Talk:Kashmiris/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Dardic contest

While looking through the source that the IP who keeps adding "Dear Editor" sections added, I can't see why describing Kashmiri as "Dardic" is such a problem. You (IP editor) have claimed that it should say "Aryan" instead, and I was guessing that by "Aryan" you meant something like "Indo-Aryan" since that use of "Aryan" would not be correct. Anyway, the very source that you provided describes "Dardic" and an Indo-Aryan language, so I have no idea what the problem is here. The Behnam 17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Improvement

Since this article is one of those that potentially would create all sorts of challenges, I have added citation-requests to assist in improving the article. I will do my best to help find neutral sources. In this article it would be better to back up Indian or Pakistani based sources with a neutral source since there is the danger of relying on possibly POVish sources. I have also changed "Pakistan-controlled Kashmir (Azad Kashmir") to just Azad Kashmir because it is less POVish. Just so it is clear I would also oppose the use of "Indian-Occupied Kashmir" in favour of just "Indian Jammu and Kashmir". Green Giant 15:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. Difference between intellectuals and witch doctors

I think this article needs to be better set out. Kashmiri people consist of Gujjars/Pahari people from the Poonch district, ethnic kashmiris from the Valley and small communities in Jammu, the Dogras of Jammu, the Mirpuris of Azad Kashmir, Sudhuns of Muzafrabad, Ladakhis, Baltistani people, Gilgit agency people. It would probably be better if all these peoples had their own sub headings, that is if we are to talk about people who used to live in the former Princely state of Kashmir.

Although it is undecided whether koshur is Indo-Aryan or not, a language classification can not be used to determine ethnicity. Bengali, Gujarati, Punjabi are all Indo-Aryan languages, but are very different people. Also some classify Pahari as a dialect of Punjabi, but again a language can not be used to determine ethnicity.

More resources are contributors are needed.

Yes it is hundred percent true that a language cannot always be associated with the ethnicity of people. But in a region like south asia, languages especially smaller languages do describe the ethnicity of the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.21.94 (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to the previous post / Difference between intellectuals and witch doctors

What a piece of sublime nonsense I say! Now this debate about linguistics has led to the accusation that I am a "traitor". I made a suggestion to further the discussion- a varied collection of arguments, sources and evidence is what creates a good debate, some pride amongst some of us cannot allow us to ignore or fail to consider certain arguments, this is not good heritage history- rather this is one sided pride.

Further to your discussion about "Plain Punjabis"- well I beg to disagree, they that is to say the Azad Kashmiris, may share certain aspects of culture, linguistics or history with the Punjab but that does not make them "Plain Punjabis". At this point it may be of some use for me to ask you just what exactly makes you claim that the Punjabis are "Plain"? I always have regarded them to be a rich cultured people, not very "plain" at all.

Coming back to my line of argument, similarities cannot allow us to make sweeping generalisations, some Azad Kashmiris may well be from the Punjab but now reside in Azad Kashmir, whereas others are from Kashmir, I know many of our people who currently reside in AK. Now this leads me to argue, if I may that these people are somewhat distinct though related to both sides of the borders, in some cases more closely to the Punjabis and in others to the residents of the Valley.

Further to your claim ( without evidence that is to say) "area which is called azad kashmir for no reason", well most things happen for a reason, and this area was called "Azad Kashmir" as it was free or rather independant from the other section of Kashmir, Further issues upon this matter are debated, yet my point is not to go into such detail as you stated "no reason" and this proves to you but one reason, which thus discredits your argument.

Further to your hurling of insults at me by the nature of your use of words "Jackpots", I shall say little of this matter, as this is the method of speech and ill argument of a very unstable and unwise mind, I suggest, if I may that you keep such abuses to your ownself in future if you wish to be considered in a debate of this sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.208.64 (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Section Relevancy

Hello, the article currently contains a section titled Ethnic variation as shown by linguistics, which contains information about various the various groups of Jammu & Kashmir. From my understanding, this article's intention is to focus on the ethnic group that speaks the Kashmiri/Koshur language and inhabits the Kashmir valley. It scope is not on all the ethnic groups that inhabit the entire state of Jammu & Kashmir. Should Ethnic variation as shown by linguistics continue to remain in the article or should it be moved to an article such as Jammu & Kashmir or Kashmir region, where it would be more relevant? In my opinion, the section is attempting to do the same thing that the Demographics section of the Jammu & Kashmir article already does. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC) I think it is not possible to change even the history of Sri Lanka let alone that of Kashmir (India). Firstly you have to remove all the Swastikas in Kashmir Valley. Then you have to change the Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Rajataringini. Also the neighbouring region of Kashmir, Tajikistan (they were neighbours of Kashmir in ancient times and both people moved to and fro, See Rajataringini) are celebrating their Aryan revival: http://ahura.homestead.com/TAJIK2006.html http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1960/1101600912_400.jpg Finally, you can not separate India, Iran and parts of Central Asia. They shared borders in the ancient period. Best of luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.136.35 (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a note. I don't think it should be a problem. The Behnam 05:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

How can you change the History of India when you can not even change the History of Sri Lanka? The Kashmiris like the Dards are pure Aryans. The Kashmiris are not Dards:http://www.mockandoneil.com/dard.htm

The Aryan Race is native to India, Iran etc. You can not change the Ramayana, Mahabharata and Iranian History.: Darius; I am Dariush, the great king, the king of kings The king of many countries and many people The king of this expansive land, The son of Wishtaspa of Achaemenid, Persian, the son of a Persian, 'Aryan', from the Aryan race "From the Darius the Great's Inscription in Naqshe-e-Rostam"

By removing this truth you can not change history nor create doubts in the heads of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.128.31 (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Kashmiris look very different compared to the normal populous of India. They have light skin, hair color ranges from red to light brown and have eye colors ranging from blue to brown. Gujjars and Dogri found towards the south in Jammu are of darker skin tone and resemble their Punjabi neighbors whilst the Ladakhis of the North East resemble their Tibetan neighbors.

The reason why I removed the above extract was because I deemed it irrelevant; this article is not a comparison of two ethnic groups. Also, no reference has been provided.

I have removed certain aspects because, being a student of the discipline of History, I find it extremely insensitive to reach theories and conclusions without confirming the people involved. In this issue in particular, I felt that the Kashmiris from the western section of Kashmir- known as Azad Kashmir would not agree to the least with some of the mumble jumble that recent theorists have conjured together, in somewhat a discriminative way. It would help to ask the Azad Kashmir peoples to tell us a little about their culture and history; they are a people of their own identity, they know better about their history than we do, ratherthan make up what we'd like to hear or makes sense to us, you cannot let you imagination loose upon such subjects and allow it to get the better of oneself.

Removal of Ethnic variation as shown by linguistics

Regarding the removal of the section "Ethnic variation as shown by linguistics", which has been reverted, I think the removal was in order. There was a ref tag that was two months old, and the section is misguided anyway. If ethnic variation were shown by linguistics, then it would follow that the United States, for example, has remarkably little ethnic diversity, rather than the hundreds, if not thousands, of ethnic groups who actually reside there, and that millions of children in the United States who have grown up speaking only English are not of the same ethnic group as their grandparents who still only communicate in their native tongues. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the United States, languages in Kashmir denote ethnic affinities. TheSuave 17:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That's begging the question, and the whole thing is fallacious. The implication of the title "Ethnic variation as shown by linguistics" is that the languages spoken are being used as a proxy for imputing ethnicity in lieu of determining it directly. If that weren't true, then there wouldn't be any reason for the title to mention linguistics. It would be simply "ethnic variation". —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

General Queries/Possible Additions

I know out of personal knowledge that the figure for kashmiris living in Pakistan is definetly much higher. The reason for this is the fact that although few ethnic kashmiris live in azad kashmir, there are many ethnic kashmiris living in the city of Lahore that may not have been taken into account as ethnic kashmiris. Also, would it be appropriate to add typical ethnic features which are common amongst kashmiris i.e. bigger than average and slightly hooked noses, thin lips, very fair skin (making them easily mistaken as being ethnically white), etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omaster (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

RE:General Queries/Possible Additions

would it be appropriate to add typical ethnic features which are common amongst kashmiris i.e. bigger than average and slightly hooked noses, thin lips, very fair skin (making them easily mistaken as being ethnically white) Are you for real? You make me puke! And only you alone know what I mean by that, a bit of psychotherapy for you and that's coming from a Kashmiri. We as kashmiris are proud of who we are, there is no need to forge false associations on racial grounds. Ta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.230.26 (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision of lead and image

The Kashmiri people in no epic have ever been referred to as Dards (For this see the authentic History of Kashmir The Rajataringini of Kalhana) . The Dards live mainly outside the kashmir valley and are a distinct ethnic group and are Aryans like the Kashmiris. There is an effort to slowly change the history of Kashmir to suit the interests of some foreign groups. This can not be done as the history of Kashmir is just too clear. However, an indeterminate number have left the region and now live elsewhere. The Kashmiris speak as their mother tongue the Kashmiri language, a Dardic language known as Koshur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.136.255 (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The picture shown on this article as kashmiris is not suitable. Clearly these people are looking non-Koshur speaking people whereas the article is about koshur speaking kashmiris. -- unsigned edit by 24.185.136.255

Your revision to the lead is too drastic and is unsourced. Please discuss it here first with reliable contemporary sources (not the The Rajataringini of Kalhana). Right now I am reverting it again. Not because I don't believe you, as all I know so far is that they speak a Dardic language. In any case, the lead should tell us who they are, not who they aren't. And find another word to use instead of Aryan unless you are discussing linguistics. Doug Weller (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

False the Kashmiris are Aryans like most of India. The Punjabis are Aryans too but some very dark due to warm climate.So history can not be changed.For details see: Encyclopedia Brittanica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.253.228 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

From the Aryan article: ""the use of the word Arya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo-European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular race is an aberration of many writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided." The word 'Aryan' is pretty meaningless anthropologically today, and unnecessary in this article. Doug Weller (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No one can make the aryan kashjmiris into dards. The dards are also aryan and live mainly outside the valley of kashmir. Read: http://www.mockandoneil.com/dard.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.130.204 (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Our anonymous editor above doesn't seem to have noticed that Mock agrees with me in that he only uses the word 'Aryan' to refer to languages. He also discusses the problems with the term 'Dard'. 'Aryan' is not an ethnic group, it is a language classification. Doug Weller (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I missed this -- he/she added "The Dards (http://www.mockandoneil.com/dard.htm)are Aryans like the Kashmiris and live mainly outside the Vale of Kashmir" and cited Mock, who as I said above, doesn't use the word 'Aryan' to describe people, only languages. Doug Weller (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) IP editor (first edit) added this in the wrong place today: "Why make Kashmirs Dards when they are not (this serves no purpose) , though both the Dards and Kashmiris are an Aryan ethnic group.http://www.mockandoneil.com/dard.htm Note this is just a repeat of the above and I have already said that the source quoted makes it clear 'Aryan' it not an ethnic group. Doug Weller (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Readers,

