Talk:Second Gonanda dynasty

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup.
	This article was last assessed in January 2019.

Redirect

Proposing to redirect this page to Alchon Huns. See Karkota Dynasty#Establishment for more details.

Every reputed scholar (Michael Witzel, Ronald Inden, John Siudmak and others) assert that the first three books of Rajatarangini are absolutely ahistorical and trying to reconstruct Kashmiri history from there is a waste of resources. No reliable source covers this dynasty in a significant fashion, other than when engaging in literary criticism of Rajatarangini. Apart from two kings (Hunas; chronology and genealogy are messed up), all are held to be (roughly) legendary figures.

Overall, the descriptions of this dynasty only belongs over our article on Rajatarangini. Also, I do not know the reason behind the suffix III; this shall be Gonanda II or the restored Gonanda Dynasty. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to give information, not erase it.... The Gonanda dynasty is mentionned in many sources, so I think it is better to explain within the article what it is all about. Your comments above are interesting, and deserve inclusion here. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gonanda dynasty is mentioned in many sources - Citation needed. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gives me 33 results, 27 of which are junk. Trivial mentions by Tansen Sen, S. Lavoni, Rangachari and Michael Witzel. This dynasty did not exist and there's nothing to write, which cannot be accommodated over our article on Rajatarangini. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this dynasty indeed "did not exist", just provide the sources for this claim. The refutation in itself is interesting, and will edify any reader looking for information about them.पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added some of the content related to the dynasty, and also a coin in the name of "Sri Tujina", discussed by Cribb. It's a start... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re. your comment on numbering. Should we call the dynasty Gonanda II and start with Meghavahana? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is very clearly written. We need significant coverage about the topic and thus, you need to show that scholars devote significant space to discuss the dynasty. Read Michael Witzel and Csaba Dezső.

You need to get into the habit of writing the text and then, adding images. That coin image is out of context.

Please don't copy the lines written by me for another page, to this page in a wholesale fashion without paying any attention to context.

This shall be Gonanda II. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we on this? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]