This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
In the next few days, I will be rewriting the article. All cooperation are welcome.
TrangaBellam (
talk) 11:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect
पाटलिपुत्र, why does this deserve a new page? The current version barely makes any sense - you cannot copy trash from other pages or write an entire article basing on Dani. It is blindingly obvious that these are all oral legends transmitted across Humza lores: Reginald clearly states to such effect, something you didn't. More:
1 and
2.
Dani's most detailed narrative is presented in
History of Northern Areas (1991) (p. 162 onward.) I leave it to you about whether anything in the following pages can be relied upon.
He concedes in every alternate page that there exists nil historical evidence to corroborate any damn event, that H. Khan's recording of history is heavily faulty (consult
this and sources cited therein for more information on Khan and his sources) with nonsensical dates, and that Rais Khan's is an hagiography which often contradicts the former. Still, Dani is hell-bent on extracting a history of the region.
TrangaBellam (
talk) 17:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Do you have any better information about who succeeded the
Patola Shahis in Gilgit? I don't think a redirect to
Gilgit#Trakhàn_Dynasty is any better, as the paragraph there makes even less sense and is terribly sourced. At least in this article we have a bunch of sources (admitedly mainly Dani) trying to give an account of this dynasty/period. It would be more productive and informative to balance this article with alternative views, or even (sourced) criticisms of Dani's reconstruction given in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, if they exist. We only go by what sources tell us. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 20:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Dani is (self-admittedly) in the realms of speculation - sorry, he doesn't count as a RS. I will let
Kautilya3 take a look. If no scholar has bothered to document the premodern history of Gilgit, why shall we?
I have read much on the Patola Shahis but nothing remarkable about their successors.
TrangaBellam (
talk) 10:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Whereupon we arrived at a consensus that Dani's "history of this dynasty" shall be explicitly noted to be a retelling of Gilgit traditions/lore.
TrangaBellam (
talk) 13:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
In the next few days, I will be rewriting the article. All cooperation are welcome.
TrangaBellam (
talk) 11:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect
पाटलिपुत्र, why does this deserve a new page? The current version barely makes any sense - you cannot copy trash from other pages or write an entire article basing on Dani. It is blindingly obvious that these are all oral legends transmitted across Humza lores: Reginald clearly states to such effect, something you didn't. More:
1 and
2.
Dani's most detailed narrative is presented in
History of Northern Areas (1991) (p. 162 onward.) I leave it to you about whether anything in the following pages can be relied upon.
He concedes in every alternate page that there exists nil historical evidence to corroborate any damn event, that H. Khan's recording of history is heavily faulty (consult
this and sources cited therein for more information on Khan and his sources) with nonsensical dates, and that Rais Khan's is an hagiography which often contradicts the former. Still, Dani is hell-bent on extracting a history of the region.
TrangaBellam (
talk) 17:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Do you have any better information about who succeeded the
Patola Shahis in Gilgit? I don't think a redirect to
Gilgit#Trakhàn_Dynasty is any better, as the paragraph there makes even less sense and is terribly sourced. At least in this article we have a bunch of sources (admitedly mainly Dani) trying to give an account of this dynasty/period. It would be more productive and informative to balance this article with alternative views, or even (sourced) criticisms of Dani's reconstruction given in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, if they exist. We only go by what sources tell us. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 20:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Dani is (self-admittedly) in the realms of speculation - sorry, he doesn't count as a RS. I will let
Kautilya3 take a look. If no scholar has bothered to document the premodern history of Gilgit, why shall we?
I have read much on the Patola Shahis but nothing remarkable about their successors.
TrangaBellam (
talk) 10:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Whereupon we arrived at a consensus that Dani's "history of this dynasty" shall be explicitly noted to be a retelling of Gilgit traditions/lore.
TrangaBellam (
talk) 13:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply