mahmud's destruction of Somnath temple, it is from the context of Somnath temple's destruction/desecration in the 15th-century; I actually summarized this part of Thapar before your first mass-revert. It is cite [54] below in 4th last para of History sub-section. I will start a separate section below to focus and discuss this gross misrepresentation of Thapar source by TrangaBellam and you.
 * Please stop these straw man arguments, mentions of Munshi, and casting aspersions without edit diffs with allegations such as "Your tendency seems to be that, since she left it as a question, we will answer it for her. That doesn't fly." I did not do that. Your stray man arguments, accusations, and stonewalling are unhelpful. Munshi's book does not meet our WP:RS guidelines for the history section. I request that you provide an edit diff so we can identify and understand the real issue in a real context. The draft below is a more neutral and complete summary of peer-reviewed scholarly sources including Thapar, Yagnik & Sheth without the gross misrepresentations. Let us discuss this one by one. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Inscriptions
Many Indian inscritions mention Prabhasa – the Somnath temple site – as a tirtha (sacred pilgrimage). Quite few of these relate to Pashupata subtradition of Shaivism, which implies that this was a Shiva-related tirtha site. From 8th-century onwards, increasing number of inscriptions directly mention the temple as Somesvara or Somnath. Many of these later inscriptions were taken out and relocated from the ruins, some taken as momentos by Europeans, in early 19th-century. For example, one Sanskrit inscription was taken from Somnath temple ruins by Don John de Castro and was found in Sintra (near Lisbon, Portugal) in his garden. This inscription states that "Pashupata Ganda Tripurantaka" rebuilt Somnath temples in Vikrama Samvat 1343. Some of the Sais inscriptions about Somnath temple disappeared. Royal Asiatic Society made efforts to trace them, but these failed.