How can the Aryan Race past of Kashmir and other parts of India be removed because some people do not like the word Aryan? This has nothing to do with the wicked Nazis so not not be insecure. Rigveda and all epics of India talk of the Aryan Race. Also in Persia Darius has this to say The king of many countries and many peoples "The king of this expansive land, "The son of Wishtaspa of Achaemenid, Persian, the son of a Persian, 'Aryan', from the Aryan race "From the Darius the Great's Inscription in Naqshe-e-Rostam" Written in 500BC All Indian gods are aryaputras and Darius says this: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.128.31 (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply because today we no longer use the word in English as referring to a 'race'. It doesn't matter how it was used in the past, Wikipedia uses contemporary language. Stop adding it to the lead. And please sign all of your edits, you are making the talk page impossible to read. Doug Weller (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The word Aryan is today used to refer to language, not ethnic group. See for instance its usage at http://www.mockandoneil.com/dard.htm Doug Weller (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ram is Aryaputra (son of an Aryan), like most people in Indian epics and Darius says "I am Darius, the great king, the king of kings The king of many countries and many peoples The king of this expansive land,

The son of Wishtaspa of Achaemenid,

Persian, the son of a Persian,

'Aryan', from the Aryan Race "

From the Darius the Great's Inscription in Naqshe-e-Rostam

So you can not remove the Race from Aryan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.128.31 (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"sigh".what he said in that inscription is that "I am king of Aryans(Iranians) and non-Aryans(non Iranians) and I am an Aryan/ Iranian by my race." It exactly refered to being part of a nations, please don't bring modern Nazi interpretation into discussion. Aryan "Race" in its modern shape and form is a fairly new creation in Europe, and did not exist in Ancient Iran or India. Aryan=Iranian and Northern Indian nations. That is it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.105.62 (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Kashmiri Sikhs?

The article does not say that the Sikhs of Kashmir are ethnic Kashmiris.

It was the Sikh leader, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, who is regarded by many historians as playing an instrumental role in encouraging Sikhs from what is now the Indian state of Punjab to settle in Kashmir.

The majority of the Sikh community is located around the predominantly Hindu Jammu area. Few are based in the six Muslim majority districts of the Kashmir Valley.

Jammu is mostly Dogra, and is not associated with the ethnic Kashmiris like the Kashmir valley is. Furthermore, if a number of Sikhs immigrated from Punjab, that would mean that they are of Punjabi and not Kashmiri origin.

Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Dilutional Indians altering History

whats with the indian bias and revisionist history done here by indians. why are indians commenting on Kashmir when ethnically, linguistically and historically the two share nothing in common. This wikipedia site is losing all standards of quality. Can we get some unbiased, non-indians to re-write this article???

Guys keep inventing history as suits them. Bul Bul Shah was not from Anatolia. This is sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.128.31 (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Aryan Kashmiri has never been referred to as a Dard in history, though the Dard is also an Aryan. It is not too easy to mess up the history of ancient Aryavarta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.128.31 (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Please be careful as a part of their agenda the Jews do not plant Hebrew stuff into your region to make you Semites (Jewish-Arab) in orgin. The Kashmiris are pure Aryans. Dr. Zoon Begum Dar ' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.174 (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

Discoveded your site. Good work. Yet Kashmiri people an Aryan Racial group is not Dards, though Dards are surely Aryan as well. Secondly, I heard that Katrina Kaif has no genuine lineage from Kashmir Valley. Thirdly, Nilmatapurna makes no mention of any Semite (Jewish-Arab) influence, it is purely Aryan and Central Asian. Most central Asia before the Mongol invasion was pure Aryan. To this day segments of Central Asia are pure Aryan. My ancestors worshiped fire (Agni).

Sincerely yours,

Mustaq A. Lone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.14.67 (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I am in agreement that Kashmiris have never been mentioned in history as Dards. But both dards and Kashmiris are purest of aryans.

yours etc.,

rassol tantrey The population belonging to the Valley is purely Aryan and has no Mongol or any other ethnic link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.202 (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No credible history of Kashmiris refers to the Kashmiris as Dards. Both the Kashmiris and Dards are Aryans but the Dards according to the Rajataringini as well are a separate people from the Kashmiris. The people trying to change the solid history of Kashmir for their long term political gains are in a very bad situation as they can never achieve their goals. ''''

In my opinion to make the Kashmiris as Dards is not accidental but deliberate. Dards are surely our neighbours and of the same Aryan Race but I agree the Kashmiris are not Dards and can not be made into Dards. It may be a part of a long range poltical game to falsely depict the Aryan Kashmiris as Semitic. G.M. Rather —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Did Alexander go to Azad Kashmir?

I have come to realise that at around 50 percent of the people I know from Azad Kashmir, tend to be very European looking ( lighter eyes/hair), especially those from Mirpur... is it due to the Greek influence, or some other influence? Also did Alexander reach the other side of Kashmir, I also speak Koshur and wanted to know is there any outside influence upon our language, e.g from any past empires?

I would be very grateful if you could answer this.

Alexander never came to Kashmir Valley no one can plant or manufacture this fake data. The Kashmiri have the Rajataringini. Alexander was a Macedionian and spoke a Slavic tangue. Skeletons in Kashmir which are more than 3 thousand years resemble the modern Kashmiri. Lot of Central Asia is Aryan even today and Kashmir is the untouched region of Central Asia. This Race originated most certainly in Central Asia. Kashmiri language even today is very close to Rigvedic Sanskrit. The original language of the Aryans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That got to be the most stupid question ever.Greeks themselves are not fair skinned, they are Olive skined and most of them have black hair. Kashmir is next to Afghanistan and Tajikistan, and at least in terms of genetic was dominated by Aryan(Iranic) invasion. They look exactly the same as those two populations. They probably are genetically identical to them , this has nothing to do with Greeks or Europeans, you know that fair skin people exist in Asia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.105.62 (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Kashmiris like most Indians belong to the Aryan Race. Both india and Iran have a Aryan Past and original Kashmiri people have nothing to do with Iran and Iranians have nothing to do with Kashmir. this propais being done to create a rift between India and Iran. Both Indians (including Kashmirs) and Iranians are independent Aryan People.

Sincerely,

Agha Gulzar Budgam

Hi, thanks for giving us your name. Next time you get blocked for a pattern of inappropriate edits, we'll be able to tell the Library of Congress who the transgressor is. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

POV fork?

Do we need this article? Kashmir covers the subject in more depth and given the numerous disputes regarding the territory I do wonder whether this article originated as a POV fork. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Remove Allama Iqbal photo

Allama Iqbal is national poet of pakistan, he was a PUNJABI (with kashmiri ancestory), he spoke punjabi , lived punjabi and died as punjabi. How come his photo is here under kashmiri people. His forefathers were from Kashmir, so he always praised kashmir as being the place of origin of his ancestors. But he did not know kashmiri language or kashmiri culture. So i feel it is highly unjustified to put his picture under kashmiri people. This way someone could put picture of The great Gama and Nawaz sharif also because their forefathers also originated from kashmir, but that would also be utterly BS because they too are PUNJABI (with ancestory from kashmir). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.8.72.116 (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC) iqbal's ancestors were kashmiri brahmins of the sapru clan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.246.15 (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Aryans, Burzahom Skeleton

Kashmirs like most of us Tajiks belong to the original and pure Aryan Race. We in Tajikistan celebrated the Aryan Year in 2006. However, there are some Semitic people in the West who want to Semitize this region by fraud. Taking all the facts into consideration they can not do it. The Burzahom skeletons in your area are surely pure Aryans, but be carefull by means of clever manipulation by some Semitic or disguised Semitic people and their plants they are not Semitized. I am sure they can not do it but will surely try.

Your Tajik friend, Anahita — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.45.73 (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There is huge difference between a Kashmiri and Punjabi, though both are a fine people and Aryans. Kashmir is more North than most Afghanistan and is Central Asia. Many Tajiks look like Kashmiris and vice-versa. Gama and Iqbal were very proud of their Butt roots from Kashmir Valley their, looks and culture did not change if they lived in the Punjab. It is the same with Nawaz Sharif and his wife Kulsoom Butt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.202 (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC) At the end of the day you Kashmiris have education. In my land Ariana people have infiltrated and are busy using the simlple minded people to make them believe they are Jews (both Jews and Arabs are Semites). We are Aryans like you Kashmiris. While the Kashmiris are Aryans and I agree the Dards are Aryans too the Kashmiris are not Dards. Though both resemble each other and have a related language. Probably the aim is to make the Kashmiris first Dards and then make the Dards Jewish by propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.152.82 (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Yes indeed some foreign elements are trying to link Kashmiris to Sindhis, Punjabis, etc. In Indiawe know the reasons. Both Sindhis and Punjabisare great people but they surely have very little in common with the Kashmiris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

GENETICS AND RACE The subject of racial genetics is still at an extremely primitive stage of development and has little or even no credibility as of now. The accurate studies of races via genes in the opinion of credible scientists will take a couple of hundred years to resolve. As of now the combination of history, language, culture, etc., indicate the race (accurately) as such. For example the Arabs and Jews are cousins (children of Ibrahim) have a similar history, language (both Hebrew and Arabic are Semitic lanmguages) and recent studies indicate (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2000/10/30-01.html?ref=hp) that they have genetic similarities as well. As of know you can compliment, history, language, looks, culture etc., with racial genetics (which is in primitive stages) to obtain an accurate picture. Also for example a crooked scientist could pick up an Afghan (most Afghans are Aryans but since Arabs invaded Afghanistan some Arab tribes settled in Afghanistan) of Arab origin study him or her and claim Afghans are Jews! There are also other means to manipulate racial genetic data as of now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Punjabis Of Kashimiri Origin

Based on your logic,Nehru and Indira Gandhi have no right to be termed Kashmiris as they were Hidi speaking.Infact they only claimed to be of Kaul tribe which was refuted by many historians while Iqbal's lineage of Sapru clan was accepted by Hindu Pundits as well.Muslim Kashmiris in Pakistani Punjab have kept their blood Kashmiri by intermrrying among themselves and the clans like Bhatt,Dhar,Lone,Kichlu,Lone,Bakshi and several others are found in abundance in Pakistani Punjab.A speaker of Kashmiri lingi does not guarantee Kahshmiri ancestry.An Awan may speak Kashsiri language in Muzzaffarabad but Malik Awan is purey a Punjabi tribe.By the way identifying oneself as a Punjabi is nothing to be ashamed of. --119.152.135.122 (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The Kauls are as pure Kashmiris as any one can be. Kauls are the original masters of Saivism thus the name. It is some foreigners (we know who they are) who are trying to create a mess and confusion in every region of the globe. In Kashmir they can not do it as the people are intelligent and educated. Besides the Nehru family is hated by these people as they (the Nehrus) never let their agenda take roots in India. Read Rajataringini no one can change this epic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

New comment

'KASHMIR WAS NOT A PART OF BRITISH EMPIRE'Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.203 (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, first, please don't shout (use all caps); second, please provide reliable sources for your claim. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

TRIBES OF KASHMIR AND RIGVEDIC SANSKRIT

Katrina Kaif has no Kashmiri blood nor does Kailesh Kher. This is being planted from outside the borders of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.203 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly most Kashmiri Muslims today are of Hindu background. Caste system existed in Kashmir. Example Wani (business class origin from Sanskrit Wania), Tantrey (soldiers, origin from Sanskrit Tantrin), Magasa (Magrey) {origin from Sanskrit Magasa means warrior, such as the famous Ladda Magasa). As to how Kashmiri people looked in the 12th Century is clearly descibed in Kalhana's Rajataringini.

The Rajataringini written in the 12 century A.D. is a much respected credible history of Kashmir. Before the advent of Islam (a Semitic religion), the people, religion, etc. was all Aryan in Kashmirt. There is surely a big difference between Race and Religion. Today most Kashmiris follow a Semitic religion yet most of these people are Aryans. The Brahmins of Kashmir to this day follow an Aryan religion (based on the Rig-veda, the first book of the Aryans) and also belong to the Aryan Race. FABRICATED AND PLANTED LIST. Trilok Gurtu is only half Kashmiri Pandit. Earlier a non-Kashmiri Kailash Kher was made a Kashmiri and the half-Jewish lady Katrina Kaif was planted as a Kashmiri! It would be great if you placed Mrs. India Gandhi, Pamdit Bhajan Sopori, Majoor, General Raina. Air Marshal Koul, etc. in this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.99.92 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 13:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Kashmiri people → Kashmiris – "Kashmiris" is by far the WP:COMMONNAME for these people per Ngram. "Kashmiris" is an unambiguous and plural demonym. Per WP:ETHNICGROUP#Ethnic groups. And it is more WP:CONCISE than "Kashmiri people". Per Koreans, Pashtuns, Punjabis, Germans, Swedes, Russians, Serbians, and many other titles of similar articles. Khestwol (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom GregKaye 10:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• SUPPORT per above. Khestwol (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support – The proposed title is more WP:CONCISE and natural. RGloucester — ☎ 13:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support WP:COMMONNAME --Human3015 talk • 23:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom, similar situation to Bengalis. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom  sami  ^talk 11:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A comment

Fake planted data: Many people on this list are not Kashmiris. Kashmiris are not dards (see Rajataringini), but both the Kashmiris are Dards are Aryans and closely related by Race and Language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.175 (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Kashmir history

The western part of Kashmir, known as Azad Kashmir was only part of kashmir for 100 years, Jammu for just over 150, ladakh, Baltistan and Gilgit Agency also for over 150 years. When talking about 'Kashmiri people' most in my opinion refer to 'ethnic kashmiris' who ONLY occupy the Kashmir valley (Indian occupied). Historically Kashmir has only been the Kashmir Valley (for 2000+ years). To my understanding they are culturaly/linguistically/geneticaly different to the rest and are the only 'ethnic kashmiris'. I propose that this article focus more on them as they are the ones who have been 'Kashmiri' for over 2000 years and not the Ladakhis,Baltis,Mirpuris,Azad kashmiris. It has been referenced that the Azad kashmiri people are mainly Punjabi and Gujjar/Pahari which are also considered as castes of Punjabi. Whereas the kashmiris of the Valley are very distintcly different. The history of the Azad kashmiris is visible in their linguists/cultural heritage, and it has a very large affinity to Punjabis. So as the Human rights watch reference states, they are Punjabi peoples who have a very rich history seperate to that of the Kashmiris in the Valley.

At the end the Kashmiris, are well-built, goodlooking intelligent people, thus many countries and people want to mould their history to use them. The conclusion is Kashmir, is Central Asia. Most of Central Asia, Pakistan and Iran has a pure Aryan past. This can not be denied or removed. How can you hope to separate say Tajikstan from Kashmir, when they are next door neighbours and change history-http://www.payvand.com/news/05/dec/1190.html

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmiri_Pandit" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.128.31 (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The article below is interesting. It appears to be totally one sided. There is this claim that the AK area became part of Kashmir over a hundred or so years. Well I don't have time to provide all the info but I will be brief. Read the memoirs of Mughal rulers. This region was part of Kashmir a long time ago.

The greatest number of hangings/revolts during colonial times was in the AK Region, I can provide all the info. If anybody wants to see it.

If people from AK are not Kashmiri. Then these are few options avaible to them. People such as myself;

1) stop all charity work in the valley 2) demand we are annexed 3) new Provence for us. This includes areas that are currently in India where people don't speak Kashmiri/kosher. 4) keep your kashmir and set us free. We deserve freedom as in 1947 we fought while you people did not. The revolts were in poonch, mirpur etc the panjabi jats are brave.

Any questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.224.46 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Another comment

Lot of fake data Katrina Kaif (partly Jewish) and Kailash Kher have no Kashmiri blood. Though Kailesh is a great chap and a excellent singer. The U.S. Jewish Lobby often promotes people who suit their agenda.

Some of your claims are hilarious. I was just reading above. Kashmir wasn't part of the British Empire? Seriously? Did you think it was part of China, or part of Afghanistan, or an independent country? As for this: I can't begin to imagine why you would think Kashmir has even the slightest bit of special significance to U.S. Jews, let alone that they have an agenda that involves making people think that non-Kashmiris are Kashmiris.

I've been watching lots of nonsense about Kashmir and related topics from the region coming out of the 65.88.88.* IP addresses over the years. You seem to think that all you have to do is repeat it 4,753 times and that will make it true. It was so bad several years ago that it led to a lengthy set of blocks on a number of those addresses. Please, either come up with reliable sources that conclusively agree with you, or else just stop with all these interruptions that will never go anywhere, because on Wikipedia you cannot accomplish anything in the manner in which you're trying to do so. I beg you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Kashmiris and Dards

Kashmiris are not Dards as the Rajataringini informs (Kashmiris are a distinct Aryan nation) us. Though their fellow Aryans the Dards are neigbors of Kashmiri with a similar language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Disinformation can not change things. Kalilash Kher a gentleman and great singer is surely not Kashmiri. Nor is Katrina Kaif who is half-Jewish from her mother's side and has no Kashmiri blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.203 (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Kashmiri is dardic language which was heavily influenced by Sanskrit and Persian. Kashmiri people are very related to kind of aryan stock as the people of Gilgit like the Shins, Yashkuns, etc. Kashmiris don't belong to the kind of Aryan stock that inhabits panjab. The difference is very clear even when you see common Kashmiris and other common people of the supposed aryan origin. Other theory is that Kashmiris don't at all belong to the Aryan stock rather they have semitic origins. However the most accurate classification which can be made at the moment is that Kashmiris fall under the dardic ethno-linguistic category. Thanks.Yanniel908 (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

All the assertions you've made here over the years might have been more effective if you had provided reliable academic sources that corroborated them once in a while . —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

More

The aim of some people (Jewish lobby) is to create a chaos and then Semitize tyhe Aryan Kashmiri by fraud. The Kashmiris are not Dards see the Rajatrarigini and the Dards are neighbors of the Kashmiri. The Dards are also Aryans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I responded to this sort of nonsense from you years ago. Your idea that Jews around the world spend any of their time thinking about, of all the peoples in the world, Kashmiris, and caring in the slightest what their ethnic classification is, is inexplicable. By the way, are you completely uneducable about the concept of posting your new thoughts to the bottom of this page, and of signing your posts? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that the Rajatrarigini is not some sort of absolute authority? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Page Protection

I think this page should have a longer duration of page protection.Yanniel908 (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The New York Public Library IP activist (most often from a 65.88.88.* address) has been at this for years. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan Dardic

@Wasiq 9320: What is your objection for stating that Dardic people are Indo-Aryan? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Does one normally describe people as "Germanic Swedes" or "Slavic Czechs"? Or just as Swedes and Czechs? Of course, the articles Swedes and Czechs give us this information about the respective ethnic groups, but outside of those one ordinarily doesn't gratuitously belabor the ethnic taxonomy. Largoplazo (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

In the Indian context, it is generally done. See, for example, Bengalis or Tamils. I suppose it is one of the myriads of ways in which the Indians build "unity in diversity." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

What is generally done? I have always seen Tamils referred to as Tamils, never as "Dravidian Tamils". For example, from Taraki Sivaram: "Taraki Sivaram or Dharmeratnam Sivaram (11 August 1959 – 28 April 2005) was a popular Tamil journalist". Not "a popular Dravidian Tamil journalist". Largoplazo (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

All the linguistic ethnic groups of India are characterised in terms of their affiliation to the larger pan-Indian language families. Taraki Sivaram is not a linguistic ethnic group, and is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I suggest you look at the examples I cited. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The examples you provided, Bengalis and Tamils, like the examples I provided, Swedes and Czechs, all describe their subjects as members of some group X (where X is, respectively, Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Germanic, and Slavic). None of them pedantically precedes its X with a mention of the larger group that its X is part of. This article isn't Dards, it's Kashmiris. Your examples and mine all correspond to describing Kashmiris as Dardic, the next larger group, not to describing them as Indo-Aryan Dardic, the next two larger groups. There's no more reason to elaborate here on Dards being Indo-Aryan than there is for the other articles to go off on a tangent to tell us what larger groups Indo-Aryans, Dravidians, Germanic peoples, and Slavs belong to. Largoplazo (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

If someone were to describe Paris as an "Eastern Hemisphere European French city", there wouldn't be a question of there being something wrong with saying Europe is in the Eastern Hemisphere or that France is in Europe. It's just that it would be silly and unnecessary. "European French city" could lead one to ask "as opposed to a non-European French city?" Likewise, to write that Kashmiris are an "Indo-Aryan Dardic people": as opposed to non-Indo-Aryan Dardic people? It would look like it's implying a dichotomy that doesn't exist. Largoplazo (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

"Indo-Aryan" is a linguistic family and "Dardic" is a geographic family. There is no conflict between the two, and no pendantry either.

My goal as a Wikipedia is to inform, not to obfuscate in the name of some imagined political correctness. I am not sure if you are making any real point here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Then you just answered your original question. You asked "What is your objection for stating that Dardic people are Indo-Aryan?" The answer: If "Indo-Aryan" is a linguistic family, it describes only languages, not people. Dardic people are a people, not a language. Ergo, Dardic people are not Indo-Aryan. Largoplazo (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Since I just noticed that you contradicted yourself and restored "Indo-Aryan" in the article anyway (and I've reverted it because it contradicts your comment, above), I'm going to try making the point a different way. If the lead sentence of Jamaicans read "Jamaicans are a Germanic people" on the grounds that they speak English and English is a Germanic language, it would be ridiculous. Does that help? And Kashmiris outside of Kashmir who don't speak Kashmiri or any other language native to South Asia don't even speak an Indo-Aryan language. People aren't languages. The article Kashmiri language is where we indicate that the Kashmiri language is an Indo-Aryan language. Largoplazo (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, this is still going on? I think you exhibit WP:GEOBIAS by trying to insist that Indians should follow European conventions or norms. We don't. In India, everybody knows that people speak four language families, Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Munda and Tibeto-Burman. And, we are classifying every linguistic ethnic group into the four families. Not doing it for this article would be an obfuscation. Kashmiri has an additional label, that of Dardic, which has developed historically. So, we are mentioning that too. I don't see a problem. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, are you still intent on contradicting yourself? A contradiction is a contradiction in every part of the globe. I hope you're not trying to make the case here that people in India are culturally averse to logic

You told me that "Indo-Aryan" is a linguistic family. Groups of people may speak a language that belongs to a linguistic family, but they aren't of a linguistic family. Maybe that's how people speak of ethnic groups casually in India, but this is an encyclopedia, not casual conversation. Precision is called for. Telling me that articles on other peoples in the region are also written in a misleading manner doesn't make a strong case for doing it here, it makes a case for changing it elsewhere. You say "And, we are classifying every linguistic ethnic group into the four families." Well, I've come across plenty of netkooks out there with inane theories of the provenance of this people or that people that rely on the assumption that language goes along with ethnicity. "These people speak X, therefore, they must be ethnically related to these other people who speak a language related to X." There are so many cases (like Jamaica) where this obviously isn't true that it is incumbent on us not to say "Well, this is how we talk about things in India" and use that as an justification for conflating language and ethnicity in Wikipedia articles, perpetuating the muddling of the two. Largoplazo (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, even if I were to accept "language is ethnicity in India" as grounds for conflating them on Wikipedia, I've still already addressed the situation. Since Dardic languages are Indo-Aryan languages, "Indo-Aryan Dardic" is redundant. Refer to my comment above about explaining Paris as an "Eastern Hemisphere European French city". Largoplazo (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, now you are coming around to talking about the actual topic. I am not claiming that "language is ethnicity in India." Rather that this particular ethnic group is a linguistic ethnic group, similar to Bengali people or Tamil people. Castes are non-linguistic ethnic groups, and nobody will bother to classify them as Indo-Aryan or Dravidian; tribes may be linguistic or not.

As to your question as to why "Dardic" isn't enough of a label, the answers are many:

• Dardic is not a well-defined language family. Neither is it widely known. It is a half-baked theory proposed by a linguist called Grierson in early 20th century, based on inadequate data, and now known to be mostly wrong. Grierson believed that the so-called "Dardic languages" were an independent family apart from Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages. That is where lies their appeal, at least to some people. And so the theory continues to be promoted despite being obsolete.
• A resonable "Dardic" family can be defined with Shina and its relatives. But Kashmiri isn't in that family. See pp. 19-21 of the Massica's book.
• There is no historical basis for calling Kashmiris Dardic either. There was a country called Darada to the north of Kashmir, probably present day Gilgit. But neither was Kashmir a part of Darada, nor Darada a part of Kashmir. There were occasional invasions in both ways.
• Although their taxonomic relationship suggests an ancient common origin, the cultural affinities between Kashmiri and non-Kashmiri speakers of Dardic tongues are not strong. On the other hand, the extent of cultural intercourse between [Dogri, Pahari and Gojri] speakers and Kashmiris has been much more extensive.

So, on the whole, the basis for labelling Kashmiri as "Dardic" is quite weak, and that for labelling it "Indo-Aryan" is strong. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• OK, then why say that Kashmiri is Dardic, if the basis for doing so is so weak? And why does Kashmiri language classify it under Dardic? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoplazo (talk • contribs)

Because, as per Wikipedia's NPOV policies, we don't suppress views expressed in reliable sources even if we believe them to be wrong. Cleaning up the Dardic languages page is on my to-do list. When that is done, we can summarise it here and in other pages that need to. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd assume that whatever policies were in play, the outcome should be that articles handle the same material consistently. Also, wouldn't WP:UNDUE apply? Largoplazo (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

References

If you remove "Dardic," you should be prepared to sit here and keep fighting with nationalists and POV-pushers. In any case, we should wait to hear from Wasiq 9320. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

FOOD HABITS OF KASHMIRIS

Wikipedia is becoming a means also to place disinformation. True famous Kashmiris are ignored in this article as they do not suit some people. Also slowly a confusion is being created in the pure Aryan ethnicity of the Kashmiris. The stage is being set to try to Semitize this great Aryan nation by fraud or even by fixed genetics. Can never be achieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.243.21 (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

By fraud Kashmiris are being made as Darads. the Darads are also Aryans and cousins of Kashmirs. Kashmiris are a distinct part of the great Aryan Race and the aim of the Darad plant is to later to make the Darads as Semites. in this case Jews! Read the Rajatarigini to call a Kashmiri a Darad is surely a abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.101.61 (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Kashmiris have always been a separate ethnic group than the Darads, though both are Aryans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.176 (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Since ancient times Kashmiris are heavy meat-eaters see Nilmatapura. Also while the royalty ate wild-pig even pork was consumed by a large section of the Kashmiris in the Hindu period (Stein, BK, V11, NO1149) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.152.82 (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Katrina Kaif is surely not a Kashmiri. She has no Kashmiri blood but is partially Semitic that is Jewish. Most of us Muslims today in the Valley are converts to our beloved Islam by Sufis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.240.14 (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Note tthye Jews ae4e pushing non-Kashmiri people and claiming they aere Kashmiri. Like tyhe partial Jewish lady Katrina Kaif is made to look as half-Kashmiri.. S. Mir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.6.179 (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Content Inclusion/exclusion

Hello Towns Hill, there is a matter that i want to discuss with you, and this very important. Here on Wiki we have articles that we can consider as parent-articles such as Kashmiris, and then we have articles that can be considered as sub-articles to the parent article, such as Kashmiri Muslims and Kashmiri Pandit. Remember, each article has a scope and its own theme and that is what you should focus on. I have seen you copy-paste content across articles (mainly on Kashmir related pages), but by doing so, you are pretty much defeating the purpose of having a separate article dealing with specific topics. For example, the two sections on "Dogra Regime" that you have copy-pasted [[1]] and [2]], should be covered here on the History of Kashmir article, because this article deals with the topic "history" in detail. Or you could cover the "Dogra Regime" in detail on Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) page. We need not place the entire "History of Kashmir" on all "Kashmir" related pages. But this is exactly what you seem to be doing as i can understand from this [[3]] edit. If you do want to have a section for "History" on Kashmiris, then create a section named "History" where a general history covering the different periods can be given, with a link to the main History of Kashmir page, which already contains individual sections on different periods (or you can add section if it is not there). The separate sections on history that you are placing here should be done away with. You should also have a look at your other edits that might follow a similar pattern. I hope this serves good purpose. Regards, Wasiq 9320 (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wasiq, it seems to me that the condition of Kashmiris under the Dogra rule certainly belongs in this article. There might be some overlap between this article and other history articles, but the focus here is clearly on the people, as it should be. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes certainly it is. That is why i have proposed a section name "History" which can cover this, rather than individual sections on Afghan, Dogra, Sikh or Mughal rule. Dogra rule is important, but so is Mughal rule (infact i see it as even more important), because that was the beginning of foreign rule in Kashmir (and for kashmiris). And so is Shah Miri dynasty, because it led to a major change in religion and society in Kashmir. However, since we already have pages covering those topics in detail we do not need to include them as individual sections here. We can certainly include different periods (including the pre islamic period) in a general "History" section, say in 3-6 (or more if needed) paragraphs. Important periods can be given more weight. That will improve the overall article and give a better overview on this page. The details pages can be linked to this page. Do you get my point? Wasiq 9320 (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I have created it as a section called History but I have placed sub-categories for Sikh and Dogra regimes. I will expand on Afghan rule and Mughal rule soon.Towns_Hill 09:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Towns Hill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towns Hill (talk • contribs)

Origins

@Kautilya3:@Lectonar: Origin section does not look reliable, Aryan stock? aryan race? Outdated racial taxonomy. That's like starting Germans origins article with racial taxonomy theories from early 20th century. It should be removed, as history section explains peopling of Kashmir much better. As far as genetics goes, Kashmiris are mixture of ANI and ASI like other South Asians but that is another topic. 117.192.197.43 (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You are right. I deleted it. A census report is not a WP:HISTRS for remote antiquity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Chaks

This history is inaccurate and manufactured. The Chaks were originally Hindus and originated in the region of Gurez Valley. Akabar was soundly defeated by Yusuf Shah Chak and Mughals entred Kashmir by deceit. Later Durrani was decimated by the Kashmiris but did gain a hold in Kashmir by external help. Much earlier Hindu Kashmir defeated Mahmud of Ghazni soundly. Al-Beruni who was with Ghazni on both expeditions against Kashmir informs us that Mahmud was badly defeated and gave of the aim of capturing Kashmir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.61.174.233 (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for your claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Full protection

I have fully protected the page because of edit-warring. All involved please use the talk-page to find consensus without sniping at each other. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

These "Kashmiris are cowards--the truth must be known!" edits

Zaffar.awan, I'm taking a moment to explain why these "reality check" edits of yours ([4],[5],[6],[7]) are being reverted by myself, another pending changes reviewer and a vandalism bot. I raise the matter here mainly because I could not fit all of the issues into an edit summary.

