Talk:Lohara dynasty

Country

An IP contributor has added the "Former country" infobox to this article. I am unsure whether the lands ruled by a dynasty necessarily constitute a country. This could be a rather weird issue of semantics. Thoughts would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

History template

We can use {{South Asian history}} or {{HistoryOfSouthAsia}} here. One is bulky, has the potential to swamp an article and the other is not. The bulkiness of the former has even attracted comments on that template's own talk page. I am unsure of how to proceed but suspect that this needs to be taken to somewhere such as WT:INB and/or WP:TFD. What seems obvious to me is that there is no justifiable reason for us to have two such templates and in the context of this article it seems to me that the less bulky version is preferable. - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your statement. You can NOT be cherry picking (fallacy) which history you think important and which isn't. A complete template with its bulkyness is better then a cherry picked template. This is discriminatory history telling. A complete history is the best history, I will accept the bulkyness as a consequence rather then have a cherry picked one. What you are doing is discriminatory. (174.252.5.47 (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC))

So why do we have two such templates? And why are you reverting yet again - see WP:BRD. I know that we have a lot of Indian POV warriors around but this is a ridiculous situation. This article concerns the Lohara dynasty as, as such, a short general template concerning Indian history will suffice: it is not an article that is, for example, an overview of Indian history. The bulkiness is, quite literally, undue weight. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you reverting again? You are guilty as anyone else here. In fact the corruption of your statement is profound. You are throwing adjectives calling people "ridiculous" and "pov pushers", as you yourselve are doing the same. Lohara dynasty is perfectly capable of having this overview. As within the template the Lohara dynasty is mention as for the shorter one there is NO mention of the dynasty. This shorter template is cherry picked. Thus the outline is the best option. (174.226.129.117 (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC))

FWIW, my opinion that Indic articles are subject to POV-pushing, ridiculousness etc is supported by a consensus and by ArbCom, although I am opposed to the ArbCom "broad brush" approach. Your accusation of cherry-picking is misplaced because my basis for sticking with the original template here is directly connected to WP:BOLD - I did not insert that original, more concise template but you chose to replace it without discussion.

For reasons entirely unconnected with those that you have given - which are both contrary to consensus and policy - I will not be reverting you again, Happen there are people at WT:INB etc who have provided a proper justification, although it has also been suggested that these templates have been subject to the work of Dewan, a known and prolific sockpuppet. Your comments are similar to those of Dewan, so perhaps you can understand my additional reluctance to accept them as being valid, despite WP:AGF. If this means that you have been unintentionally tarred with the same brush as Dewan then you probably know where to direct your complaint ... And you still should most likely have respected the WP:BRD essay. - Sitush (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with 174.226.129.117, you are point pushing on this article (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

How can I be being pointy when, in fact, I've accepted the situation? Did you actually read this thread or just jump when you saw my name? - Sitush (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes Made

There was copyright infringement and violation of WP:NPOV that I have removed. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

You cannot just say that: you need to explain why. I have reverted you. - Sitush (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The explanation was given in the edit summary. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

No it wasn't: the summaries said various things violated WP:NPOV and one was a copyright violaton. The latter is plain wrong; the former summaries need some expansion of rationale here. You know this because you have been told on your own talk page. - Sitush (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop removing maintenance tags and discuss why you think it is not WP:NPOV. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)).

You have got this arse over tit. You have to explain what it is that you consider to be POV-y, not vice versa. You cannot just go round tagging stuff for POV without explanation. The tag itself says see the talk page for an explanation. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

#	Quotes	Cite	Violation
1.	"has been the subject of academic debate over a prolonged period."	[1]	NO SOURCE
2.	Putting quotes around a giant body of text and using it to describe a whole subsection of an article can be viewed as copyright infringement	[2]
3.	The later rulers of the dynasty were weak: internecine fighting and corruption was endemic during this period, with only brief years of respite, and this gave rise to the growth of Islamic supremacy in the region	[3]	WP:NPOV Violation
4.	Another weak-willed man	[4]	Violates WP:NPOV,WP:IMPARTIAL
5.	It was after this that Kalaśa reformed his licentious ways and began to govern responsibly	[5]	Violates WP:NPOV
6.	Simhadeva survived until 1301, a largely ineffective ruler who was dominated by his advisers.	[6]	Violates WP:NPOV
7.	Jayasimha was able to employ his methods of kingship, which relied on diplomacy and Machiavellian plotting, for the greater good of his kingdom.	[7]	Violates WP:NPOV
8.	The widow of Sūhadeva, queen Kotā took his place but was usurped by Shah Mir, a Muslim who had moved into the area from the south.	[8]	Violates WP:NPOV, WP:RNPOV

Here you go. Please put the neutrality tag back. I know it must have been an accident, but it is not good Wikpedia etiquette. :) (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

OK, thanks. This appears to be another case of you not understanding. I didn't need a table consisting of your edits but rather an explanation for them. You have not explained why those sourced statements are POVy, and they are indeed all sourced. And I will not be reinstating the tag for that reason. Nor did I remove it accidentally, as my edit summary specifically explains. Should I add misrepresentation to my growing list of your problematic contributions? - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Number 4

Start with the easy ones....but they are all easy....lets start with #4. Weak willed violates WP:IMPARTIAL. Agreed or disagreed? Please put back the neutrality tag in good faith.

No, because it is what the sources (Hasan, p 32, and Stein, pp. 110-111) say. Either you consider those sources to be unreliable, you interpret them differently or you have alternate sources that say, for example, that he was a strong-willed man. Take your pick. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying he was strong or weak. I am being impartial. Is your edit impartial? You are giving a false choices: Choose A or B. The answer is it doesnt belong here. (Lowkeyvision (talk))

Once again please put back up the neutrality tags. It appears you are violating good faith. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

This is precisely what I mean: you have completely misunderstood the policy. We should present all known points of view given by reliable sources, not omit all of them. We trust our secondary sources to have done their research and our role is to paraphrase them etc. Right now, this is the only POV found - feel free to find another. You are being tendentious with regards to the tag issue. I have responded to that, period. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It is still violating wikipedia policy of impartial because the term is "weak willed" and goes against previously agreed on consensus reached by the Wikipedia community. Please do not resort to personal attacks. Also please do not violate good faith and put up the neutrality tags. If you do not it will appear that you are not acting in good faith. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

No, it doesn't violate. Show me the consensus that you claim because it is not WP:IMPARTIAL, which is merely a subsection of a larger policy. From the opening of that policy: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Nor have I attacked you. Nor is failing to reinstate the tag a violation of AGF: the violation there is clear to see - your misunderstandings are rampant here and elsewhere and AGF is not a suicide pact. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Calling someone "weak willed" is a violation of that. Once again, you are violating good faith if you do not put up the neutrality tags. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

Exactly. Your own quote of whatever it is starts with "Wikipedia describes disputes." There are no disputes among the sources regarding the weak-willed issue, therefore there can be no failure to be neutral. There may be other reliable sources that do dispute this characterisation but I've not found them yet and I've invited you to do so. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I dont think you understood what it meant. Even if every source on planet earth stated that a person named Dolfa Tihler is evil, you cant say Dolfa Tihler is evil on Wikipedia because it violates WP:NPOV. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

That is a fairly radical example but certainly in those circumstances it would be ok if the person was dead. - Sitush (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia consensus disagrees with you. Can you give me the citation of the page that calls him weak willed? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

Where does the consensus disagree with me? You've just quoted stuff that does agree with me. The cites are in the article and noted in one of my replies above. Please remember, we are meant to paraphrase: do not come back here and say you cannot find the phrase "weak-willed" in the sources because that is not how it works. - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You cant make up words. You cant write Weak Willed because it is an impartial term that is NOT in the sources. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

What did I just tell you? Of course we can, otherwise instead of paraphrasing we would be violating copyright. The knack is to select wording that accurately reflects the sources. Since you are demonstrating a consistent inability to read our policies correctly, forgive me for having doubts regarding whether you yet possess that knack right now. But you can learn it if you spend time reading sources, reading the work of good contributors here and then contributing to articles yourself, rather than predominantly to talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes but "weak willed" is not what the world class anthropolgist Stien wrote. So it violates WP:Impartial because it is YOUR impartial opinion (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

Says who? I am sure that I can find many respected academics who use the term for someone or another. You cannot even get his job description right. - Sitush (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal insults (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

Eh? Please read Mark Aurel Stein or check out his details somewhere away from Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I got it. He was an Archeologist. I just ordered the book. Don't worry. I will be editing this category a lot more from now on. He still didn't write "Weak Willed." Your description of the terms is still impartial (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

Hasan

But during the reign of Kalasa (1063-89) the valley was once again plunged into chaos. He neglected public business and lived in the society of immoral and vicious courtiers who completely dominated him. He became so depraved as to violate his own daughter.

Hm? Would you care to suggest an alternative word/phrase that also allows the article to flow, bearing in mind the content that precedes our statement? What is your definition of "weak-willed". - Sitush (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and on page 108, referring to someone else, Hasan says "At the same time he possessed a weak nature, and allowed himself to be dominated by persons of a stronger will." This weak-willedness is a characteristic of the dynasty and is referred to time and again, using various descriptors. - Sitush (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The descriptor was used for someone else, not Khalsa. Maybe neglectful would be a better word as it used by the author.

Instead of: "Kalaśa was king until 1089. Another man weak willed man who involved himself in an incestuous relationship with his daughter, Kalaśa was dominated by those surrounding him at court and spent little time on matters of government until his later years."

I propose: "Kalaśa was king until 1089 and was dominated by his advisors. He is described by historians as a neglectful ruler and is documented to have had an incestuous relationship with his daughter. " <--That is a neutral statement.

(Lowkeyvision (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

No, you have not proposed it - you have stormed ahead and done it. Now revert while your proposal is discussed, please. You are within inches of another block. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted out of good faith. Please continue with a productive dialogue if you disagree with the above proposal. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

Number 8

Number eight is a biased statement and the word "usurpsed" has a negative connotation. It should be exchanged with the word "replaced."

A usurper is an illegitimate or controversial claimant to power. It is an offensive term and clearly violates WP:NPOV. It also clear violates WP:RNPOV.

(Lowkeyvision (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

The following is a partial copy from the thread that developed on my talk page. It omits some opening comments that are of no great relevance to this article.

start copy

We are not censored and if a reliably sourced something should offend one or another group of people then that is just unfortunate. I'm not sure that I understand why events of so long ago should cause such angst as you mention but "replaced" is very different from "usurped" and the latter is the term of choice in sources that I haven't even bothered to cite in the article, such as page 258 of Houtsma, M. Th (1987). E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936. BRILL. ISBN 9789004082656.. One that I have seen uses "deposed" instead but the point is that it was indeed an overthrow of a ruler. The article needs more sources and I know of some additional information that I've not got round to adding thus far, but it is not in need of censorship. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you think the word "usurped" has the same connotation as "replaced" or "overthrown"? What do you think the difference in these words is? Compare the following two sentences:

1)Bill Clinton replaced George Bush Senior as the president of the United States.

2)Bill Clinton usurped electoral power from George Bush Senior

I do not think information should be censored. I just think when something as sensitive as religion is involved the word usurped should not be used to describe things. Do you think the phrase "The Christians usurped the pagan Romans" would be something that would be tolerable to many?

Lowkeyvision (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC))

Clinton replaced Bush as president as a part of a legitimate legal process. Kota's position was usurped. They are not synonyms, as I said in my response above. - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What does usurped mean? What is the origin of the word? Do you think the origin and the meaning of the word is consistent with Wikipedia:RNPOV? Would you be okay with getting a third opinion on this? I am not a very experienced editor of Wikipedia and unfamiliar with how policy of WP:RNPOV apply. Also there are words with different meanings in different parts of the world and this may be one of those words. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sheesh, Lowkeyvision, I've conflicted with you yet again. Please, please can you put your brain in gear before writing something. We all mess things up from time to time but you seem to do so consistently and it is a darn nuisance.

No, I do not agree with using the WP:3O process at this time. For someone so new to Wikipedia, you seem to know a lot about obscure policy areas etc but clearly you are not following due process here. You should have continued this thread at the article talk page, where it is likely others would see it and offer their opinions. People interested in the subject matter of the article are not necessarily interested in the goings-on here. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

end copy

"Shah Mir ascended the throne of Kashmire under the Title of Shams al-Din. The rule of the Hindu Radja had been opressive and extortionate and the people were the gainers by the usurpation of the adventurer who limited the demands of his treasury to one sixt of the gross produce of the land. " <--That is what is written correct? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC))

I like to think I am not a bias person and I think we should document the Good AND the Bad. I propose that it should be stated that Shah Mir married and then executed the queen in order to seize power(not usurp) and it was viewed favorably by the inhabitants. However, under his grandson the people of the kingdom were subjugated through forced conversions. This I think paints a fair picture of what took place. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC))

I agree with the marriage/execution bit - this was something that I had intended to do, although probably not in your exact words. I do not see the significance of your fixation with the word "usurp" which, according to the OED, is take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force:. That is what happened, surely? "Seized" can have a similar meaning, sure, but it is less specific. Why is the usurp word causing you so many problems? I do not understand this at all. - Sitush (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It is the illegal part of it that is the thing that strikes me. When something is illegal it is deciding between something that is agreed as a moral code. Warfare is by its nature lacking rules sometimes. The Romans did not usurp the germans, they "conquered" them. The british did not usurp the america, they "colonized" it. The Israelis did not usurp palestine, they "seized" it. Usurp just has a bad connotation and one that I think doesn't fit in when using religion, especially in this context. I can understand using the word forced conversions or even subjugation when it comes to describing his grandson because those are documented facts. However, due to the nature of the rule of Mir Shah and the fact that the inhabitants did not dislike him, the fact that he was well received and the fact that the way it is currently written deals with his religion it would be better to not use the word usurp.

What aspect or connotation of the word usurp do you like versus seize? Reflect on it. Then reflect on Wikipedia Religion NPOV. Think about what would happen if the word usurp was used in other contexts to describe religions or even governments taking over other lands. We are in charge of presenting neutral knowledge that describes all angles. I would also like it mentioned next to Mir Shah that his rule was well received by the locals. This is well cited. Both the good and the bad must be shown, otherwise we do not do justice to history and the lessons of human nature are not learned by its students. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC))

No. Simply, no. It was "illegal" in the sense that the dynasty that had existed for some time was usurped. This is ridiculous and I have no intention of continuing this discussion. I am not willing to bow to some subtle, pedantic POV related to Muslim sensitivities. It will not wash with me, especially given that there are sources using the usurp word (cf. your "documented facts") and that it accurately describes what went on. And given the numerous other spurious quibbling of verbiage that you raised above. The usurpation of power is a very precise term and it is accurate; "seized" is not and in the example that you give (Israel/Palestine) applies not to power but to territory. - Sitush (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it is time to get a third opinion? The citation you made reads: "In 1341-1342 Shah Mir ascended the throme of Kashmir under the title of Shams al-Din and cause the khutba to be said in his name. The rule of the Hindu radja had been oppressive and extortionate and the people were the gainers by the usurpation of the adventurer who limited the demands of his treasury to one sixth of the gross produce of the land. He established order with a firm hand, and though he probably encouraged his people to accept his religion, his rule was tolerant and beneficietnt and the forceible conversion of inhabitants to Islam was not effected…"(Lowkeyvision (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Yes, yet another conflict - fed up of this continued revisionism. Sheesh! I have already explained when I consider it is reasonable to adopt that course. Given our history, my efforts to explain other things to you etc and you continued nit-picking, do you really think I'll change my mind? In the interval, you could spend some time digging up some sources that demonstrate your statement that one state/country can "usurp" another - I think you have provided a long list of nonsense analogies. They would certainly constitute an unsual usage of the word. - Sitush (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is the reference from the quote, which I had paused not to insert to avoid EC(guess it was too late). You said "This is ridiculous and I have no intention of continuing this discussion.'" [[9]] You then stated "Given our history, my efforts to explain other things to you etc and you continued nit-picking, do you really think I'll change my mind?" [[10]] Yes. I do think people can change, especially men of knowledge. Would you like to get a third opinion or would you like to continue our discussion at a later time after you have had some time to reflect? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC))

A day has passed and you have not replied yet. I have re-read the citation you suggested and seems the usurpation is dealing with taking the money from the people and not with the his ascent to the crown. The passage currently reads “The widow of Sūhadeva, queen Kotā took his place but was usurped by Shah Mir, a Muslim who had moved into the area from the south. The kingdom had been subjected to Muslim influence even prior to his arrival and some people had already converted to the religion from Hinduism. By the end of the 14th century the vast majority of the country had become Muslim, although the Brahmins still maintained their traditional roles as the learned administrators until the accession of Sikandar Butshikan.”

This is once again the citation you claimed: "In 1341-1342 Shah Mir ascended the throne of Kashmir under the title of Shams al-Din and cause the khutba to be said in his name. The rule of the Hindu radja had been oppressive and extortionate and the people were the gainers by the usurpation of the adventurer who limited the demands of his treasury to one sixth of the gross produce of the land. He established order with a firm hand, and though he probably encouraged his people to accept his religion, his rule was tolerant and beneficent and the forcible conversion of inhabitants to Islam was not effected…"Houstma, Th (1987) [1913]. E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936. Vol. 7. Leiden, Netherlands: Library of Congress. p. 287. ISBN 90 04 08265 4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)

I propose that instead we make the passage more in line with the actual meaning of the text and change it to "After the death of Sūhadeva, his wife queen Kotā took his place. In 1341-1342 Shah Mir,a Muslim, gained the title of Shams-al-Din and ascended the throne of Kashmir. The rule of Sūhadeva had been tyrannic and the Lohara benefited from the lower usurpation of their gross produce of the land. Shah Mir provided firm law and order to the country and was tolerant of other religions. The kingdom had been subjected to Muslim influence even prior to his arrival and some people had already converted to the religion from Hinduism. By the end of the 14th century the vast majority of the country had become Muslim, although the Brahmins still maintained their traditional roles as the learned administrators until the accession of Sikandar Butshikan.

I feel this more accurately reflects the nature of the work and does not violate Wikipedia policy on religion (Lowkeyvision (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC))

I think you are maybe trying to connect the word "usurp" to "usury". If you are then please do not, per the OED definition that I have already given you. The existing content does not violate any Wikipedia policy - you merely misunderstand the policy, as you have done previously. "Gained the title", in your proposed revision, is nothing like "usurped". Stop this attempt to whitewash, please. You have also misread the new potential source that I linked and which you quote. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

What made you think that I was trying to connect "usurp" to "usury" when usury is nowhere to be found? "Gained the title" is equal to "Ascended to the throne", which is the way the texts you cited describes his coming to power. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC))

You connected "usurpation" with money in your mis-reading of the link that I presented, and I am aware that usury can be an issue for Muslims. Since your main concern in this discussion has been to minimise (in your opinion) potential offence caused vis-a-vis Muslims, I made a fairly logical leap. If I've got it wrong then that may well say as much about your argument as my logic. "Gained the title" is not the same as "usurp", whilst "ascended the throne" is something that he did by the method of usurpation. Do we have an English-as-a-second-language issue here? I am becoming more and more bemused by your seeming inability to understand the nuances of both the language and policy but, on the other hand, you write pretty well. No big deal if ESL is the issue: I'll just have to find someone who can explain it to you better than myself. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I was born and raised in the United States. I scored in the 96% in the population of the United States on the verbal portion of my SAT. Please do not resort to personal attacks. Can you please explain again how you got to usury? It says he ascended the throne and he usurped the peoples money at a lower rate from which they gained.(Lowkeyvision (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC))

It was not intended as a personal attack: we get a lot of ESL contributors to India-related content and sometimes it means finding another approach to explain something. Paraphrasing the quoted text as "he usurped the peoples (sic) money" is a misreading of it. For starters, it is power that is usurped, not money. I defy you to find a sensible example of the verb usurp being used in a sentence where money is the subject to which the verb applies. The relevant bit of Shah Mir ascended the throne of Kashmir under the title of Shams al-Din and cause the khutba to be said in his name. The rule of the Hindu radja had been oppressive and extortionate and the people were the gainers by the usurpation of the adventurer who limited the demands of his treasury to one sixth of the gross produce of the land. He established order with a firm hand, and though he probably encouraged his people to accept his religion, his rule was tolerant and beneficent and the forcible conversion of inhabitants to Islam was not effected…, could be rephrased as "... the usurpation of Kota by the adventurer caused the people to gain because he limited the demands ..." etc. It is a plain as the nose on my face. - Sitush (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I've just noticed your refactoring of the start of the thread. I have reverted it as best I can. Don't mess about with my posts, please - I think you have been told about this before. - Sitush (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not money, but property that was being usurped at this point. Fiat currency had not come into existance. I can find you examples that property can be usurped similar to what was done by Shah mir. "There are many ways in which governments can violate--or fail to protect against private theft and usurpation--the property and contract rights of their citizens and subjects: direct expropriation of assets, defaulting on public debt, debasing the currency, prohibiting any.." - Journal of Economic Growth June 1996, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 243-276 Property and contract rights in autocracies and democracies by Christopher Clague, Philip Keefer, Stephen Knack, Mancur Olson. Can you please explain how you thought usury was being implied? I still dont understand. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC))

I have already explained my logic regarding ususry, however skewed it might turn out to have been. I think that I am becoming entrenched with maintaining the "usurp" word, which was my own selection based on the source then used in the article and for which I have recently found other sources. I really do not have a big problem with changing this to something else ... if someone can suggest a legitimate alternative. So far, that has not happened. The dictionary definition is clear and I do believe that most people who use the word would accept it as valid in this situation. However, perhaps we need to refer to a thesaurus. Happen that I think the thesaurus would offer nothing that is more palatable, even though I really do not understand the objection, but I'll try to take a look at Roget tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the version I had posted above is a fair start. I think this paints an accurate picture of what took place: Sūhadevas empire collapsed due to him being opressive to his own people. Shah Mir came to power due to weakness of the kingdom with the death of Sūhadeva. Shah Mirs religious policies were tolerant and he promoted economic policies which garnered him good will of the people. The article should ALSO be expanded to include his grandson who was intolerant and began converting locals, some of which were forced

The lesson from the end should not be Muslims = Bad and Hindus = Victims. The lesson should be that when kings become tyrannical their empires fall to others who offer the people less oppression. In time those that came to power later become oppressive themselves. This way the reader can better grasp how the cultural shift in history took place. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC))

Eh? We are an encyclopedia not an anthology of homilies: we offer the reader no moral persuasions, one way or the other but instead present the information given in reliable sources. And drawing the conclusion that because Shah Mir was a Muslim usurper means that all Muslims are bad is just plain ridiculous, imo ... but if any reader makes that imaginative leap then that is their business, not ours. - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The way it is currently written do you think 1) it is accurate? 2) It is not offensive? Do you think that a oppressive but weak ruler(Sūhadeva) fell to a more powerful ruler(Shah Mir) who lowered taxes(usurpation) on the population to get good will(what the text you cited claims) or Shah Mir illegally took power(usurped) from Kota?(something the text you cited clearly did not state ,but you truthfully acknowledged were your own words) (Lowkeyvision (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC))

Yes, it is accurate. Whether it is offensive or not is irrelevant: as I have told you umpteen times, we are not censored. I can't even be bothered providing you with the link for that any more. I cannot do much about your inability to comprehend either the source, the additional link provided or indeed policy: I've tried but, sorry, you are not getting it and that is blindingly obvious in the case of the policies. . - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay Sitush. I disagree with your assessment of the word usurped. I am even willing to compromise on this and use the word usurped to describe the transition to power(despite it not being used in either texts and being your own word choice) if it is also it is also documented that the policies Shah Mir were tolerant and that his economic policies were favorable to the locals(this is what the citation you provided states). If this is not palatable to you, do you think it is time for a third opinion?(Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC))

Firstly, the source in the article does not use any variant of the root "usurp"; I provided a link to a source here a few days ago because of your objection - "usurpation" is a variant, and there are other sources that say similar but are also not cited. Secondly, this article is not about the achievements or otherwise of Shah Mir but rather about those of the Lohara dynasty. Details of Shah Mir's policies in the post-Lohara period are not relevant because all that matters is his relationship to the dynastic period. The bit in the link that I provided that says "The rule of the Hindu radja had been oppressive and extortionate" may be used in the article but I rather think that it already is (will check later today - other things to do right now). - Sitush (talk) 05:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

1) Isn't the word "ascended" used to describe his comming to power in the source you gave? The word "usurped" was used to describe usurpation of property from the people, not of power from Shuvedeva. And once again, this is a point I am willing to concede if balance is given to the article. 2) Shah Mirs policies are definately relavant because they are describing the ending of the dynasty which provided people with stability and rule of order, in direct contrast with Shuvedeva who was opressive and the country had no order(this is all documented in the citation that you provided yourself). (Lowkeyvision (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC))

Please do not drag up your nonsensical parsing of that sentence again and please note that this is not some game of diplomacy where you get to have your way in one aspect if you concede in another. You are wrong about the usurp bit that you have now conceded and you are wrong about Shah Mir because the policies that you refer to arose at some stage after he ended the Lohara dynasty and not during it. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The rest of the paragraph it deals with what happened after the dyansty fell. Why cant this also be included? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC))

Because it is good style in an article concerning history to "round it off" but not delve into specifics. As soon as you begin to delve, the thing becomes long and unfocussed. - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Dont you think is a very subjective interpretation? Also, is quite relavant for rouding off because it describes the administration of the country at its end. Also, there still remains an imbalance and a bias in the paragraph currently. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC))

No, I do not consider it subjective - it is how good writing of history is done, wrapping things up without getting into deep detail. It is the way I have been taught to write about history by some of the best practitioners in the world at Cambridge. I do not understand your comment regarding imbalance and bias. The only bias I am seeing here is your own POV regarding a desire to see a particular religion shown in a good light when, in fact, this article is not about any religion but rather concerns a dynasty. - Sitush (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

How about your sentence "His success has led Hasan to describe him as 'the last great Hindu ruler of Kashmir.'" You are clearly okay with using sources that say how great Hindu rulers are. There is a lack of balance. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC))

D'uh. This is an article about a Hindu dynasty and a reliable source calls one member of that dynasty the last great Hindu ruler. How is that lacking in balance? Did you want me to suggest that he was a great Muslim ruler? Or Jewish? Or Christian? Or is your problem that you somehow equate "last great Hindu ruler" as meaning "last great ruler, period"? Sorry, but it looks to me as if you have now completely lost the plot. - Sitush (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You stated "I do not understand your comment regarding imbalance and bias. The only bias I am seeing here is your own POV regarding a desire to see a particular religion shown in a good light when, in fact, this article is not about any religion but rather concerns a dynasty." The end of the entire paragraph deals with Shah Mir, but describes nothing about his policies and their benefit to the locals. So far this is both offensive, lacks neutrality and lacks balance. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC))

Lowkeyvision, I do not recall ever saying these words to anyone on Wikipedia before despite there certainly being occasional disgressions into uncivil territory ... but why do you not just piss off? You are on to a hiding to nothing here: your points are spurious, your understanding of policy is weak in detail although not in link terms, your Muslim POV here is now evident, your possible stalking appears to becoming more evident, etc. Just drop it, eh? Especially since there have been some other concerns raised that suggest you may have an ulterior motive for all this trolling and pedantry. (I will provide details of that by email to any admin that requests it). And if you object to my choice of words then ANI is thataway. I can only take so much nonsense, sorry, and I have reached my limit if you bear in mind your recent block for this sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I am pro-balance. I am not pro-muslim. And in this case, the article is unbalanced, offensive and bias to a group of people. Why are you resorting to personal insults and threats rather than discourse? To be honest, I think you have enablers that allow your abusive edits(like the one you made above) and nothing would happen at ANI. Do you think it is time to get a third opinion on this paragraph yet? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC))

Sure. I hope they look at your recent block when considering this. I maintain that you are misunderstanding and/or misapplying policy and guidelines and I repeat that we are not censored. The article has focus and has been touched by several experienced contributors other than myself but, hey, maybe we are all wrong or maybe we all have a pro-Hindu bias. Frankly, I find this ridiculous but please do go to WP:3O if that is what it takes. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

First, The question is of balance. I am advocating for placement of sentences describing the policies of Shah Mir that allowed him to win over the locals: his tolerance of other religions and his lax economics of taxation. You are refusing to allow me to put this information which is cited by the source that you yourself provided. Second, the word usurp is an offensive term when invoking religion as per policies of WP:RNPOV. Third, thank you for not insulting me this time as you have done in the past. What made you so kind today?(Lowkeyvision (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC))

So, you have withdrawn your concession regarding "usurp". This smacks of bad faith: either the word is ok or it is not. Other sources using it include this, this, this, and this. There are loads of snippet views at GBooks. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Lohara dynasty and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: I'm afraid that I'm going to have to offer the Judgment of Solomon on this dispute. In accordance with WP:WPNOTRS, encyclopedias such as Houstma are tertiary sources which should not be used for detailed text such as this in Wikipedia: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." (Emphasis added.) Houstma is not, therefore, an adequate reliable source for this information and a secondary source should be found for it. The current discussion over how Houstma should be interpreted or restated is moot.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 15:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I am informed on my talk page that my foregoing opinion has missed the point, that the dispute over the word "usurp" has been conceded (which would not seem to be the case based upon the last post preceding my opinion), and that the remaining dispute is over the point that the page is biased against Muslims. I withdraw my opinion, and will restore the request to the Third Opinion page for some other 3O volunteer to consider. However, I would suggest to the party alleging the page to be biased against Muslims that it would probably help to get an opinion if you would briefly but specifically describe how it is that the page is unbalanced; that is, not how your additions make it more balanced but why and how you believe it to be unbalanced without those additions. Just a suggestion, and apologies for the false start, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Woah, sorry, I missed that last message in my haste to read your opinion. Lowkeyvision had conceded the use of "usurp" in trying to make a weird deal. Clearly, they've decided that since the deal is off then so is the concession. As I said at the time, "please note that this is not some game of diplomacy where you get to have your way in one aspect if you concede in another". Lkv has been making pointy allegations of POV from the moment they appeared at this article, they have been blocked for it and still they persist. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

First, I would like to thank you for your time. I would also like to say I agree with you ruling E.J Brill Encyclopedia should NOT be used and that the word usurped should be found in another secondary source.

Now to the matter at hand:
I agreed to the use the word usurped if balance was given to the article. The word "usurp" carried a very bad connotation and is not a complete account of the facts that took place.
The entire article presents an unbalanced view of the spread of Muslim Culture spread in South Asia because it does not acknowledge that some rulers(that were “muslims”) won favor by benefiting the locals financially and gave them religious freedom. Here are a few sentences from the current passage written by the editor
Ex1. “The later rulers of the dynasty were weak: internecine fighting and corruption was endemic during this period, with only brief years of respite, and this gave rise to the growth of Islamic supremacy in the region.”
Ex2. “It is possible that his iconoclasm was influenced by the ingress of the Muslim faith in areas surrounding Kashmir, although certainly he garnered much needed wealth from his destruction”
Ex 3. “The widow of Sūhadeva, queen Kotā took his place but was usurped by Shah Mir, a Muslim who had moved into the area from the south. The kingdom had been subjected to Muslim influence even prior to his arrival”

I will redocument my claim again using a secondary source used already used Sitush to document the point that Shah Mirs coming to power benefited the condition of the people
Kashmīr Under the Sultāns By Mohibbul Hasan - Page 263 - First published 1959 - Reprinted 2005 - ISBN: 81-87879-41-1 Published by: Akbar Books Patparganj, Dehli
“With the establishment of the Shah Mir dyansty, the condition of the peasants distinctly improved. This was because they were protected from exploitation of the government officials, and measures were taken to develop agriculture.”
Using this secondary source it can be extrapolated that Shah Mir’s dynasty had policies which improved peasant quality of life, protected them from government exploitation and led to development of agriculture. The entire last paragraph written by the editor focuses on “Muslims”, but refuses the acknowledge the beneficial policies of Shah Mir. Whether everything about “muslims” is struck out from this article or left in, I simply don’t care. What I care about is that history is accurate portrayal of Shah Mir’s policy, actions and their benefits to the people are displayed.
Thank you for your time. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC))

The article has never used the encyclopaedia as a source - that was merely to provide an example of usage. The article concerns a Hindu dynasty - all of this Muslim stuff is a side-show. Go write something on Shah Mir, where you can follow through with all this. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the last paragraph does not even refer to Muslims. It refers to how a form of anarchy came to prevail as the dynasty lost control of its subjects. Are we reading the same paragraph here, in context? Or is this yet another case of you not being able to understand what is written, as with your numerous misunderstandings of policy etc? - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yet again you insult me. The paragraph is

"The widow of Sūhadeva, queen Kotā took his place but was usurped by Shah Mir, a Muslim who had moved into the area from the south. The kingdom had been subjected to Muslim influence even prior to his arrival[nb 4] and some people had already converted to the religion from Hinduism. By the end of the 14th century the vast majority of the country had become Muslim, although the Brahmins still maintained their traditional roles as the learned administrators until the accession of Sikandar Butshikan.[32]" (Lowkeyvision (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC))

Ah, you meant the penultimate paragraph. How is the paragraph to which you refer unbalanced? A Hindu dynasty disappeared, Muslim rulers came in and the population thereafter largely became Muslim. It doesn't say, for example, Hindu = good and Muslim = bad. It merely wraps up an article concerning the last Hindu dynasty in the region, subsequent to which Muslim rule and customs etc came to the fore. - Sitush (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The wrapping up on the dynasty was done by Shah Mir and his policies are relevant for the wrapping up of the article. The end of the Lohara dynasty was tyrannical to the people under it and Shah Mir provided economic benefits to peasants and provided protection from governmental abuses. This in turn led him to secure the throne. Once again, I personally do not care if he is a "muslim" or a Pastafarian or whatever his faith may have been. Even if you ignore the fact that the way it is currently is written is clearly offensive to a particular religion: The importance of Shah Mirs economic policies and the prevention of the peasants from government abuse is important to cite because it highlights the differences in administrations of government(an important historical point that is well cited). Once again I quote the book used by the editor himself to describe the article:

Kashmīr Under the Sultāns By Mohibbul Hasan - Page 263 - First published 1959 - Reprinted 2005 - ISBN: 81-87879-41-1 Published by: Akbar Books Patparganj, Dehli
“With the establishment of the Shah Mir dyansty, the condition of the peasants distinctly improved. This was because they were protected from exploitation of the government officials, and measures were taken to develop agriculture.”(Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC))

Is this article about peasants, regardless of which dynasty ruled at which time? Feel free to create Condition of the peasantry in X during the period YYYY to ZZZZ. You could even concentrate on one year if you wished. If anything, the article concentrates more on the power game between rulers and damaras - roughly, the nobility. If the peasants had revolted, for example, then you might have a point. I am not aware that they did. Please understand that I am an apolitical British atheist: I have no vested interest in any perceived implications of this article by people of any religion or nationality that might be connected to it. Of course, some similar disclaimer might apply to you but, regardless, you know where I stand. Sitush (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

And as I had told you earlier I am someone who believes in god but don't subscribe to a particular religion. The difference between atheism and monotheism has nothing to do with this! Also being an atheist doesn't prevent people from holding prejudices(not saying that you are).

What could be derived from this text is 1. The word "established" can be used to describe Shah Mir's coming to power. 2. The economic and administrative policies of Shah Mir were beneficial to peasant farmers.

Using your strategy one can cut up any article into many distinct pieces. For example why could someone not say "there is no point to mention Shah Mir because the article is about the Lohara dynasty?" Reclassification is something that is used to hide on wikipedia. Please see WP:NPOVFACT to see what you may be unintentionally doing. Also please re-read WP:NPOV . I know some people try to use it as a playbook rather than a things to avoid list. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC))

You are still taking half-a-dozen edits to say anything, and changing your mind as you go along - it is bloody ridiculous having to deal with someone who cannot make their mind up in advance. You'll get no reply from me for several hours, perhaps even a day. There is no "strategy" and I am completely fed up of dealing with you. - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if I upset you. Please continue our discussion. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC))

References

Concluded in Origin section

I changed "concludes" to "concluded" since Stein's opinion was rendered more than one hundred years ago. Since it was an opinion, I added a footnote to the page where the conclusion was. Since the page was vailable in Google books I added a direct link to the page in the footnote. Since the article had cites to the next two pages i the book, and those were also available on Google, I added direct links to them. It is important to pinpoint cite "opinions" when they are used in an article. Since the Template:Cite book no longer supports the ref-link= parameter, I changed them to the ref= parameter, in order to remove unsightly redink from the bibliography. --Bejnar (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Stein (the book) still concludes the same today as it did when it was written; the opinions were already sourced and you are being ridiculously pedantic here. I've no memory of when the reflink thing was introduced nor did I know that the template no longer supported it - that is a good call but you can hardly blame me for not spotting it, as you did in your edit summary. Furthermore, using the ref parameter instead is pointless, I think - you cannot click-through with it. Therefore, as you invited me to do, I am reverting you again and will remove the reflinks without a replacement. Hope this makes sense. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

With respect to the reflinks it makes sense, deleting them works just as well, the only reason to have kept them as ref= would to have been if someone wanted to click through them with CTRL-F, small loss. To use the present tense about a former act does not make sense, even if it is pedantic to point that out. (Some would say that the nature of encyclopedic style is pedantry.) Lastly, what problem do you have with pinpoint linked pages so that the reader can go directly to the cited material? I don't understand that. --Bejnar (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, what has CTRL-F got to do with the ref/reflink parameter & click-throughs? They are only visible in the edit window, are they not, and you cannot click-through from there? Secondly, it is not a "former act": the book is available and is still cited by modern academics ... and we are referencing the book. You are never going to get consensus for past/present tense in these situations, so it is best to leave well alone provided that the article handles each source consistently. I am a little surprised that someone of your experience seemingly has an issue with this - I've never come across anyone who has done so previously, anywhere on Wikipedia. Finally, if a single source supports multiple consecutive statements then we cite at the end only. There is no loss of verifiability and there is a distinct gain in terms of minimising visual clutter. I also note that your changes seemed to introduce inconsistencies in the citation style - you have no consensus for this unilateral change. I would be quite content to see the citation style changed throughout to, say, {{sfn}} or {{r}} (if those still do support click-through) but mixing up styles is not a great idea and linking specific pages is merely a courtesy that likely will not even function for many people due to the limitations of GBooks.

This article is probably WP:GA standard already; let's not go backwards but rather try to round it off so that it can sail through a GAN, regardless of who reviews it. That means more work on identifying useful sources that do not just reference Stein. There are bound to be some. - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

So far, I have not found any English language references that are anything more than regurgitated Stein. --Bejnar (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The present tense, when used for past events, confuses some readers. The mantra is to not complicate things, hence use past tense for past events. In this example, I agree that academics often say "X in his review of Y concludes"; that does not make it the best formulation. --Bejnar (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The English language confuses a lot of readers of this Wikipedia version - you only have to look at the talk pages of caste articles to see the misreadings of sources etc. That doesn't mean that we change it. Once we start to use past tense for dead authorities and present tense for living ones then we hit a maintenance nightmare (things have to be changed when the author of a source dies) and we potentially become weaselers because changes of tense can imply that one source is somehow "better" than another. I mean, it is often true that more recent sources are to be preferred but that is not a universal truth. - Sitush (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, it is not whether the author is living or dead, it is whether the "act" is completed. Usually publishing renders that in the past. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of an instance like this where the present tense is appropriate. There may be some. --Bejnar (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not misunderstood you and there are plenty of examples for the usage. In fact, you have already acknowledged that with your comment regarding how academic sources treat the issue. Take this somewhere higher at a policy/guideline forum or else leave it well alone. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Identification of Lo

The article needs to identify the Lohrin River and its valley. --Bejnar (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

We can link it, even if red, but there is no need to turn this into an article about a place. The early sections already place it in the (linked) Pir Panjal range. - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Connection with Lohana

Lohar rana(लोहर rana) short form Lohana for Lohar Kshatriya's. [[11]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.59.171 (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Didda Lohana
Page 144 [[12]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.59.171 (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Asian Voice article

[[13]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.59.171 (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Academia.edu

@Fowler&fowler: Just register to the site Academia.edu. It's easy, it's free, and very useful. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. I had academics.edu. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Joe Cribb reference ...

... is from a newsletter, not a journal, let alone a peer-reviewed one (and therefore a reliable source). See Newsletter, number 208, from the year 2011. It is not by Joe Cribb's either, but by the next author. It is a reminiscence of a then-recently deceased person called Nick Rhodes (presumably a numismatist) by another person called Shailendra Bhandare. The image is a part of Bhandare's postscript, accompanied by the words:

"Before Nick’s passing, his collection of Kashmir coins was acquired by Dr Paul Stevens. Paul has very kindly agreed to keep his collection as a long-term loan in the Heberden Coin Room, Ashmolean Museum, so that it remains accessible for research. The ‘Salla Raja’ coin now belongs to Paul and as such, has returned into my curatorial care! I am very happy to illustrate it here as a tribute to Nick’s memory and as reminiscent of our personal collecting histories." (See here, page 3)

Please enlighten me on how this is reliable? User:Pat, again: you can't sloppily, carelessly, and relentlessly keep making these edits. They create too many problems for the rest of us who keep an eye on Kashmir-related articles. I have already given you several warnings. What is it you don't understand? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:

Coinage of Harsa ("Harshadeva"), Kashmir, 1089-1101 CE.

• I am afraid you are mistaken. The article "THE COINS OF THE KASHMIR KING HARSHADEVA (AD 1089–1101) IN THE LIGHT OF THE ‘GUJRANWALA’ HOARD" in the "Journal of the Oriental Numismatics Society (No 208, 2011), p.28" is indeed by the great Joe Cribb, and, in terms of numismatics, it is about as good a source as it gets. It is a good source to confirm the identification of this CNG coin of Harsa, as you requested.
• You probably know that it is not customary on Wikipedia to demand print references for coin images. CNG, which provides the vast majority of coins on Wikipedia due to their generous licensing conditions, is a good, although not strictly RS source, and the descriptions on its website, provided by licensed numismats, are usually considered as sufficient (they are themselves sourced from rather arcane numismatic works which are generally almost impossible to access).
• Pinging @Vanamonde93:: Fowler&fowler has been deleting several of my contributions of coin images for the dynasties of Kashmir (all from CNG), on the ground that there are no print references. I am afraid these are unreasonnable and highly unusual requests, untypical of Wikipedia practices, especially as the descriptions are freely avaible on CNG through the link on the Commons file. The language is again toxic, insulting and threatening, the intent is clearly vexatory. Can't this user tone down a bit, and have normal, civil, interractions with others? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

References

• There are several errors in your characterization:

• (a) I did not delete or blank on the Lohara dynasty page, I did an AGF revert.
• (b) You had cited your addition sloppily, giving a link on Academia.edu which according to its Wikipedia page is "an American commercial social networking website for academics," and which as an academic of many years standing I had never heard of, or never paid attention to, not being interested in social networking.
• (c) I had to find the actual journal website, and the archives which listed Newsletters. In 2006, the Newsletter of the ONS changed its name to Journal of the ONS, but it is still listed there as "Newsletter." Moreover, it is 48 pages long and published four times a year (with the seasons), so it is basically a newsletter. It is not peer-reviewed. No submission or acceptance dates are given. It is not like real journals of numismatics, such as the one carrying this article.
• (d) I then went to Newsletter 208, the year 2011. You had not given me any page number. Lo and behold, I found the first article by the selfsame Joe. He was reminiscing about a recently deceased friend. The following page had a rough-hewn coin from India. I9 made a mistake and assumed that was the coin of the reference. I apologize for that.
• (e) I have now gone back and checked the article whose page numbers are 28 through 33.
• (f) The coin you had added is not the same as any listed in Cribb and Mobin's Newsletter Announcement; it is similar, but we have the seller's word at CNG, which is not a reliable source. I've bought a few coins at CNG.
• (g) I cannot find that article anywhere in Cribb's Google Scholar listing. In other words, not only is it not cited by others, it is not even listed in his publications.

• So please don't throw around words like "toxic," and the like. You are egregiously careless in your citations. I recently edited the Brahmi script to demonstrate to you how citations should be made. But you don't seem to making any effort. WP, moreover, is not a place for hanging pictures. user:Kautilya3 has already told you something similar on the Kashmir kingdoms page. When you waste the time of productive and conscientious editors you are being disruptive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Academia.edu is simply a hosting service; it does not in any way change the reliability of the content it hosts. If the source is a dodgy one, as seems to be the case here, the hosting url is irrelevant. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:

• The numismatic article is actually posted by Joe Cribb himself on the Academia.edu website [14], where many of his articles are also hosted. This is a very common outlet for many scholars. The article also appears in "Journal of the Oriental Numismatics Society (No 208, 2011), p.28", which is an important publication for scholars of numismatics [15]
• If you had actually read the article [16], you would see the coin precisely reflects the very common coin type of Harsa that is being listed there, Fig.1 to Fig.9. CNG faithfully follows Cribb in its description of the coin,[17] and references the Cribb article "(Cribb & Mobin)". It is common practice in numismatics to identify a specimen with known coin types, and the identification here is obvious, straightforward and uncontroversial, made by the specialist numismatic site CNG, which is routinely used and relied-on by Wikipedia on a very large scale for coin images and their identification (tens of thousands of them). It is generally impossible to have a reference for each single specimen, as of course hundreds of specimen typically exist for each coin type.
• Joe Cribb is one of the foremost authorities for ancient Indian coinage, "Keeper of the Coins and Medals" at the British Museum (2003–2010). This is very far from an unknown coin afficionado. If you want, maybe we could simply attribute the identification to Joe Cribb directly: "According to Joe Cribb, this coin type belongs to Harsa...." with description, I would be fine with that.
• This is already a lot for a numismatic source. If your logic were to be followed, there would be no coin images on Wikipedia: images of personal coins would be rejected because "unsourced", Museum images would be rejected because "Museums keep making mistakes" [18], CNG images would be rejected because their coins and attributions would be deemed non-RS, and images of exact published specimens would be unvailable because of copyright.
• You should read and re-read User:Johnbod's comment: "Your habit of compulsively completely dismissing RS sources that conflict with a point you're making is becoming tiresome." [19]
• It is a common, and usually very welcome, practice to illustrate Wikipedia articles with relevant pictures. This is not "just hanging pictures." My Kingdom of Kashmir article was under development when you blanked it [20]. There would be much more text today to go with the images, if you had not interrupted the process. It is unfair to make layout assumptions on an article that is under development. Anyway, having picture galleries for works of art is normal practice on Wikipedia.
• @Vanamonde93: Any way you can help us move forward?

पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, I'm not getting involved in the content issues here, sorry. If you continue to be in disagreement, you should open an RfC about the content/images in question. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I have replied to Johnbod's comment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

POV maps and other additions.

User:Pat has added a rudimentary, not to mention a highly incorrect map in which the Lorhara dynasty's dominions loom much larger than what might have been the case. This dynasty is not mentioned in the sophisticated modern history of India. It is barely mentioned in the old histories of India whether British colonial or nationalist Indian.