Of the different surviving inscriptions, some notable ones are: *Bhimadeva inscription (1216 CE) Bhima II rebuilt the Somnath temple, and his efforts are corroborated by other inscriptions. *Bilhari inscription
 * The Nasik inscription of Ushavadata (c. 100–125 CE, 3 lines nearly standard Sanskrit, 2 lines hybrid Sanskrit, Brahmi): it mentions a tirtha in Prabhasa by Nahapana (c. 1st-century CE), along with several other tirtha sites and many other charitable acts of the king towards Brahmins, for religious pilgrims and a donation of caves to Buddhist monks.
 * The Karle inscription of Ushavadata (c. 100–125 CE, hybrid Sanskrit, Brahmi): it also mentions Nahapana, repeats his charity and visiting Prabhasa – the site of pure tirtha, then states that Ushavadata is "donating villages to support the ascetics living in these caves at Valuraka during varsha, without any distinction of their sect or origin".
 * Saindhava Copper-plate Grants from Ghumli (832 CE, Sanskrit, early Nagari): it is named after the village it was discovered in, but Ghumli was once called Bhutambilika when it was a capital city of a Western Kathiawad kingdom in and before the 10th-century. This is a set of six copper plates. Three of these were issued by Agguka II. The inscription mentions a gift to a Rigvedic Brahmin named Madhava of Somesvara (Somanatha) site. While the grant does not mention a temple, it establishes that the Prabhasa tirtha was already associated with Somnath by the 9th-century.
 * The Udaipur Prashasti of Malwa kings (c. late 11th century, Sanskrit, Nagari): it is so named as it was discovered on a stone slab inside Udaipaur's Shiva temple. Its original location is unknown. Like all prashasti-style inscription, it weaves mythology and exaggerates the successes of early Malwa kings, states the epigraphist Buhler, and the historicity of these initial verses is doubtful. However, the verses in the inscription about the decades when it was inscribed are likely to be true when they can be corroborated. The last eleven verses of this inscription mentions the polymath-king Bhoja, as well as the invasion by Turushkas (Muslim) – likely the one led by Mahmud of Ghazni. Verse 21 mentions that Bhoja built many temples for Shiva and Vishnu, and one of the temples it specifically mentions is the Somanatha temple. This is likely true because king Bhoja is the attributed author of Samarangana Sutradhara – one of the best known surviving Sanskrit manuscripts on Hindu temple architecture. Saurashtra would have been a part of his kingdom. However, the inscription does not say the location of the Somanatha temple he built or rebuilt.
 * Narendra inscription (1125 CE, Sanskrit, Kannada script) is found on a stone tablet in Mallikarjuna temple, Dharwad, Karnataka. It is from Vikramaditya VI and Kadamba Jayakesin II reign. Verses 6 through 8 of this poetic inscription mentions ships sailing from the Kavadi-dvipa (coastal Goa-Karnataka region) to various destinations, including to Saurashtra with "great pomp" to visit the "lord Somanatha with camphor". This incription suggests that the Somnath temple was an active tirtha destination by the early 12th-century.
 * The Stone Inscription of Bhadrakali (1169 CE, Sanskrit, Devanagari): also called the Somnathapattan Prashasti of Bhava Brihaspati, it was found in goddess Bhadrakali temple of Prabhasa-Patana. It is a 54-line Pashupata Shaiva inscription on a large black stone. The last 19 lines of this inscription are damaged, and only the first 35 lines can be read with confidence. Lines 11–14 state that the learned scholar Bhava Brihaspati with the help of king Kumarapala rebuilt the ruined temple of Shiva, resembling "Kailasha". Lines 28–35 inscription are also notable for specifically mentioning ruins, repairs to the town, water tanks, streets lined with "beautiful pillars", and for its list of additional temples built by Kumarapala for Hindu gods and goddesses in Somnath-Patan, all lost to history. These temples include those for Vishnu, Gauri, Kapardin, Bhimesvara and Siddhesvara – all topped with gold pinnacles. Line 24 states that Somnath temple town was provided with a protective fort to its north and south side.
 * Arjunadeva inscription (1264 CE, very ungrammatical Hindu and Islamic languages, Devanagari script): it was found in Harsatha Mata temple at Veraval, likely not the original location, and is named after the king Arjunadeva mentioned in it. This is an odd suspect inscription by many measures – unlike other prashasti inscriptions of this era, this inscription says very little about king Arjunadeva; it is in "very poor Sanskrit" according to the epigraphist and Sanskrit scholar Eugen Hultzsch, the scribe and those who approved it hardly knew Sanskrit; the inscription is a rare, curious mix of Hindu and Muslim customs, but misrepresents them. It is notable inscription as it mentions the sale of land "outside of town of Somanathadeva" and a permission to build a mosque to Nuruddin Firuz – a Persian shipowning and merchant family. It also grants provisions to maintain the mosque; mentions some Islamic festivals called "Baratirabikhatamarati". It says a Para-Tripurantaka as the abbot of a monastery, who had sold land in the "center of Somanathadeva town" to Firuz, and the revenue from this area would be used to maintain the mosque, with any excess sent to "Makka and Madina". In early 1960s, Ziauddin Desai – an epigraphist known for his studies on Arabic and Persian inscriptions in India, reinterpreted an earlier published damaged Arabic inscription and stated that it is a version of the Arjunadeva inscription. This inscription was interpreted by earlier scholars to be from a later century, as the date was difficult to read. According to Desai, it is the Arabic version of the Arjunadeva inscription, one  quite different in its details and does not mention Arjunadeva at all. Instead, it has significant sections calling Firuz as "the Sun of Islam and the Muslims, prince of among sea-men, king of kings and merchants" and his father in similarly lofty terms. Lines 6 and 7 of this Arabic version, according to Desai's translation, state "may his affair and prestige be high, in the city of Somnath, may God make it one of the cities of Islam and [banish?] infidelity and idols, and during the time of its ruler Gand Mahattrapadam! and his advisor with correct and beneficial judgment [...]" (Desai's translation with his interpolations).
 * Chudasama inscriptions (1308–1351 CE, Sanskrit, Devanagari): found at Girnar. The first inscription states that Chudasama king Mahipaladeva rebuilt Somnath temple, and the second states that his son Khangar IV completed and installed Shiva linga in the Somnath temple.
 * The Vat Luong Kau inscription is a 5th-century Khmer-era inscription discovered in Vat Phu in southern Laos. It is in Sanskrit language, though non-classical, states Richard Salomon – a scholar known for his epigraphy studies in India and of Sanskrit inscriptions. This major inscription mentions a regional King Devanika visiting the inscription stone site after being blessed by the grace of "Siva, Visnu and Brahma". In a prashasti style, the inscription uses Hindu metaphors, the king is compared to Arjuna and other hero legends, and it cites verses of Book 3, Section 81 of the Mahabharata as it consecrates a 5th-century public water pool and tirtha site in what is now south Laos. This inscription in Southeast Asia is significant as it provides an independent terminus ante quem for the cited verses of the Mahabharata and associated Hindu legends. It is also notable as it explicitly mentions the Prabhasa tirtha for Shiva on Gujarat coastline in verses 1–4 of Side C of the inscription steele.

History
The history of Somnath temple is contested, and it varies considerably based on which sources are relied upon and which are glossed over or ignored. It varies in historic Persian and Indic texts, has been presented in different ways by Muslims and Hindus since the 11th-century, as well as by modern era Hindu nationalists and Islamists. It is a disputed subject among scholars.

According to Thapar, it is unclear whether there was a temple in the 10th-century, and if there was one, it was probably a small temple built by the Chaulukya (Solanki) king Mularaja. In contrast, Dhaky states that the post-1950 excavations of the Somnath site location that match the details provided by Al-Biruni, have unearthed the earliest known version of the Somnath temple. The excavations was led by B.K. Thapar – one of the Director General of Archaeological Survey of India – and it showed the foundations of a 10th-century temple, notable broken parts and details of a major, well decorated version of the Somnath temple before it was destroyed by Mahmud of Ghazni.

According to B.K. Thapar, the archaeological evidence found so far suggests that there was definitely a temple structure at Somnath-Patan in the 9th-century, but no temple before. This view is not shared by K.M. Munshi – a writer of books on Somnath temple and among those who campaigned with Hindu nationalists to rebuild the Somnath temple in 1950. Munshi, relying on historical literature, states that the first Somnath temple was built from wood in the early centuries of the 1st millennium, and replaced several times. According to Rosa Cimino, the archaeological data collected by B.K. Thapar is "copious and convincing" and she calls this as the "Phase III" Somnath temple of "considerable size", noting that little is known about the Phase I and II temples except the few archaeological items identified by Dhaky and Shastri, and the disputed historical literature. However, states Cimino, unlike B.K. Thapar's 9th-century proposal, the Phase III temple discovered during excavations is dated to between 960 and 973 CE with Maha Gurjara architecture by Dhaky and Shastri.



In 1026, the Turkic Muslim ruler Mahmud of Ghazni raided Gujarat, plundering and destroying the Somnath temple. This date is confirmed by the 11th-century Persian historian Al-Biruni, who worked in the court of Mahmud, who accompanied Mahmud's troops between 1017 and 1030 CE on some occasions, and who lived in the northwest Indian subcontinent region – over regular intervals, though not continuously. The invasion of Somnath site in 1026 CE is also confirmed by other Islamic historians such as Gardizi, Ibn Zafir and Ibn al-Athir. However, two Persian sources – one by adh-Dhahabi and other by al-Yafi'i – state it as 1027 CE, which is likely incorrect and late by a year, according to Khan – a scholar known for his studies on Al-Biruni and other Persian historians. According to Al-Biruni:

"The location of the Somnath temple was a little less than three miles west of the mouth of the river Sarasvati. The temple was situated on the coast of the Indian ocean so that at the time of flow the idol was bathed by its water. Thus that moon was perpetually occupied in bathing the idol and serving it.""

