Talk:Somnath temple

Bibliography

Bibliography from the reverted article

Vinayak Bharne; Krupali Krusche (2014). Rediscovering the Hindu Temple: The Sacred Architecture and Urbanism of India. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4438-6734-4. T. Richard Blurton (1993). Hindu Art. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-39189-5. Chakravarti, R. (2020). Trade and Traders in Early Indian Society. Manohar. ISBN 978-1-000-17012-2. Chaturvedi, B. K. (2006), Shiv Purana (First ed.), New Delhi: Diamond Pocket Books (P) Ltd, ISBN 81-7182-721-7 Thomas E. Donaldson (1985). Hindu Temple Art of Orissa. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-07173-5. James Fergusson; Richard Phené Spiers (1910). History of Indian and Eastern Architecture. John Murray. James Fergusson (1967). History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, Volume 2. Munshiram Manoharlal. James Fergusson (1876). History of Indian and Eastern Architecture Volume 3. J. Murray. Fleming, Benjamin J. (2009). "Mapping Sacred Geography in Medieval India: The Case of the Twelve Jyotirlingas". International Journal of Hindu Studies. 13 (1). Springer: 51–81. JSTOR 40343806. Eck, Diana L. (1999), Banaras, city of light (First ed.), New York: Columbia University Press, ISBN 0-231-11447-8 Gwynne, Paul (2009), World Religions in Practice: A Comparative Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell Publication, ISBN 978-1-4051-6702-4. Harding, Elizabeth U. (1998). "God, the Father". Kali: The Black Goddess of Dakshineswar. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 156–157. ISBN 978-81-208-1450-9. James C. Harle (1994). The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-06217-5. Susan L. Huntington; John C. Huntington (2014). The Art of Ancient India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jain. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-81-208-3617-4. Adam Hardy (2007). The Temple Architecture of India. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-02827-8. Adam Hardy (1995). Indian Temple Architecture: Form and Transformation : the Karṇāṭa Drāviḍa Tradition, 7th to 13th Centuries. Abhinav Publications. ISBN 978-81-7017-312-0. Khan, M. S. (1976). "al-Bīrūnī and the Political History of India". Oriens. 25: 86–115. doi:10.2307/1580658. JSTOR 1580658. Stella Kramrisch (1996). The Hindu Temple, Volume 1. Motilal Banarsidass. Stella Kramrisch (1976). The Hindu Temple, Volume 2. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-81-208-0224-7. Lochtefeld, James G. (2002), The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism: A-M, Rosen Publishing Group, p. 122, ISBN 0-8239-3179-X Hiltebeitel, Alf (2001). Rethinking the Mahabharata: A Reader's Guide to the Education of the Dharma King. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-34054-8. Ludvik, Catherine (2007). Sarasvatī, Riverine Goddess of Knowledge: From the Manuscript-carrying Vīṇā-player to the Weapon-wielding Defender of the Dharma. Brill's Indological Library. Brill Academic. ISBN 978-90-04-15814-6. Michael W. Meister; Madhusudan Dhaky (1983). Encyclopaedia of Indian Temple Architecture, Volume 1 Part 1 South India Text & Plates. American Institute of Indian Studies. M. A. Dhaky; Michael W. Meister (1983). Encyclopaedia of Indian Temple Architecture: Volume 1 Part 2 South India Text & Plates. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-7992-4. Madhusudan A. Dhaky; Michael Meister (1996). Encyclopaedia of Indian Temple Architecture, Volume 1 Part 3 South India Text & Plates. American Institute of Indian Studies. ISBN 978-81-86526-00-2. Michael W. Meister; Madhusudan A. Dhaky (1983). Encyclopaedia of Indian Temple Architecture, Volume 1 Part 4 South India Text & Plates. American Institute of Indian Studies. ISBN 978-81-7304-436-6. Michael W. Meister; Madhusudan A. Dhaky; Krishna Deva (1983). Encyclopaedia of Indian Temple Architecture Volume 2 Part 1 North India Text & Plates. American Institute of Indian Studies. Michael W. Meister; Madhusudan A. Dhaky. Encyclopaedia of Indian Temple Architecture: Volume 2 Part 2 North India Text & Plates. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-691-04094-3. Madhusudan A. Dhaky (1998). Encyclopaedia of Indian Temple Architecture Volume 2 Part 3 North India Text & Plates. American Institute of Indian Studies. ISBN 978-81-7304-225-6. George Michell (2001). Encyclopaedia of Indian Temple Architecture: Later Phase, C. AD. 1289-1798. South India. Dravidadesa. American Institute of Indian Studies. George Michell (1977). The Hindu Temple: An Introduction to Its Meaning and Forms. Harper & Row. ISBN 978-0-06-435750-0. George Michell (1989). The Penguin Guide to the Monuments of India: Buddhist, Jain, Hindu. Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-008144-2. George Michell (2000). Hindu Art and Architecture. Thames & Hudson. ISBN 978-0-500-20337-8. Benjamin Rowland (1970). The Art and Architecture of India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jain. Penguin Books. Venugopalam, R. (2003), Meditation: Any Time Any Where (First ed.), Delhi: B. Jain Publishers (P) Ltd., ISBN 81-8056-373-1 Rosa Maria Cimino (1977). "Review: The Riddle of the Temple of Somanātha by M. A. Dhaky and H. P. Shastri". East and West. 27 (1/4): 381–382. JSTOR 29756394. Mishra, S.V.; Ray, Himanshu P. (2016). The Archaeology of Sacred Spaces: The temple in western India, 2nd century BCE–8th century CE. Archaeology and Religion in South Asia. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-19374-6. Sankalia, H.D. (1941). The Archaeology of Gujarat (including Kathiawar). Natwarlal. Sankalia, H.D. (1987). Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Gujarat. Munshiram Manoharlal. ISBN 978-81-215-0049-4. Nanavati, J. M.; Dhaky, M. A. (1969). "The Maitraka and the Saindhava Temples of Gujarat". Artibus Asiae. Supplementum. 26. Artibus Asiae Publishers: 3–83. JSTOR 1522666. Rao, T.A.G. (1985). Elements of Hindu Iconography. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-81-208-0878-2. Rocher, L. (1986). The Purāṇas. History of Indian literature. O. Harrassowitz. ISBN 978-3-447-02522-5. Shokoohy, Mehrdad (2012). "The legacy of Islam in Somnath". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 75 (2). Cambridge University Press: 297–335. doi:10.1017/s0041977x12000493. Vivekananda, Swami. "The Paris Congress of the History of Religions". The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Vol. Vol.4. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help) Thapar, Romila (2004). Somanatha: The Many Voices of a History. Penguin Books India. ISBN 1-84467-020-1. Yagnik, Achyut; Sheth, Suchitra (2005), The Shaping of Modern Gujarat: Plurality, Hindutva, and Beyond, Penguin Books India, p. 39, ISBN 978-0-14-400038-8 Dhaky, M. A.; Shastri, H. P., eds. (1974). The Riddle of the Temple at Somanatha. Bharata Manisha. Cousens, Henry (1931), Somnatha and Other Mediaeval Temples in Kathiawad, India: Archaeological Survey of India, Vol XLV, Imperial Press Henry, Cousens (1931), Somnatha and Other Mediaeval Temples in Kathiawad, India: Archaeological Survey of India, Vol XLV, Imperial Press Shastri, J.L.; Tagare, G.V. (2004). The Bhagavata Purana Part 5: Ancient Indian Tradition and Mythology Volume 11. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-81-208-3878-9. Wink, Andre (2002). Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam 7Th-11th Centuries. Brill. ISBN 978-0-391-04173-8. Wink, André (1991). Al-Hind the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: The Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquest : 11th-13th Centuries. E.J. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-10236-1.