Regardless of whether you could find a source which quoted someone as saying something uncharitable about a particular ethnic group living in a border region in Southern Asia (i.e. the easiest online search since "funny cat video"), I can fairly well guaruntee you that we will not be adding it into any article for the sole purpose of calling an entire people cowards, simply because you happen to believe it to be the unvarnished truth. I don't know if you are purposefully trolling here or really do subscribe to such views, but we are not going to put them into an article in Wikiedias voice. Such a statement is non-neutral, polemic, and frankly just silly and bigoted. Even properly attributed, it is WP:UNDUE and inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

You can attempt to establish a contrary WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on this issue, but in this instance I would ask you to take me at my word that nothing remotely like the notion that this (or any) people are known for general cowardice is going to end up on any en.Wikipedia article. (nor, I should hope, any of our sister projects). Snow ^{let's rap} 18:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I have read a ton of Kashmir history, and the general word in the air about kashmiris for centuries has been about them being a very timid people. In the entire south asia region, kashmiris are known for being so, and perhaps the only people who are SO famous for it. The last edit i made, i mentioned that they are "stereotyped" so as to give a fairer view. I guess you are not from this region so i can't blame you for not having any idea about it. It is such a prominent thing that it deserves mention on this page and is VERY due. Zaffar.awan (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You can try to reframe this as being about their supposedly "timid" nature, but the statement you have repeatedly tried to edit in runs generally as (and I'm not exaggerating the wording here at all) "Kashmiris are truly cowardly people. They gave in a long time ago and today they are so used to being beaten down that they have become slaves to the core. Also, they are pathetic fighters." If you don't see why that is problematic for one of our articles, you have a lot to learn about how this project works. If you don't see why it's deeply offensive (and yet laughably familiar as a racial trope), you just have a lot to learn period. Regardless, it's certainly not encyclopedic, nor remotely WP:DUE. Your use of that term indicates that you have a massive misconception about what it means here. Things are WP:DUE by virtue of the WP:WEIGHT of WP:reliable sources, not what you personally believe to be the case from what people around your say. You found one obscure quote of a random figure seeming to confirm something you were already certain about from your own personal beliefs, the kind of quote experienced editors who have worked in this area (or just pass through it occasionally in their maintenance work, as with me here) see time and again. This could be one of the Assam discussions I took part in four years ago, if you just switch out the names of the ethnicities who are supposedly lazy, stupid, weak, or evil. I'm sure it will be Doklam in four years. Anyway, as I said before, you could save yourself a lot of trouble and frustration by taking me at my word that this is a WP:SNOW issue; no way will this article say, in Wikipedia's voice, that Kashmiris are "cowards", trust me. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Well it is not just a passing statement that i have read in just one book. If you ever bother to study Kashmir history, you will it find difficult to come across any book that does not contain the subject of "Kashmiri cowardice". It's not because of my personal beliefs that i think it is DUE here, but because that's has been written over and over again about Kashmiris, not just in recent times, but even the only Indian historian of any worth in the ancient times, Kalhana (himself a Kashmiri) notes his people for being cowards. And i don't see how my last edit was in Wikipedia's voice: "The Kashmiris have often been stereotyped as cowards, which according to many historians is due to lack of their fighting ability. They have been treated harshly by their rulers and have been at the receiving end of blows & beatings and misery due to slavery. Muhammad Iqbal, one of the most prominent Kashmiris, very dejectedly said,"the kashmiri has come to hug slave to his bosom,a stranger to the dignity of self, ashamed of bis ego"... It clearly is from the view point of historians (even kashmiri historians themselves say this), and how people have stereotyped them. Zaffar.awan (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

See the Mughal rule and Sikh rule sections, where some of this is already covered. If you want to make more general statements, we need a scholarly source that has done a thorough study of the issue (even if it is a stereotyping issue). Iqbal's view is not good enough (he is a poet, not a politician), and Saroja Soundararajan is not a reliable source.

Here are some counterpoints to the stereotype. Kashmiris were the only princely subjects to launch a massive uprising in 1931. They won a Legislative Assembly in 1934, even before British India had such a thing. Hyderabadis, a mirror image of Kashmiris, never had a Legislative Assembly till India took over, and their political parties were banned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Well ok, i had not seen that some of this has been mentioned under the History division, though this is so prominent that it deserves to be in the introduction. Those counter points are quite laughable :D. 1931 was a massive uprising? Come on! A real tough uprising was what was put up by the Poonchis. Zaffar.awan (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Dardic people

@NadirAli: it looks like you have again gone back to your old habits. This edit reverts what I explicitly removed over a year ago, after deciding that there are no such people called "Dardic people" or "Indo-Aryan people" for that matter. All that exist are languages. See extensive discussion earlier in this talk page, which says that the connection of Kashimiri to the Dardic family of languages is quite tenuous. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

To editor Kautilya3:, there are two separate articles on the peoples. For you to say there no such peoples is original research. Today these peoples are mostly characterized by the languages they speak, somewhat similar to Turkic peoples. Also can I ask then why you mentioned both these peoples in your edit when you're clearly saying they don't exist. You did it on the categories. You categorized Dardic peoples as Indo-Aryan peoples, so your arguments here are confusing.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

From the article on Dardic peoples

The Dards are a group of Indo-Aryan peoples found predominantly in northern Pakistan, north-west India, and eastern Afghanistan. They speak the Dardic languages, which belong to the Indo-Aryan family. The largest populations are in Gilgit–Baltistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan and in Kashmir, India. There are smaller populations in Ladakh, India and eastern Afghanistan. The Kashmiri people are the largest group, with a population of over 5.5 million."

References

--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Remember that WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So, you can't quote Wikipedia when a source is asked for.

Moreover, that page is quite suspicious. The title is "Dardic people" but the lead only mentions "Dards". And, it never says Dards include Kashmiris. So, this doesn't settle anything. You really need to look for reliable sources.

As for the categories, the Category:Dardic peoples only means people speaking Dardic languages. It does not mean that there is a well-defined class of people called "Dardic people". Note also the plural in saying "peoples". On the other hand, there is a well-defined class of "Dards", people that live in former Dardistan. They include Shina people and possibly Kho people and others. Kashmiris are not included in them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not using Wikipedia as the direct source, but citing the reliably sourced page. Otherwise we'll have a contradiciton. Otherwise I'll change it to an alternate version that should satisfy both of us, at least for the time being.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"Even the language part is wrong. Dardic is a subgrouping of Indo-Aryan so we dont need to put "Indo-Aryan Dardic" in it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists is never an argument. The "Indo-Aryan" has been addressed in the previous discussion. You need to read that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

To editor Kautilya3: Where is the discussion? This lead exists in other articles and your current edit contradicts the infobox on related ethnic groups. Please explain.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Go to the top of the page, and find the table of contents. Then look for "Indo-Aryan Dardic". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

To editor Kautilya3:, Ok I found it. But I'll need time to go through it and post an answer. In the meantime I will again establish that the disputed tag not be removed.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Tag will not be removed until you provide your suggested version and we will agree. Although it should not take very long. Capitals00 (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hato

[8] seems undue for the lead. Capitals00 (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Even worse, it is not even supported by the source. Zaffar.awan has been edit-warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Nominated for WP:30/500 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Kashmiris — IVORK _Discuss 04:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It is undue for lead, but i have added it to history where it belongs. It is not something made up, rather a fact that kashmiris used to be called as Hatos. It is a pure fact of history. Zaffar.awan Top (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Predatory open access journals

NadirAli and other editors, please note that JzG flagged up predatory open-access journals. Please do not restore content sourced to them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3's new edits

You need to explain why your recent addition [9] is due. It looks WP:UNDUE. Has no discussion on the Kashmiri 'people'. You have also deleted longstanding content which has a brief discussion of the various theories on the origins of the Kashmiri people. The Central Asia theory is nowhere to be seen in your write up. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

JosephusOfJerusalem, that is a strange revert: restoring discussion of the various theories, replaced by undue content with no explained connection to the Kashmiri 'people'. The population of the Kashmir Valley are the Kashmiris. What do you mean by "no connection with Kashmiri people"? And, everything I deleted, which you restored, is unsourced. Please provide sources if you want this to be considered. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3, everything you deleted is sourced. I verified it before restoring it. The source gives us a list of opinions like this:

See Many scholars hold the view that Kashmiris are a true specimen of the Aryan race; nonetheless, the last authoritative word about the origin has not been articulated, so far. R.K. Kaul quotes Pandit Anand Koul, who firmly believes that Kashmir was a colony of Aryan immigrants from central Asia; their facuial features, specifically fair complexion is representative of the Aryan race. Nevertheless, some scholars believe that Kashmiris, belong to a 1200 year old race of the Pashachas and the Nagas, and thus reject the theory of Aryan origin of Kashmiris. Some historians presume that the ancestors of Kashmiris are early immigrants from India proper.

The text in the article follows the source:Scholars have proposed various different theories concerning the origins of Kashmiris. Some scholars such as Pandit Anand Koul believe Kashmiris descend from Indo-Aryan people from Central Asia and see their facial features as an indication of that. Other scholars disagree and believe Kashmiris belong to the race of Pishachas and Nagas. Others believe Kashmiris descend migrants of other parts of India, such as South Indian regions.

You cannot hope to be taken seriously when you cannot even check sources properly. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Bhat source

Please cut out your lecturing. If you wrote this paragraph, then you misplaced the citation. The material that I deleted gave Barbara West as the citation, and she said nothing about facial features etc.

Now, the second source Ashraf Bhat is weak. "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" is a second-rate publisher and the author seems to be a linguist. Not a WP:HISTRS. The content you deleted is from a professor of history at University of Hyderabad. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If you have doubts about the class of Cambridge Scholars Publishing you can go to WP:RSN. It is certainly better than the publisher of Hangloo's book, Manohar, which seems like a third-class publisher from some side lane in a Delhi alleyway. Secondly you don't seem familiar with WP:HISTRS. The page says This page is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints

So WP:HISTRS is not binding. WP:HISTRS also says Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used..

Secondly the scholarly credentials of Ashraf Bhat are sufficient for a listing of the various opinions. See WP:HISTRW Thirdly your write up still suffers from WP:UNDUE as it talks about a race which apparently inhabited the Valley before the ancestors of Kashmiris did, although there is one theory of Kashmiris having Naga/Pashacha ancestry. To demonstrate WP:DUE you need to explain how its related to the Kashmiri people. So far the Nagas are a separate people whose history you are writing about in a section which is supposed to be about the origin of the Kashmiri people. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, it is at RSN now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Balancing various sources

• I was thinking the same thing. I was researching this topic actually. I read different in another . Nilamaputra says that the Aryans who came from Punjab to Valley later replaced the Nagas. Of course there are various theories on the origins of Kashmiri people but we can't give undue space to Nagas and definitely we cannot write about them without explaining their link to the contemporary Kashmiris, as this page is about the ethnicity and not the land...and the section is about the ethnicity's origins. We have to WP:BALANCE the WP:RS on the origins topic. Kautilya3 when a people's origins is unknown you are supposed to list and describe the various theories of the people's origins without taking sides. Not write irrelevant details about pre-historic history of the land, in place of the people. DarSahab (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

What is meant by "replaced the Nagas"? And, where exactly does Bamzai say it?

How do you determine that "undue space" has been given to Nagas in my text?

Finally, the "link to Kashmiri people" should be obvious. We are talking about the "Origins". The present day "Kashmiri people" are the descendants of all the tribes/ethnicities that came to live in the Kashmir Valley, of whom Nagas were the first. Bamzai himself says that: According to the legend, as mentioned in the Rajatarangini and the Nilamatapurana, the Valley which was a vast mountain lake was drained by Kashyapa Rishi. When desiccated the first settlers were the Nagas. They were snake worshippers and animists. Bamzai doesn't seem to know much about the Naga people, but there are plenty of History of India books that document their presence throughout the subcontinent. In most places, their culture has been absorbed into the predominant Indo-Aryan culture, but in others, e.g., Nagaland, it survives till this day. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You have not shown a source yet for this statement: The present day "Kashmiri people" are the descendants of all the tribes/ethnicities that came to live in the Kashmir Valley, of whom Nagas were the first. And where in this quote According to the legend, as mentioned in the Rajatarangini and the Nilamatapurana, the Valley which was a vast mountain lake was drained by Kashyapa Rishi. When desiccated the first settlers were the Nagas. They were snake worshippers and animists. does it say that present day Kashmiris are linked to these people? All it says is that the first settlers in the Valley were the Nagas. For all we know the Nagas might have nothing to do with present day Kashmiris. You need to first demonstrate the link between them and present day Kashmiris with a source explicitly supporting this theory (as this is only one of many theories). We can work on an acceptable text here by first gathering all the sources and comparing the various descriptions after weighing the sources to arrive at a good WP:BALANCE. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Here are some more sources which tell us of the Nagas,

It has now been established that Nagas were the original inhabitants of Kashmir and Kashmiris built their cultural traditions on the habits and customs of Nagas....Observe how Kashmiris and Nagas have been discussed here as separate peoples.

During that period, the natives of the Valley, Nagas, were obliged to leave the country...so they had left.

These writings indicate that the Nagas were a different people who formerly inhabited Kashmir before the Kashmiris did. How then can you write a semi-essay about their lifestyle into a section on the origins of Kashmiris? JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

After conducting further research on the matter I find that the very presence of Nagas in Kashmir is not a universally accepted matter.

These are the comments of a professor who teaches ancient Indian history and archaeology Dr Abdur Rashid Lone Nagas do have a historical base in the main land of India. Certain temple shrines and sculptures there are ascribed to them. But as far as Kashmir Valley is concerned, except in the Nilmata Purana and the Rajatarangini, they do not exist. From the archaeological perspective, we do not have any concrete evidence of their presence in Kashmir. The sculptures ascribed to them in the central India are completely missing from the archaeological record in Kashmir. Neither the Burzahom rock art nor the tiles from Harvan suggest anything to support the presence of Nagas in Kashmir. Scholars have argued that certain Naga tribes existed in Kashmir but that is only a projection of the Brahmanical point of view propagated through the Nilamata Purana and the subsequent literature influence by it. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Khalid Bashir Ahmad has been shot down by scholars like Chitralekha Zutshi [10]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Zutshi is at liberty to shoot down whomever she wills. Different people will have different reactions. But she has not complained in her criticism that Lone is incorrect on the Nagas. As far as the Nagas are concerned, Ahmed has only documented the research based views of other historians such as Dr Abdur Rashid Lone. He is only the messenger :) Besides, reputable publisher SAGE does not allow anyone to publish whatever they want. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Zutshi is a qualified academic to evaluate a historical work. What she points out are the deep biases underpinning the book. So, this book is too controversial to use as a source. Do you want me to take it to WP:RSN again? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

And where have Zutshi's credentials been questioned? Ahmed is not a historian but he has mentioned in his book the opinions of other historians such as Lone. Have you got Zutshi's criticism of Lone on hand for your argument to have any relevance? As far as WP:RSN is concerned, I would love to go there. Keep in mind any misrepresentations made on WP:RSN will be cleared. And I shall await the acceptance of academic observation of bias to go ahead with taking this matter to WP:RSN also.JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't even know what it is that Lone has written, whether it was published or where it was published etc. In the fragments quoted, I see him railing against the "Brhaminical point of view" the same way as Ahmad. So the same criticisms would apply to him.

The Nilamatapurana is regarded by Kashmiris themselves as being a valid representation of their past. Yes, it may be mythified. But trained historians can delve into such sources and assess what parts of such texts can be taken as historical evidence and what cannot be. We have to depend on them to make the judgements. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes that is for trained historians to delve into, something which I am myself :) But I did not know you have been chosen to speak for Kashmiris, as Ahmed and Lone both are. Since you are also not Zutshi I don't think you have the authority to extend Zutshi's criticism to Lone. Let Zutshi speak for herself. As for what Lone has said, rest assured its been published through a reputable publisher SAGE which doesn't let anyone publish anything they want. If you are still in doubt you are free to go to WP:RSN, which I eagerly await. As far as 'Brahmanical' is concerned, others have also written similar things There must have remained wooden temples dedicated to the Naga deities at these sites earlier, but no evidence, except the traditions associated with these lakes,, having strong Brahmanical undertone, now survives. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Trust me, when I speak to a trained historian, I would know that he is one. I will refer this final source to WP:RSN. Regarding the others, the article in the Kaw book is by Roop Krishen Bhat, who is once again a linguist, not a historian. The Handa book may be good, but you have misinterpreted what it says. "During that period" refers to the period when the "Pishachas used to swarm in the valley", i.e., winters. Far from saying that "they had left", Handa is arguing that the presence of Naga culture continues in Kashmir, including some 700 figures of Naga deities in the time of Abul Fazl etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Handa is arguing nothing of the sort. If it was so you would have provided us the full passage, which I will provide now for readers: According to the Nilmata Purana, the Pishachas used to swarm in the valley on the onset of winter, ″from the full moon day of the mouth of Ashvayuja to that of Chaitra,″ to save themselves from the chilling cold on the Karakoram and Pamir regions. During that period, the natives of the Valley,Nagas, were obliged to leave the country.

So here we see two things. 1. This is the account in Nilmata Purana, a mythological set of stories. This is not Handa's own view, rather she says ″According to Nilmata Purana″. 2. Handa writes that according to the Rajatarangini, the Nagas left the country. So presuming they did exist in the Valley in the first place, they had left. It matters not if she argued that Naga culture continued to have some influence in Kashmir or not, what matters is that Naga people left, according once again, to these Hindu texts. She also does not say Abu Fazl saw 700 figures, rather she says Abu Fazl speaks of nearly seven hundred figures of nagas or snake-gods existing in his time in Kashmir.

Handa then says Naga deities should also have existed at these places in the unknown past, but except the traditions having a strong Brahminic bias, nothing of those now survives in the main valley. So Handa themself believe there is no evidence for the Naga deities ever being present in Kashmir except the biased Brahminic traditions.

I have been gathering some descriptions in the reliable secondary sources

The natives of Kashmir valley before the advent of Aryans were the Nagas, as the tradition holds. However, this assumption may at best be regarded as a reference to the people, who followed snake cult as the mainstream belief-system, and those pre-Aryan people could be none, but the Austro-Dravidians. Possibly, those people were identified as the Naga during the later Vedic times. However, there might not have been any link between the primitive ophiolatrous Austro-Dravidians and the later clans, who adopted the Naga titles, for it has not been necessary that a person of Naga clan should also be a believer in Naga cult....So 1. Aryans replaced the Nagas per Handa's later quotation of the departure of Nagas according to Rajatarangini and 2.again the Naga presence is only part of the ″tradition″, and not in the sphere of facts.

The scholarly search for the origin of the people of this region often falls victim to the complex religious history of the area. If they leave aside the question of the religions of the people it may be possible to determine which 'peoples' at an early age inhabited the region up until recently called 'The Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir'. At 3,500 years ago the Indo-Aryans had already entered the Ganges plain and presumably there were some other elements of migrations from Central Asia which reached the more northerly areas of India called Kashmir. Moreover, it is possible some 'aboriginal' groups from Rajasthan and Gujarat had penetrated Kashmir as well as other parts of the sub-continent. In this context note the similarity of sharda (proto-Kashmir) and garuda (Tibetan 'Bon'). Compare also the ethnic group called nagas referred to above and the Na-Khi naga cult as part of the Bon religion which was taken to east Tibet and the Chinese mountain gorges.

Thus, the original inhabitants of Kashmir were both 'Sino-Caucasian' and 'Indo-Iranian' speakers- the former were originally from the north and west and the latter were from 'Indo-Iranians' arriving in the Ganges basin after 1,500 BPE. Perhaps these two groups represent the Pishachas and the 'Nagas'. Besides such groups the original constituency of Kashmir was enlarged by another group, namely the Sakas (of 'Scythian origin')....the word ″perhaps″ shows doubt and uncertainty. Even then the Nagas and Pishachas are indicated here to be metaphorical for Sino-Caucasian and Indo-Iranian peoples.

The most plausible suggestion is that the Nagas were the aboriginals inhabiting Kashmir before the advent of Vedic Aryans. The latter fought with them and the Pisacas and pushed them to the south, east and west. Another source which says the Pishachas and Nagas were booted out by the Aryans.

The literary sources of Kashmir like Nilmatpura and Rajtarangini that fall in the category of indigenous sources, on the name of earliest history we find a description of its origin and earlier inhabitants which is a blend of more mythological and less historical traditions. In place of present day Kashmir which stretches from the southern district of Anantnag to the northern district of Baramulla, there was a lake known as Sati Sar. Presence of a lake is attested by the geological sources as well. Nilmatpuran goes towards mythology when it mentions that this lake was the abode of Jalodhbhava (Water borne demon) and the habitants were Nagas, Pisacas and Kulindas like subhuman creatures. It skips to the arrival of Manavas or most probably Aryans and hence skips a gigantic time period of the history of Kashmir. Thanks to the efforts of the archaeologists like De Terra and Patterson (1935) and Dr. Sankalia, S.L Shali (1969-71) that we have been able to peep further into the earliest past of Kashmir. For this purpose, we need to analyse these aspects separately so that a proper analysis can be made to reach some historical conclusions based on facts

Rajtarangini mentions the earliest settlers as sub human naming them Nagas, pisacas and kulindas. It is possible that the Aryans called them so because of their primitive living habits as they called the aborigines of India as Sudras. We may conclude that Rajtarangini, a Sanskrit chronicle written by a Brahman may have the bias based on superiority concept regarding the earliest settlers of Kashmir. In the light of archaeological and geological sources, we find the literary traditions of Kashmir a mix up of historical and mythological traditions which skips the importance of the earliest settlers who survived the hardships of evolutionary transitions to reach to the stage of food production from the stage of food gathering. In other words the Nilmatputra, the source of the Naga theory, suffers from bias and is a mythologocal account rather than historical.

We will need to collect as many sources as possible, examine them and then write a good text which achieves WP:BALANCE. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Given the on-going discussion on RSN, and very weak argument provided against the version, I am reverting to it. I had thought of adding more to that section some months ago about Nagas but some of the content is already there now. Capitals00 (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not for you to make unilateral reverts and decide on your own what is weak or not in the middle of a consensus building discussion. You have been warned. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You have got enough time to convince us, but you are not attempting at all, you are only showing the weakness of your argument. Capitals00 (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Nagas

• The Nilmatapurana sometimes describes Nagas as humans and sometimes as snakes, there is no clarity about what they really were. About the text of Nilmatapurana, as per Aurel Stein, "The text is unfortunately in very bad condition, owing to numerous lacunae and textual corruptions of all kind... It appears to me by no means improbable that the text had undergone changes and possible additions at later periods", thus it should rarely be quoted, preferably not at all as a piece of history. One should also remember the composition of Nilmatapurana coincides with the annihilation of Buddhists by Shivaites in Kashmir, thus this could be a manufactured lie as Shiva has been always depicted and described with them (these tactics are always used to lay claim on invading foreign lands). Also, none of the 700 figures (or their ruins) of Naga deities you mentioned have been found anywhere in Kashmir. Even ancient places like Burzahom and Gofkral don't show any evidences of their presence here. Your theory falls flat. FreeKashmiri (talk)

FreeKashmiri, welcome. The Nilamatapurana is a WP:PRIMARY source and it will never be used as a citation. All the citations are to WP:SECONDARY sources, preferably historians. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between mythology and history, Nilmatapurana has become an orbit around which Kashmir's so-called history and culture has been constructed. It has become the so-called evidence of Kashmir's Hindu origins while no archeological surveys support its claim, even it's composition is dubious. It cannot be used as a piece of history by historians or whomsoever. FreeKashmiri (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A warm welcome FreeKashmiri! We do rely on secondary sources on Wikipedia, could you provide secondary sources? I myself feel we will have to do a lot of cross-checking between the sources and attribute what is coming from the mythologies and what comes from the real research. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ex-Director Centre of Central Asian Studies (Kashmir University) and a Historian, Professor Gulshan Majeed had published a paper called 'No Naga Presence In Ancient Kashmir' which busts this myth. He has cited non-availability of inscriptions, manuscripts or any supportive evidence which physically could have proved the presence of Nagas in ancient Kashmir (also no remains have been found anywhere as I pointed out). Another noted Historian, Dr. Abdul Ahad supports his claim. These nags were believed to be superhumans who could control weather and water, they could also easily change shape. If this isn't mythology then what is? How can this be projected as a fact on wikipedia? FreeKashmiri (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, FreeKashmiri for providing us with these details. I have been able to verify the authenticity of FreeKashmiri's words about Professor Abdul Majeed who has published several history books, has published the paper FreeKashmiri has mentioned and is a history professor at the Institute of Kashmir Studies at the University of Kashmir. Kautilya3, there are some new sources on the scene now which will need to be taken into account. Keep in mind that offline sources have the same value as online sources, per WP:OFFLINE. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@JosephusOfJerusalem: Stop WP:STONEWALLING, since that is all you are left with as you have already displayed your incompetence. No one is using primary sources, though you are using arguments of little known linguist and not historians. Anmolbhat (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not as bad as that. Gulshan Majeed is apparently a historian. But his article was published in a conference proceedings, of which he himself was a co-editor, and it doesn't seem to have received any support other than Ahmad's book. The first source in the link, a PhD thesis done at the same University of Kashmir, which even thanks Gulshan Majeed for his teaching, is happily ignoring his conclusions (whatever they are). So I don't think this theory has much support in the scholarly community. It would be worth a footnote, but no more than that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

What we ″think″ is irrelevant. What we need to know is how much acceptance Hangloo's ideas have in the wider scholarly community. So far we know of three historians (Majeed, Ahad and Lone) who reject the Naga presence in Kashmir and point to the lack of evidence for their presence, and one historian Hangloo saying they existed. What ought to be kept in mind is that Hangloo cites no evidence for the presence of Nagas, rather is repeating verbatim the narrative of the Nilmataputra, an ancient Hindu text which the sources I have quoted above show to be both mythoogical and displaying a Brahminic bias. It is likely a 'fringe' theory, as are all religious mythologies. FreeKashmiri has raised a valid point in that we cannot project mythology as historical fact. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I have just taken the trouble to check Hangloo's cites [11] and found none of those who cite him are supporting, or even saying anything of significance, about the Nagas. The book specialises in medieval, and not ancient Kashmir.

A reviewer, James Heitzman of Georgia State University, has these comments to offer

Chapter 1, discussing state formation before the fourteenth century, depends on Kalhana's Rajatarangini and some input from the seventh-century Nilmata Purana. There is no indication here of archaeological work that might aid the historian, although the establishment of Srinagar and neighboring Stupas is said to occur in the third century B.C.E. Around that time, a "tribal-level state formation" of Nagas with a "super-chief' called Nila Naga "witnessed endless disintegration into various settlements growing and spreading over river valleys and hills in a widely dispersed manner" (pp. 18-19). Buddhist monks and brahmanas penetrated this "haphazard and fortuitous" structure and established the conditions for an exploitative, hierarchical state authority...So 1.Hangloo's entire description of the Nagas depends on the Rajatarangini and Nilmata Purana, mythological texts. There is no archaeological work or research that he has done to support his conclusions. His work is nothing more than a repetition of Hindu mythology. 2.The rest of what is repeated in the review is put in quotation marks to emphasise that these are Hangloo's words, not Heitzman's. Again, with no research and a dependence on the texts of Hindu mythology.

Heitzman's final remarks on Hangloo's book are not positive either,

It is not easy to imagine an audience for this book. If one could ignore the periodic chauvinist statements, the simplistic conceptual framework might provide a starting point for students never exposed to historical ideas or social science. But then we encounter entire paragraphs full of untranslated terminology on administrative offices and units of measure (p. 113) or raw lists of administrators (p. 114). The extended endnote collections, at first glance an attraction for more advanced scholars, upon closer inspection yield discussions at the most basic level. (One note for chapter 2 [note 231 spends one-third of a page describing the origins and tenets of Islam.) Even the title is out of focus: one-fourth of the text discusses what the author might term "pre" or "early" medieval times, and the real title for three chapters should be "State and Religion in Kashmir." On the whole, this work has all the characteristics of a rush job.

Another reviewer, Mohammad Ishaq Khan, has no comments on his study of Ancient Kashmir. I am going to @Winged Blades of Godric: to take a look. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

What part of my contributed text is contradicted by Heitzman? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You know the answer to your question. But for the convenience of the readers I will waste a little more of my time to explain it. You have basically taken information from Hangloo, who himself was repeating information from Hindu mythological texts as his ″history″ without substantiating it with any research, and written it in Wikipedia voice as if they were facts. The entire pre-fourteenth century history by Hangloo, as pointed out by Heitzman, depends upon the Rajatarangini and Nilmata Purana. I have already pointed out to you, in the previous sub-section, the reliable sources which show the issues with these two mythological texts. On Wikipedia, religious mythologies are not presented as facts. There are additional problems with Hangloo's work, observed by Heitzman, which makes him untenable to use the way you have. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hietzman's problems with the book were mostly stylistic. He didn't say that anything in it was false or dubious. If the history written by Hangloo is inadequate, the rest of the writers' history is even more inadequate. The whole field is in infancy. If you have better histories that exist, please bring them up. So far all you have done is to defend junk like "facial features" and "lost tribes of Israel". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

See the discussion on the thread before this one. You will have to work carefully with me to improvise with regard to WP:BALANCE. So far we have a WP:RS sufficient for giving us a list of scholarly opinions including that of Hangloo's on the origins. However, what is not right is to write Hangloo in Wikipedia voice, and certainly not to give his inadequate history too much space as you have done. He should be a brief sentence at most. My suggestion is to attribute Hangloo's work to his archaeological research-less and Rajatarangini/Nilmata Purana-dependent methodology, noted by Heitzman, (with a description of the Brahminic bias of Hangloo's source material) when writing about it. You will show a draft here so it can be checked. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I am always happy to work with editors to reach common ground, but that requires an intelligent conversation, not wikilawyering. If you had said you would prefer to attribute what I wrote to Nilamatapurana, I would have probably accepted. Likewise, when I tell you that Ashraf Bhat is a linguist, not a historian, I would like it to be understood, rather than claiming that WP:HISTRS is an "essay".

I have gone through some of what you wrote above, but I can't make head or tail of it. We are not going to write an entire essay on Nagas. This page is still on Kashmiris. If you would like to work on writing a page on Nagas in Kashmir, please feel free to do so. That is not my project. Neither am I prepared to accept O.C.Handa as a higher authority than Hangloo. He is a cultural historian that writes about culture/temples/customs etc., and his books hardly have any scholarly reviews. Please bring in sources that are vetted by scholars (preferably internationally). Alternatively state what your objections are to my content, or propose amended content. Your contribution so far has not been anything constructive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

An extensive search of the revision history reveals that NadirAli originally added this text [12]. NadirAli, you wrote in your edit summary that you intended to add a range of scholarly opinions on the origins. So Kautilya3, Nadir's text is sourced, I repeat, to a source which is sufficiently reliable for giving readers a list of the differing scholarly opinions among the scholars such as R.K. Parmu and Pandit Anand Koul. One of these opinions Bhat mentions is the Naga/Pashacha theory, which we also know to be based on no evidence except (biased) religious texts. Nevertheless the theory exists, so its mention is appropriate. But to give it more prominence than the other theories when as you say, the entire topic is in infacy, is WP:UNDUE. It creates a false impression of more validity than the other theories. And writing two paragraphs from Hangloo as if they are factual while removing the other opinions is WP:UNDUE, especially when reviewers have noted there is no research, only regurgitation, in Hangloo's history of ancient Kashmir. So for a subject such as origins which is in infancy, we should suffice with a mere list of the various opinions which have existed. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I am specifically opposed to the Ashraf Bhat content for all the reasons I have already mentioned. He is a linguist, not a historian. And the theories he enumerates are not the ones that modern historians would be comfortable touching. It is his inexperience in history that makes him regurgitate these outmoded theories. There is nothing controversial about the Naga presence in the Kashmir valley before the arrival of Aryan tribes. Hundreds of sources mention it. Hangloo is the best of them. He is a modern JNU-trained historian, whose book has been internationally reviewed. So, I don't see how you can possibly object to it. If you continue to object, I will have to take it to WP:DRN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You are quite welcome to take it to WP:DRN. I look forward to it. Though I will quickly correct any misrepresentation that may be made. As has been pointed out to you by uninvolved editors on WP:RSN, where you keenly took Bhat to, Bhat is a sufficient source to tell readers what historians posit. It is irrelevant if you think some of the scholarly theories are 'outmoded' (again, no evidence has been cited for your new claim that the different opinions are outmoded). This is nothing new to us historians, as theories develop over time but the history and range of scholarly debate remains relevant.

Your google search is what we call a red herring, since the books which appear on your google search need to actually support the Naga theory rather than mention it in passing as a myth or rejected theory with no evidence. It is certainly controversial, because there is no evidence for their presence, as has been stated in several WP:RS. Hangloo's international reviews have been presented here, and it is with those reviews in mind that your contributed text is problematic.