So how does User:Pat get around it? He litters the page with pictures whose provenance is being dubiously laid at this dynasty's doorstep. Alternatively, the fly-by-night publishers of Ansari Road, Old Delhi, can be used, for they will publish any claim. I'm sorry, User:Pat, I'm tired of the gray-zone, POV-ridden, editing you are doing on Wikpedia. Others such as Kautilya3 and Ms Sarah Welch have attempted to give you other perspectives, but you don't seem to listen. I'm warning you, if you don't stop, I will sooner than later take you to another forum to have you topic banned from India-history-related topics. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Re: YOUR MASS REVERT

• As far as I can see, the Lohara dynasty is amply discussed in many historical sources [21], the article has many references too. I don't see how the Lohara dynasty deserves less treatment than many ancient kingdoms or dynasties. Or is it just that you resent content related to the pre-Islamic history of India, as you have already clearly suggested "I'm generally very reluctant these days (even depressed) about editing South Asia-related pages, especially India-related ones, where the level of general obsession with India's shining pre-Muslim antiquity continues unabated, probably has worsened in these Hindu majoritarian times, or should I say, anti-Muslim majoritarian."? Talk about a POV...
• You are removing many images [22] which are properly sourced, be it to numismats, museums, reliable publications, and descriptive of the time and period of the Lohara Dynasty. This is standard Wikipedia practice, there is no justification to remove them. I've never seen an editor strip an article of all its illustrations like this... User:Johnbod can you help?
• The map I created [23] attempts to describe the geo-political situation of the Lohara Dynasty circa 1000. It is standard practice and only represents standard and well-known polities which are contemporary to the Loharas: it is simply illustrative, to help understand the article. There is no attempt to agrandize the Lohara Dynasty, as there is not even territory shown. Furthermore, the map is modifiable, so anybody can make adjustments, and you are welcome to do so. I've spent most of March 25th adding references to many maps of the history of India where there weren't any references for many years... including many articles you have been editing... so this sudden punctiliousness is intriguing. Is it again because of your dislike of pre-Islamic content [24]?
• Just to be clear, I rarely contribute in the area of Hindu dynasties (or anything Hindu actually), it's just that these pages are so derelict (or is it intentional?... here's another page which you just mass-reverted: Utpala dynasty). I have even contributed content and images to your beloved post-Islamic polities (Shah Mir dynasty, which you apparently don't think is worth deleting this time... double standards??).
• Administrators @Doug Weller:@Vanamonde93: I am under the impression that User:Fowler&fowler is hounding me, mass deleting my contributions, with vexatory intent and very often incivil language, impending me from contributing normally to Wikipedia. It seems to be stemming from some sort of anti-Hindu POV. Can you do something please? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You cannot draw a map in which a dynasty whose realm lay in some portion of the tiny Kashmir valley is shown extending from the Kabul river valley to Western Tibet and in the south to the Sutlej. Find a physical map of India, find the tiny valley below the western anchor of the Himalayas, and draw an arrow showing the location.

If I were hounding you, I would have shown an iota of interest in the Central Asian or Western Asian articles you edit. When your editing impinges on areas which I watch, maintain, or otherwise take responsibility for: India; Indus Valley Civilisation; Kashmir, a disputed region; or the Brahmi script (by way of my interest in Indian mathematics); I take notice.

It is your responsibility to make sure your edits are WP:DUE. I'm not worried about Shah mir as TrangaBellam and Kautilya3 edit it. When TB began to edit Karkota dynasty, I stopped showing interest in it as he is a rigorous NPOV editor, as is Kautilya3. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand that I am writing this defensively or in response to anything you have written. I'm just trying to remind myself. Let me see ... the articles or sections that I have written entirely by myself that impinge on Ancient- or early Medieval South Asia, or things related to Hinduism, are: the lead and first three sections of Indus Valley Civilisation; Ancient India section of the FA India; the first eight sections of Indian mathematics through the Bhakshali manuscript; an article on the 7th century Kannada inscription: Kappe Arabhatta and the meter Tripadi (and I can neither read, write, or speak the language of that inscription); the festival Raksha Bandhan; the very long section: Religious and cultural significance of Ganges; I have also drawn the map of the headwaters of the Ganges river File:HeadwatersGanges1.jpg by hand. Like I said, I'm merely reminding myself. It is similar to what G. H. Hardy said to himself when he felt depressed by people's actions or arrogance: "I've collaborated with Littlewood and Ramanujan on something like equal terms." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Re: HOUNDING AND MAPS

• I note that you have never ever edited the Lohara dynasty nor Utpala dynasty nor Ghaznavids pages before, appart from mass reverting me in the last few days [25][26][27], disproving your claim that you "maintain, or otherwise take responsibility for" these pages, and confirming the hounding pattern (WP:HOUNDING). By the way, claims to "take responsibility for" or "managing" a page on Wikipedia are ludicrious, and clear violations of WP:OWN @Doug Weller:@Vanamonde93:
• I corrected the maps by simply marking the tiny heartland of these dynasties (the area around the Srinagar valley), per your request. Please note that my maps are not "rudimentary" maps, and the {{Location map+}} template is perfectly acceptable per Wikipedia rules and practices, and is used extensively throughout the encyclopedia. These maps have the advantage that they are standardized, can be edited, and have clikable labels, making them open and convenient for research. The content is well-known and uncontroversial, avoiding the classical POV issues with territorial extents, and you can correct any perceived mistakes anyway by simply editing them. You have no right to impose a different format, but your are free of course to create an alternative map if you wish. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you will get anywhere with your HOUNDING allegation. If Fowler finds a problematic pattern in your editing, he is well-justified in following you wherever you go and make sure that you don't replicate it there. That is in the interest of Wikipedia.

And, when an edit is reverted, please make sure you understand well what the objections are and address them, before reinstating or revising the contentious content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Sculpture

Please provide a reference that identifies this sculpture with Lohara Dynasty. It will be better than edit-warring to restore ill-referenced (or synthesized) content. Kurt Behrendt, one of the two curators of the Asian Arts section of The Met having expertise in Kashmiri sculpture, notes that the sculpture is understudied since it is not on display. However, he is sure that it belongs to the late Kashmiri tradition though it might be a century earlier than the one, mentioned (that is, 10^th century). TrangaBellam (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: Please explain your undoing my deletions. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @TrangaBellam: First, no matter what some users might argue, Museums of high standing and their official websites are good sources on Wikipedia. You should not delete a photograph simply because it is referenced from a museum. However, you can definitely add print sources if you have any. But private discussions with whoever are not WP:RS. Second, the caption of the photograph you wanted to delete only says "at the time of the Lohara dynasty, 11th century CE, Jammu and Kashmir". The Museum even says "Ancient Kingdom of Kashmir", we could add that. Do you know any other Kingdom of Kashmir, other then the Lohara dynasty, in 11th century CE Jammu and Kashmir? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)