Kautilya3 (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Mythology section

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

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

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

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

Thapar

Thapar is among the pre-eminent historians of ancient India and her magisterial work on Somnatha has not only been subject to rave reviews (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.) but also has been cited over 200 times by other scholars. It is ridiculous to demand that her views be attributed without providing reputed scholars who have dissented to the observations under question that might necessitate such an approach. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Demanding is not about the removing of any sentence but rather no other pre eminent historian, that Romila Thapar is without any doubt, has give any solid support to the views on the book. The source you mentioned is definitely a review but it not reviewed by any prominent historian. So the views about that statement should to attached to specific historian rather than generalizing it. Curious man123 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

If you cannot write coherent English, please find another wiki (or less complex space) to work in. It is your claim that Shahid Amin, Kesavan Veluthat, Munis D. Faruqui et al are not "prominent historians"? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Btw, you are past the 3RR mark. Please self-revert. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess this is not personal debate on me, and name one more Historian of having another ideology( other than Marxist that you have mentioned) that had backed the claim and as far as my English is concern, it is nothing to do with any thin that it's still no with anything related to this. Curious man123 (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I cannot understand everything of what you wrote but is it your claim that Thapar is a Marxist historian? Even if she were one, that won't have been a disqualifier but to quote from Santhosh Suradkar, Romila Thapar: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue:,

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.

Without going into tangents, I request of you to present a comparably reliable source that actually disputes [Thapar]. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Re your revert here - I don't doubt Thapar's credentials. However, that claim by its very nature is just that - a claim. There can never be complete proof that all ancient Sanskrit texts (including those that haven't survived the ages) don't mention Somnath temple. Thapar has not found any mention in the texts she has reviewed for her scholarship. I do not see why attribution is controversial here or needs a scholarly counter-claim? Webberbrad007 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Somebody gave this example: "According to The New York Times, Joseph Biden was elected President." We don't attribute factual statements. What you are asking for sounds just as silly to somebody that is knowledgeable in history. It is not Wikipedia's job to doubt prominent scholars and start disputing whether they have done thorough research or not. Views are attributed; factual statements are not. Unless there are contrary views expressed by RS, it should not be attributed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You haven't read what I have written above and are instead trying to Strawman my argument.

There is a difference between "Biden was elected President" and "All ancient Sanskrit texts do not mention Somnath Temple". The latter can never be proven with 100% certainty given the potential loss of texts over the ages. Webberbrad007 (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not our job to decide onn such certainties. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure. But it is our job to attribute it to the scholar when there isn't 100% certainty of a statement. Webberbrad007 (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not. WP:YESPOV states:

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.

Nothing more needs to be added. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

How is this a fact?

What could be stated as a fact is that the texts Thapar reviewed did not contain such a reference. But to claim that there are no Sanskrit texts (now or those from antiquity which didn't survive) that included such a reference is to also claim that Sanskrit texts that Thapar hasn't reviewed have never existed.

I disagree and it appears that we are at an impasse. I am happy to invite uninvolved editors to opine. Webberbrad007 (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

What you have posted includes

...Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion...

which fits the bill here. Webberbrad007 (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Two scholars writing in a journal by Tata Institute of Social Sciences express shock over the claims by Thapar, though they acknowledge her study was balanced.

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.

Webberbrad007 (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

And? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Here, shock is a synonym for surprise and they cast no judgement. Indeed, academic monographs often challenge commonly held misconceptions etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Even if they don't cast any judgement, their shock (whichever meaning of the word you choose to use) and their view that this is a claim by Thapar and not a fact is clearly stated.

Is it your contention that Thapar has reviewed all ancient Sanskrit texts that have ever existed to arrive at this claim? I doubt any scholar would claim such a thing, least of all an eminent scholar like Thapar. Webberbrad007 (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention the dubious "well known fact that the Somnath temple was attacked all of 17 times by the Mahmud of Ghazni". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Unwarranted edits

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)

If you read the source and the content, you will see there is no connection between the two. Neither is it clear what the content is even saying. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Creator of the present structure (infobox)

@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)

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