This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Somnath temple article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
Bibliography from the reverted article
|
---|
|
Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand the controversy in the Mythology section. What are the two views that are being distinguished? What does "Somnath may have been linked to this Prabhasa Pattana through mythology in some later century
" mean? --
Kautilya3 (
talk)
08:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
It is important as much as temple but the mythology section need more information about the story which is attached to it which is missing and then the views about historian should be placed to give more meaning to the Mythology section. Curious man123 ( talk) 12:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Thapar is among the pre-eminent historians of ancient India and her magisterial work on Somnatha has not only been subject to rave reviews ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.) but also has been cited over 200 times by other scholars. It is ridiculous to demand that her views be attributed without providing reputed scholars who have dissented to the observations under question that might necessitate such an approach. TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Thapar developed a new historiographical perspective on ancient India. She put into practice Marxist framework in her historical writings while innovating it rather than following it mechanically. Kosambi devised what is called ‘combined methods’ in order to understand Indian history. Romila Thapar developed a new methodology in the field of Indian religious, cultural and historical studies. This methodology consists in combining important insights in sociology, anthropology, archaeology, Indology and other social sciences. Thus, she established a scientific and rational approach to historiography by taking into account contemporary political contexts. This comprehensive /holistic methodology to history characteristic of her writings has been the vanguard since last few decades in understanding the history of the oppressed and marginalised in Ancient India.
In her works on ancient India, Romila Thapar foregrounded the questions of caste and gender. She also underscored the instrumentality of culture and religion in the processes of exploitation, and their socio-economic inter-relations. She has critiqued colonial, national and Marxist historiographies. Thus, we come across in her historical writings an insightful analysis of the making of modern social consciousness with respect to history.
present a comparably reliable source that actually disputes [Thapar]. Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 17:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
According to The New York Times, Joseph Biden was elected President." We don't attribute factual statements. What you are asking for sounds just as silly to somebody that is knowledgeable in history. It is not Wikipedia's job to doubt prominent scholars and start disputing whether they have done thorough research or not. Views are attributed; factual statements are not. Unless there are contrary views expressed by RS, it should not be attributed. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
which fits the bill here. Webberbrad007 ( talk) 22:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)...Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion...
Webberbrad007 ( talk) 23:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)A more balanced study which is based on Sanskrit and Jain scriptures was undertaken by Romila Thapar. Her study, much to our shock, claims that the Somnath was a relatively insignificant temple of medieval times, therefore different sources had different notions or opinions regarding the attacks on the temple by Ghazni.
well known fact that the Somnath temple was attacked all of 17 times by the Mahmud of Ghazni". -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Kautilya3, please explain what you believe was "speculative synthesis and source misrepresentation" when you removed sourced content here. Webberbrad007 ( talk) 23:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
@
Kautilya3:, you
recently reverted an
edit by me which was itself a revert of an
unsourced, unexplained edit by an IP user 5 months ago. With your revert, you left the note Reverting an unsourced edit
. However, as I noted, my change was itself a revert of an unsourced edit, and the previous version (that I restored) is sourced in the body (see the last two sentences of the lead). If you can back up your apparently preferred version, which attributes the present structure to an ambiguous, amorphous, and unnamed body of Hindus, with a reliable source, please provide it here; otherwise, do us a favor and self-revert. Thanks.
Brusquedandelion (
talk)
15:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Somnath temple article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
Bibliography from the reverted article
|
---|
|
Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand the controversy in the Mythology section. What are the two views that are being distinguished? What does "Somnath may have been linked to this Prabhasa Pattana through mythology in some later century
" mean? --
Kautilya3 (
talk)
08:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
It is important as much as temple but the mythology section need more information about the story which is attached to it which is missing and then the views about historian should be placed to give more meaning to the Mythology section. Curious man123 ( talk) 12:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Thapar is among the pre-eminent historians of ancient India and her magisterial work on Somnatha has not only been subject to rave reviews ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.) but also has been cited over 200 times by other scholars. It is ridiculous to demand that her views be attributed without providing reputed scholars who have dissented to the observations under question that might necessitate such an approach. TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Thapar developed a new historiographical perspective on ancient India. She put into practice Marxist framework in her historical writings while innovating it rather than following it mechanically. Kosambi devised what is called ‘combined methods’ in order to understand Indian history. Romila Thapar developed a new methodology in the field of Indian religious, cultural and historical studies. This methodology consists in combining important insights in sociology, anthropology, archaeology, Indology and other social sciences. Thus, she established a scientific and rational approach to historiography by taking into account contemporary political contexts. This comprehensive /holistic methodology to history characteristic of her writings has been the vanguard since last few decades in understanding the history of the oppressed and marginalised in Ancient India.
In her works on ancient India, Romila Thapar foregrounded the questions of caste and gender. She also underscored the instrumentality of culture and religion in the processes of exploitation, and their socio-economic inter-relations. She has critiqued colonial, national and Marxist historiographies. Thus, we come across in her historical writings an insightful analysis of the making of modern social consciousness with respect to history.
present a comparably reliable source that actually disputes [Thapar]. Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 17:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
According to The New York Times, Joseph Biden was elected President." We don't attribute factual statements. What you are asking for sounds just as silly to somebody that is knowledgeable in history. It is not Wikipedia's job to doubt prominent scholars and start disputing whether they have done thorough research or not. Views are attributed; factual statements are not. Unless there are contrary views expressed by RS, it should not be attributed. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
which fits the bill here. Webberbrad007 ( talk) 22:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)...Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion...
Webberbrad007 ( talk) 23:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)A more balanced study which is based on Sanskrit and Jain scriptures was undertaken by Romila Thapar. Her study, much to our shock, claims that the Somnath was a relatively insignificant temple of medieval times, therefore different sources had different notions or opinions regarding the attacks on the temple by Ghazni.
well known fact that the Somnath temple was attacked all of 17 times by the Mahmud of Ghazni". -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Kautilya3, please explain what you believe was "speculative synthesis and source misrepresentation" when you removed sourced content here. Webberbrad007 ( talk) 23:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
@
Kautilya3:, you
recently reverted an
edit by me which was itself a revert of an
unsourced, unexplained edit by an IP user 5 months ago. With your revert, you left the note Reverting an unsourced edit
. However, as I noted, my change was itself a revert of an unsourced edit, and the previous version (that I restored) is sourced in the body (see the last two sentences of the lead). If you can back up your apparently preferred version, which attributes the present structure to an ambiguous, amorphous, and unnamed body of Hindus, with a reliable source, please provide it here; otherwise, do us a favor and self-revert. Thanks.
Brusquedandelion (
talk)
15:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)