- Translated by M.S. Khan

The destruction of Somnath temple and other temples was described by Al-Biruni. He states Mahmud's motives as, "raids undertaken with a view to plunder and to satisfy the righteous iconoclasm of a true Muslim... [he] returned to Ghazna laden with costly spoils from the Hindu temples." Al-Biruni obliquely criticizes these raids for "ruining the prosperity" of India, creating antagonism among the Hindus for "all foreigners", and triggering an exodus of scholars of Hindu sciences far away from regions "conquered by us". Mahmud launched many plunder campaigns into India, including one that included the sack of Somnath temple.

According to Jamal Malik – a South Asian history and Islamic Studies scholar, "the destruction of Somnath temple, a well known place of pilgrimage in Gujarat in 1026, played a major role in creating Mahmud as an "icon of Islam", the sack of this temple became "a crucial topic in Persian stories of Islamic iconoclasm". Many Muslim historians and scholars in and after the 11th-century included the destruction of Somnath as a righteous exemplary deed in their publications. It inspired the Persian side with a cultural memory of Somnath's destruction through "epics of conquest", while to the Hindu side, Somnath inspired tales of recovery, rebuilding and "epics of resistance". These tales and chronicles in Persia elevated Mahmud as "the exemplary hero and Islamic warrior for the Muslims", states Malik, while in India Mahmud emerged as the exemplary "arch-enemy".

According to the Bhadrakali stone inscription, the Somnath temple along with many other Hindu temples (Devi, Vishnu), an attached Hindu matha (monastery) and pilgrim facilities was rebuilt by Kumarapala (r. 1143–72) into a "grand temple" complex. The king placed gold kalashas on the top of the shrines, built a vapi (pushkarini, water tank) for Saraswati, a river ghat for pilgrims, a temple for Vishnu, two more water tanks and conveniences on the way for pilgrims, issued three copper plate grants, gifted the Brahmapuri village to support it. He also built a fortress on the north and south side of the Somnath temple, states line 24.

During its 1299 invasion of Gujarat, Alauddin Khalji's army, led by Ulugh Khan, sacked and destroyed the rebuilt Somnath temple for the second time. According to historian Richard Eaton, relying on Elliot & Dowson translation of Khaza'in al-futuh, this destruction is one of 80 confirmed cases of temple desecration by Indo-Muslim states between 1192–1760.

The motives of this desecration in late 1290s by Khaljis is unclear. It, states Eaton, "appears to have been driven not by the goal of annexation but by Sultanate's need for wealth" to fight the Mongols attacking Delhi Sultanate's lands in the northwest. Eaton supports this view about Khalji's destruction of Somnath in 1299 by citing Sultan Balban's justification for plundering Hindu kingdoms in 1247. According to historian Andre Wink, the motives are unclear and a number of reasons may have been driving the event. Temples such as Somnath were plundered for wealth and their treasures taken, but such destruction was also followed by building mosques from the rubble parts, sending "fragments of the statues to Mecca and Baghdad for propaganda purposes". The Sultanate army used elephants to break the temples into ruins and "nafta and fire" to mutilate the statues. This goes well beyond the motive of loot and leave the sacked shrine after collecting the wealth. While comprehensive destrution was not always the aim and political factors appear to be a part of the motives, states Wink, a singular "wealth seeking" motive does not explain the celebration of iconoclasm, of "killing" numerous people, and of "humiliating Hindu unbelievers, the idol-worshippers" rhetoric found in the Islamic texts of this era, by numerous independent Muslim historians and scholars, even if these accounts may be exaggerated and are suitably discounted for being testimonials of the Sultanate generals and soldiers. According to Wink, the exact facts or even the location of the Somnath temple each time it was rebuilt is impossible to establish because the earliest surveyors found "the whole coastline in this area littered with ruins" and we know that rebuilt version of the Somnath temple was razed to the ground many times. According to historian Jamal Malik, the Muslim scholars who published a few decades after the second sack of Somnath, such as the political theorist Zia al-Din al-Barani (c. 1285–1357 CE) and his contemporaries Fakhr al-Din 'Isami apocryphally project and link Somnath temple destruction to Mahmud's first destruction, as stories of "Islamic iconoclasm" and of Somnath idol as "cultic center of Hindu cosmology".