Nevertheless, the theory exists in the scholarly spectrum. So what I am okay with is mentioning the theory of their presence, like Bhat has, without giving it WP:UNDUE priority over the other theories as if we are taking a position in the article that one theory is true while the others are false. Since the origin of Kashmiris is a mystery and still a topic in ″infancy″, what readers need to know is about the scholarly debates or the range of scholarly opinions on the topic, and if possible their evidence (which in the case of Nagas is quite negligible). See WP:NPOV. Editors are not allowed to write their favorite opinions as facts, opinions are mentioned as opinions. They can't become facts. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

So you do not want to state what your objections are to my content or propose alternative content? I said that I will take it to WP:DRN if you fail to do those things. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The objections, with reference to Wikipedia policies, have been outlined in my now numerous talk posts above. If you have failed to understand them or if you are displaying WP:IDHT (I will assume the former out of good faith), I will meet you at WP:DRN. If you want to show us an amended draft as I requested, you can propose it here at Talk:Kashmiris#Balancing_various_sources. Also keep in mind the WP:ONUS rests on you to give a satisfactory reason for removing longstanding content sourced to WP:RS.So far no satisfactory reason has been given and your only objection to the longstanding content, that the author is a linguist and allegedly not a historian, has not been accepted as a reason on WP:RSN where uninvolved editor have told you that Bhat is acceptable for the text in the article which cites him. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The origins of any ethnicity is bound to be contested among the scholars. Thats why its better to have a scholarly discussion in such places. For this purpose Bhat has been accepted as a reliable source on the noticeboard for text where other scholarly opinions are being quoted. There's no reason for myth-repeating Hangloo's stories to be given so much prominence. International reviewers have noted that about Hangloo too. Its enough that his Naga theory is mentioned, with a citation to Bhat.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"Myth-rpeating Hangloo"? He is a professional historian. You have provided no evidence to say that his "myth-repeating".

Bhat is not a historian. And he is repeating ample number of myths like the Great Flood, Aryan race and Lost tribes of Israel. There is also supposedly a "race of Pashachas and Nagas", which is "1200 year old". He exhibits no knowledge of any difference between such myths and authentic scholarly information. The fact that he is a scholar in a different subject (linguistics) doesn't give his history any authenticity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

References

"A Genome-Wide Search for Greek and Jewish Admixture in the Kashmiri Population"

See A Genome-Wide Search for Greek and Jewish Admixture in the Kashmiri Population:

The PCA demonstrates clear genetic patterning of populations in European, South Asian, and East Asian subcontinental groups (first two principal components, shown in Fig 1). A number of populations fall between the subcontinental genetic clusters (North African, West Asian, South Asian, and some East Asian populations). The Kashmiri samples are grouped near other previously studied groups from northern India and Pakistan, which indicates similar genetic ancestry. Further, the mean principal component 1 and 2 coordinate of a previously studied population in Kashmir (15 Kashmiri Pandits) is found to plot in the center of the collected Kashmiri cluster, indicating similar heritage and validating the quality of the Kashmiri genotypes. A number of populations residing in nearby Pakistan also show genetic similarity to the Kashmiris, including the Burusho, Balochi, Brahui, Sindhi, and Kalash. Principal components 1 and 2 also show that the Indo-European ethno-linguistic populations from northern India lie on a cline between western European populations and Dravidian ethno-linguistic groups of southern India. This pattern suggests that Indo-European ethno-linguistic groups of northern India, including the Kashmiris, share a complex ancestral history with both west Eurasian and Indian populations. None of the Kashmiris clustered near the northern Greek or Sephardic Jewish (Greece and Turkey) populations in principal components 1 and 2. A similar pattern is observed in principal components 3 and 4 (Fig A in S1 Appendix).

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

How would you like to add the conclusions from this WP:PRIMARY source to the existing content? Can you propose a draft here so we can check? JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Side comment - Kashmiris are just one of the many sub groups within India just like Maratha, Gujrati, Bangla, and so on. The native kashmiris are from the same stock as other indians of north india. There is no difference between kashmiris and Himachal Pardesh people. ZAthe hero (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

N@JOJ: none of it, I'm afraid; there's an informal concencus not to include genetic data on castes, and I can imagine that some would make the same objection for information on larger ethnic groups. But the point is clear, I think: it seems likely that present-day Kashmiri are not descended from one single "original" group, but are 'a mixture created by history'. And I agree with ZAthe hero that the Kashmiri are not different from other northern Indian groups, nor genetically, nor regarding those historical origins. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If so, there is no space for this quote if there is an informal consensus not to include genetic information about ethnic groups. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This page used to cite the conclusions of the Downie et al (2016) study in the Origins section. It was removed by Kautilya3 whose argument for removing it was that the source was WP:PRIMARY. The previous version was WP:NPOV because it used the term South Asian rather than Indian. In fact the study itself uses the term South Asian in its discussion.

Our old version also listed the genetically close ethnicities to Kashmiris- the Sindhis, Brahui, Burusho, Baloch and Kalash- as concluded by the study. It is time we restore this longstanding content if we are to take back this source again, rather than WP:CHERRYPICK quotes to prove a point. Our old version:

The Kashmiri population's origins are stated to be unknown. Widespread claims of Israelite ancestry are made by Kashmiris citing historical records and similar geographical names and socio-cultural traditions. Another hypothesis is that the rural Kashmiri tribes trace Greek descent. Using genome-wide genotype data there has been a study on the question of Jewish or Greek origin of Kashmiris. Using Y chromosome haplotype data the study could not find any evidence indicating a Jewish origin. The PCA and ADMIXTURE results instead indicated that Kashmiris are genetically similar to nearby populations. The results of the study found that Kashmiris generally share genetic ancestry with west Eurasian and South Asian populations and that Kashmiris show genetic similarity to the following Pakistani populations: Burusho, Balochi, Brahui, Sindhi, and Kalash.

--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I did remove it, but it wasn't "longstanding". It was added in April by our well-known sock friend , and removed by me in June, essentially as part of the post-sock clean-up. I probably read the first line mentioning Israeli ancestry and went "not again!" Now that it has been brought up again, I will be happy for JJ to add some revised version of this content in his proposed paragraph summarising Downie. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And, JJ is right that there is informal consensus not to include genetic data about castes, but there is no such consensus about ethnic groups. In fact, Indo-Aryan migrations, Indo-European migrations etc. make prominent use of it, and JJ has been the main contributor of all that content. (Castes and ethnic groups are totally different. Castes are social groups whose origin and extent is quite open to debate and the geneticists have made assumptions that are not validated by sociologists. Ethnic groups have no such problems.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The Downie-article seems pretty reasonable; it's findings are in line with I don't know how much other research on the genetic history of Pakistan and north-western India. And it's kind of a 'middle way' between all the different (c.q. various ;)) theories on the origins of the Kashmiris. Not this or that, but both, and a lot more. Apparently, ethnicity cannot be pinned down to a single, ancient origin; ethnicity is about feelings, stories, and interactions and confrontations with other groups. So, a 'middle way' between the various thoeries. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The list of those ethnic groups which the study explicitly mentions by name as being genetically close to Kashmiris should be added back. Also write South Asian instead of Indian.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Reminder

Don't forget this version by Kautilya3, which was also endorsed by Capitals00[13] I would better prefer merging this version with the new edits that were made today. So bad JosephusofJerusalem is WP:STONEWALLING here too. Anmolbhat (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, JJ was just rewording the dubious content from Ashraf Bhat to make it half-way reasonable. But most of his improvements have been nullified by Josephus. So we are back to square-A as far as that goes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit, p 55

Fylindfotberserk you have interpreted this as a case of redundancy. My impression is that you have read page 55 where Central Asia is touched upon in the Aryan theory context. But my revert of the modification to longstanding content is because page 56 mentions Central Asia in a different breath, which is why I urge you to read on. There's another touch from the historians. So it is not the same context at all. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

References

JosephusOfJerusalem, I've seen that. I believe this line:

According to Dar, Kashmir was settled by several waves of migrants, such as Central Asians and Brahmins from India pursuing studies who either mixed with or removed the earlier Nagas. Dar also includes the arrival of Sufis from Iran and Iraq among these migratory waves

cover the Central Asian part well as described in p.55.

Secondly, I believe we should mention "Lord Jesus Christ and origin of Kashmiri from Hebrew" here as well as it is written in the source. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: I want to see the Majeed book. Please provide links

That line covers Dar, it does not cover the ″several historians″. Which is why the removed sentence has its own place.

"Lord Jesus Christ and origin of Kashmiri from Hebrew" are not associated with Kashmiri origins. The linguistic theory might get a spot in Kashmiri language but I don't see any way it can go into a section on the origin of the people. No WP:RS or scholarly theory has ever claimed Jesus to be an ancestor, so I don't see it reasonable to put him in either.

Please see WP:OFFLINE. The title should be self-explanatory. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

---

That line covers Dar, it does not cover the ″several historians″. Which is why the removed sentence has its own place. - I understand but all these sentences were framed so similarly that it looks redundant.

• According to scholar Pandit Anand Koul, Kashmiris descend from Indo-Aryan people from Central Asia, and he sees their fair complexions as an indication of that.
• Some historians have argued that the Kashmiris migrated directly from central Asia, citing similar cultures and complexion as evidence for their stance.
• According to Dar, Kashmir was settled by several waves of migrants, such as Central Asians

Anyway, I will put it back. Another thing. Is this section really necessary. I mean a lot of these things were covered in origin section. I believe wiki article on any contemporary group doesn't have this type of a section. Even for Scandinavian groups who were romanticized heavily during 19th-early 20th century. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

To editor Fylindfotberserk: The physical characteristics section has many WP:RS behind it so it is WP:DUE, and much of the content under it is much more than just about the origins of the ethnicity. I do not think that ″I believe wiki article on any contemporary group doesn't have this type of a section″ is a suitable argument, according to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

A required administrative look

@GoldenRing:. I reverted a removal of verifiable content on scholarly discourse on the origins of the Kashmiri race. I then get another person, Razer2115, reverting me and saying this edit comes within the topic ban (in an extremely broadly construed extension of the actual topic ban area). As the administrator who imposed the sanctions you will know well the limits that you have set out. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@JosephusOfJerusalem: In my view, the racial origins of Kashmiris falls pretty squarely into the topic of conflict between India and Pakistan. Please avoid this area. GoldenRing (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interestingly, you were told that you "are warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning."[14] Your note here is covered by the topic ban as well. My Lord (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The "Consensus" claim

RaviC, You have claimed[15] in your edit summary that there was consensus on the talkpage for the version you reverted to (although you were not a participant). Given that I was a participant in the January discussion[16] I know what went on and can verify that your and My Lord's claim that there was consensus for this version[17] is totally wrong.

A listing of the content your version removed.

• Opening line: "Scholars have proposed various theories concerning the origins of Kashmiris."
• Naga theory: "The presence of Nagas in ancient Kashmir has been contested in historical scholarship."
• End paragraph: "According to Dar, Kashmir being at crossroads of India, China, Afghanistan and central Asia, was settled by several waves of migrants. Central Asians and Brahmins from India pursuing studies who either mixed with or removed the earlier Nagas. Dar also includes the arrival of Sufis from Iran and Iraq among these migratory waves. Several historians have argued that the Kashmiris migrated directly from central Asia, citing similar customs, lifestyle and complexion as evidence for their stance.'

References

Then look at this discussion.[18] Which part of that discussion (point out a specific diff) supports the removal of each of those three bits of content? DarSahab (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 236#Linguist's history, you are just overtly depending on a source that we have agreed to wholly remove. My Lord (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)