Several sources state that, in 1299, the idol from the sacked Somnath temple was taken to Delhi, to be thrown to be trampled under the feet of Muslims. These sources include the contemporary and near-contemporary Islamic texts such as Amir Khusrau's Khazainul-Futuh, Ziauddin Barani's Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi and the Jain text Vividha-tirtha-kalpa of Jinaprabha Suri. Section 1.220–221 of Kanhadade Prabandha (14th century) and Khyat (17th century) state that the Jalore ruler Kanhadadeva rescued the Somnath idol and freed the Hindu prisoners, after an attack on the Khalji's army near Jalore. Given the gap between the year when Somnath temple was destroyed by Khalji's army and when these texts were composed, this rescue legend may be ahistorical and a fiction. Alternatively, given that many Shiva temples in India have been named "Somnath", it is possible that the Khalji army took Somnath idol from a different Hindu temple (not Prabhas-Patan) to their capital in Delhi, and Kanhadadeva's army retrieved one of the other ones. The later writers may have conflated it with Somnath of Prabhasa-Patan.

The temple was rebuilt again by Mahipala I, the Chudasama king of Saurashtra in 1308 and the lingam was installed by his son Khengara sometime between 1331 and 1351. As late as the 14th century, Gujarati Muslim pilgrims were noted by Amir Khusrow to stop at that temple to pay their respects before departing for the Hajj pilgrimage.

According to Syed Nawab Ali and Charles Seddon, the Somnath temple was destroyed for the third time in 1395 by Zafar Khan, the last governor of Gujarat under the Delhi Sultanate and later founder of Gujarat Sultanate. The manuscripts of this era, states Satish Misra, suggest that Zafar Khan's predecessor who was also a Muslim had allowed the Somnath temple to be repaired and resume services. However, with a change in governorship came a reversal in the prior policy. The motive of Zafar Khan was to "align himself with long line of conquerors like Mahmud of Ghazna and Ulugh Khan". He therefore looted and "thoroughly despoiled" the temple, states Satish Misra.

According to Thapar, there are many reports of attacks on the temple thereafter. The Muslim historians of this era repeat stories of Somnath temple's destruction with embellished variations "through a cloud of hype" where another Sultan attacks the temple and breaks the idol, converts it into a mosque. It is unclear when or how temple became active again. In the Turko-Persian texts, states Thapar, there is "an obsession with destroying the temple and breaking the idol each time a fresh one is installed." For specific examples, Thapar cites the Persian historian Firishta, who records that the Somnath temple was attacked in 1413 by Zafar Khan's grandson. Then in 1469, Sultan Mahmud Begada attacked the temple and converted it into mosque.

The Hindu and Jain texts provide a different perspective. For example, state Dhaky and Shastri, the Prabodhakrishna Kridakavya – a Sanskrit text of Keshavadasa Hridayarama dated 1473 CE, states Prabhas-Patan to be a holy tirtha and mentions Somnath temple. Similarly, the Prabodhaprakasha – another Sanskrit text by Bhima dated 1490 CE, uses reverential language for Somanatha-tirtha. Such texts suggest that the Hindus continued to remember and revere the Somnath temple site as their revered pilgrimage site through the late 15th-century.

According to Romila Thapar, the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb issued two orders to destroy the Somnath temple. The first was issued in 1659, states Audrey Truschke. The second order to destroy the temple was issued in 1706 and it also instructed that the temple be "converted into a mosque", states Thapar. It is unclear why two orders were necessary nearly 37 years apart, and whether the temple and pilgrims re-appeared. According to Truschke, there is the possibility that Aurangzeb's first order was ignored and not carried out by his subordinates.

According to Mirat-i-Ahmadi – a history of Gujarat in Persian by the 18th-century historian Ali Muhammad Khan, as translated by Syed Ali and Charles Seddon, during the Aurangzeb reign, the Somnath temple "suffered again at the hands of Muslims, and now only a few pillars of an old ruined temple are seen".

Before independence, Veraval was part of the Junagadh State. A Muslim nawab ruled Junagadh at the time, and Hindus formed 82% of the population, states Peter van der Veer – a scholar of social science and religious history known for his publications on Ayodhya and Somnath. The nawab acceded Junagadh to Pakistan in August 1947. The Hindus led by Indian National Congress rose up against the Nawab, and he fled to Pakistan. The "diwan" of Junagadh then invited Indian army to Junagadh, states van der Veer, and India annexed Jungadh. The then Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhai Patel visited Junagadh on Diwali (12 November 1947) and announced in a public meeting, "On this auspicious day of the New Year, we have decided that Somanatha should be reconstructed. You, people of Saurashtra, should do your best. This is holy task in which all should participate."
 * Contemporary Somnath temple

When Patel, K. M. Munshi and other leaders of the Congress went to Mahatma Gandhi with their proposal to reconstruct the Somnath temple, Gandhi blessed the move but suggested that the funds for the construction should be collected from the public, and the temple should not be funded by the state. He expressed that he was proud to associate himself to the project of renovation of the temple. However, soon both Gandhi and Sardar Patel died, and the task of reconstruction of the temple continued under Munshi, who was the Minister for Food and Civil Supplies, Government of India headed by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. This move to demolish the ruins was opposed by archaeologists, but Munshi overruled their objections by stating, "some persons more fond of dead stones than live values" want to maintain the "ancient monument" and oppose the reconstruction, but Somnath has lived "in the sentiment of the whole nation". I too "am fond of history", said Munshi, but "fonder still of creative values". Somnath temple is not "an ancient monument" that is "mere matter of historical curiosity", quotes Peter van der Veer, this temple is a "living tradition" for Hindus who have "liberated themselves from foreign rule, Muslim and British" and this temple will be rebuilt again.

The ruins were pulled down in October 1950. On May 11 1951, Rajendra Prasad, the first President of the Republic of India, participated in a ceremony for the temple's reconstruction. The President said in his address, "It is my view that the reconstruction of the Somnath Temple will be completed on that day when not only a magnificent edifice will arise on this foundation, but the mansion of India's prosperity will be really that prosperity of which the ancient temple of Somnath was a symbol." He added: "The Somnath temple signifies that the power of reconstruction is always greater than the power of destruction."

Ping JJ
You are invited to intervene in the content dispute here, and help build a better quality article. I would not mind if you decline because of a lack of interest. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I've received the ping, and took a short look, but if I can be of help, I'll need some time. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, I read through part of it; I'm of no use here. The three of you are all well-educated and knowledgeable (and self-assured) people; I'm afraid you'll just have to reach consensus. @TrangaBellam: you and MSW are of one kind; be sure you've got here a person with equal abilities as you. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * JJ: Thanks for the time. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresentations of Melton source
With arguments in sections above, Kautilya3 kept this cherrypicked and distorted summary from the old-legacy version of this article:

The bolded phrases are OR. It is not supported by the Melton source.

Here is what Melton actually writes:



Can you show me, Kautilya3, where and on which page number those bolded phrases such as "According to popular tradition" etc are supported? The phrase "According to popular tradition" makes the summary appear as if Melton is not stating this as his scholarly view, but alluding/attributing this view to the Hindu/some Indian side. The "said to have" just slants it even further, in a way Melton does not.... unless of course you can show where the support for this is in the J. Gordon Melton source. FWIW, I have tagged that section because other paragraphs have problems, do not reflect mainstream peer-reviewed scholarship, and in one case you have restored a source that does not exist. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah, that paragraph can be safely deleted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Somnath
It is unclear from the article that what role Sardar Patel played in the reconstruction of the temple. The lead says he "envisioned" and the reconstruction section says he "ordered" the reconstruction. The next line says he was among the delegation to meet Gandhi about the subject. And then says he died. So what role he played actually and to what extent? The reference about the order " Hindustan Times, 15 Nov, 1947" is not accessible. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Patel was the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Minister. He ordered its reconstruction and it was done. I don't see what more you want. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So his role was limited to the ordering the reconstruction. Did he played any role in fundraising or making other leaders agree for the reconstruction? Did he issued the order on behalf of the Government of India in his capacity of Deputy PM/HM? I read that Nehru was not happy about it. So I want to know and add what role he played in the reconstruction apart from just ordering.--Nizil (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nehru did not want the Indian government involved in the reconstruction because it would compromise its secularism. But the government (the Public Works Department) still carried out the construction, with private charity funding. I suppose Nehru turned a blind eye to it, because it was an emotive issue for the Hindus. I don't know much more about Patel's involvement. I suppose that had he been alive, he would performed the opening ceremony. President Rajendra Prasad did it instead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Notes For me News18.- Nizil (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Gross misrepresentation of the Thapar source
This is my third and last attempt to seek an explanation for a gross and repeated misrepresentation of Thapar source (see above for my first and second attempts). You added back the following with this edit to the fourth para of History section of this article:

This cite [68] is from Thapar 2004 book, which states (TrangaBellam provided a partial quote with the claim that it is "hardly misrepresentation"; here is more of the quote from Thapar):

My questions: You, Kautilya3, have recently offered a different quote:
 * 1) Where is the support for "Historians"? (plural?, where is Thapar saying that this is anyone's but her hypothesis; where is she alleging anything about historians in general, or what historians expect; see mainstream scholarly view below)
 * 2) Where is the support for the qualifier "to have been minimal"? ("desecration" is not synonymous with minimal)

The contested sentence and its context is the "damage to the temple by Mahmud to have been minimal"! This new para is from many pages later, many cycles of destruction and rebuilding later, from a section in Thapar's book that covers the raids and attacks on the Somnath temple in the 15th-century as reflected in the records of Muslim historians of that period. Please read the paras before this quoted sentences. I will just include a few sentences that precede what you quoted. Thapar writes, "Ferishta says that in 1413, Muzaffar Khan’s grandson attacked the temple. Mahmud Begada, the Sultan of Gujarat, claims to have attacked the temple in 1469 and converted it into a mosque. The narrative of the raid is repeated but with embellished variations through a cloud of hype. Every century or less, ...." So, the context for this is the 15th-century. Nothing to do with 11th-century Mahmud. You should not use quotes or statements out of their context. I await your answers to the two questions above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah, I will ignore the second talkquote for now, because it is not regarding Mahmud of Ghazni or "gross misrepresentation".
 * Regarding the minimal damage, it is summarising the sense of "suggests... not destroyed" and "repaired fairly quickly". I don't see what you call "gross misrepresentation". If you still continue to believe so, I invite you to offer alternative wording. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3: Thank you for accepting that your second talkquote amounts to gross misrepresentation and misuse of it outside of its context. You should not allege this to be "Historians..." view. We should attribute it to Romila Thapar, and for NPOV we should summarize the competing scholarly views that have been published on Mahmud's destruction and the Kadamba-Goa inscription which Thapar relies on. You can find these summarized in my proposed version above. We can say something like,
 * I will not accept merely Thapar's view in isolation, because NPOV is critical in a sensitive article such as this. Yes, I too invite you to propose revisions to the relevant paragraphs in the draft I proposed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't use phrases like extent of destruction, when Thapar hasn't even said that the temple was destroyed. And she says "repaired", not rebuilt. She has pointd out that there is no record of any rebuilding. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Revising it to repaired etc wording is okay with me. However, no "Historians expect" or the "damage was minimal". That is OR. "could suggest the Somnath temple was not destroyed but desecrated, since it seems to have been repaired fairly quickly" expresses an uncertain hypothesis. It does not support your more definitive new conclusion "damage to the temple by Mahmud to have been minimal". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Revising it to repaired etc wording is okay with me. However, no "Historians expect" or the "damage was minimal". That is OR. "could suggest the Somnath temple was not destroyed but desecrated, since it seems to have been repaired fairly quickly" expresses an uncertain hypothesis. It does not support your more definitive new conclusion "damage to the temple by Mahmud to have been minimal". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)