Talk:Shah Mir

One must only go by Jonaraja since he was a honest person and was close to Budshah the direct descendant of Shah Mira. Jonaraja clearly informs us that Shah Mira's family were recent converts to Islam (based on information from Budshah and describes their ancestors as Chandravanshi Kshatriyas from a region close to Kashmir. That is authentic history rest is imagination and planted history for political gains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:A180:F700:EC77:6A6E:56F5:72CC (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Jonaraja's description

[Link to the original content [1]]

@Barthateslisa: Your editing on this article has been highly disappointing. I have given a reliable source (the Rafiq article) along with a link to the PDF file and page numbers. Yet, you have deleted or modified this content numerous times without once checking the source 25 Oct, 17 Nov, 18 Nov, 18 Nov, 19 Nov, 21 Nov, 21 Nov, 21 Nov, 21 Nov. This is highly inexplicable. By any standards of edit-warring, this is excessive. As such, you immediately qualify for a block.

Please look at the source now, and tell us what part of the content you believe is unsourced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

What source? No reliable source cited for a claim about Mythology. We are suppose to maintain a NPOV on Wikipedia, instead you are presenting your preferred POV about mythology and history as a fact. Was Arjun a real person? No. He is a character in a text. You are pushing your POV which mixes mythology with history, and ignoring other theories about his origin. I repeat you can not mix mythology with history on Wikipedia. Barthateslisa (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that means you did not look at the source, and all this while you have been edit-warring based on your WP:OR. Here is what the source says:

The Kashmiri and Mughal historians recount different legends about the ancestry of Shah Mır. According to Jonaraja, Shah Mır was the descendant of Partha (Arjuna) of Mahabharata fame. Abu ’l-Fadl cAllamı, Nizam al-Dın and Firishta also state that Shah Mır traced his descent to Arjuna, the basis of their account being Jonaraja’s Rajatarangını, which Mulla cAbd al-Qadir Bada’unı translated into Persian at Akbar’s orders. It is likely that either Jonaraja, in order to glorify the family of his patron (Zayn al-cAbidın, a direct descendant of Shah Mır: see below), or Shah Mır, after coming to the throne, worked out an apocryphal genealogy connecting himself with the legendary heroes of the past; this was a common practice with rulers and dignitaries of those days.

References

I am afraid your branding of Mahabharata as "mythology" is also WP:OR. Reliable sources call it either an "epic" or "legendary".

I would very much hope that you will reexamine your own conduct in this dispute, which is far below the standard we expect on ARBIPA pages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you have read the selected portion, the author clearly calls it a POV not a fact. The author who you are citing himself is disputing the claims of what he calls biased historians. On the other hand you partially quoted him to say that Shah Mir was a descendant of Arjuna, who BTW is a figure of mythology. The very source you have mentioned denies the claim as made up history. Barthateslisa (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Here you go, quoting from the source for your convenience,

"It is likely that either Jonaraja, in order to glorify the family of his patron (Zayn ¯ al-cAbidin, a direct descendant of Shah Mir, or Shah Mir, after coming to the throne, worked out an apocryphal genealogy connecting himself with the legendary heroes of the past; this was a common practice with rulers and dignitaries of those days. According to some Persian chronicles of Kashmir, Shah Miır was a descendant of the rulers of Swat, but it is more probable that his ancestors were of Turkish or Persian origin and had migrated to Swat..."

The author is himself denying those claims. Barthateslisa (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if you have noticed, the information from the Persian sources were also added in my edit. My edit also said that the descent from Arjuna is likely to be "concocted genealogy". What exactly is your complaint? You have been deleting sourced content based on your personal opinion. That is not the way to write Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way, there are no "facts" here. We have historical information received via two sources. Both of them need to be mentioned as per WP:NPOV. Nobody has given us the authority to decide which is fact and which is not. Besides, even fictional accounts should be mentioned when they are cited by reliable sources. They also give us useful information about the social conditions and historical events. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There are not two sources, there is only one source here, i.e. the work of NA Rafiqi, no other source cited for Jonaraja's mythological claim. Rafiqi himself has denied the claim about mythology, then how can it be mentioned, was this theory about mythology attributed to him on the page, in absence of other sources? The edits did not maintain NPOV. Rafiqi is the prime source here, if you are using his work as a source, don't use it partially. There is no independent source for the mythology claim here. As per Rafiqi, Mir was a Turk/ Persian, whose family migrated to Swat and he later migrated to Kashmir. Claims about Mir's mythological history have been mentioned as a trivia by Rafiqi and dismissed in the same para, so the claim about Mir being Arjuna's descendant is dismissed mythology trivia, not HISTORY, as per the source. Barthateslisa (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This line should end this discussion: "Nobody has given us the authority to decide which is fact and which is not. Besides, even fictional accounts should be mentioned when they are cited by reliable sources."

Whose "line" is this BTW? Barthateslisa (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

(2600:1001:B010:93FE:9DF5:8A11:14FB:3A56 (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC))

I support Kautilya3. We should move forward with his argument. (2600:1001:B010:93FE:9DF5:8A11:14FB:3A56 (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC))

You can't add POV based on secondary source as facts. Period.

It will be corrected as per the norm. Barthateslisa (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3 provided reference, you provided none except moot argument. Two of us who are knowledgeable about this subject is being opposed due to bias. (2600:1001:B010:93FE:9DF5:8A11:14FB:3A56 (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC))

@Barthateslisa:, There are two historical sources that Rafiq is drawing from, Jonaraja and Persian chronicles. As a good scholar, he mentioned both of them and stated which he favours. That is exactly what we are doing. If you want more sources, use Google books. Rafiq thinks that Shah Mir's family were Turk/Persian immigrants. He has no evidence for it. We say that he thinks so. That is the best we can do. You can choose to believe what you want to believe. You can't impose those beliefs on Wikipedia.

Please go through all of them, they all dismiss Jonaraja's "descendant of Arjuna" hypothesis as fiction. The "descendant of Arjuna" hypothesis has been only mentioned in trivial sense. Thanks. Barthateslisa (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You also appear to have your own private idea of what NPOV is, which is sadly wrong. The WP:NPOV page says that it means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All I see from you is "editorial bias", personal opinions on what history is, what mythology is and so on. Please spare us your opinions and stick to sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but "editorial bias" is something that is not an issue with me, its more visible in your edits. You are focused on a secondary source rather than the primary one. As per the primary source, which you have cited, Mir was originally from Swat, and his family was either Turkic or Persian, who migrated to Swat. The whole "descendant of Arjuna" hypothesis is based on a SECONDARY source, which the primary source mentions as trivia himself dismisses it. As per your edits, secondary source's "descendant of Arjuna" hypothesis is the main origin hypothesis for Mir. Secondly, Arjuna is not identified as a historical figure in mainstream history rather a character in an epic called Mahabharata, even as per Wikipedia, which is our current ground right now. Shah Mir is a historical figure, Arjuna is not. Barthateslisa (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

We are not claiming anything. We are using WP:In-text attribution, a concept you do not seem to understand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem with that, but why being selective with all of it? This is the "editorial bias" I was referring to, why are you only using Jonaraja's claims in the origin para, its quite evident that you have other sources about Mir's origin at your disposal, then why being selective? Mention all of them, stop with this misinformation to suit POV. Mir was descendant of a character in a poem, is Jonaraja's claim, but why mention only one claim, when apparently you have other sources available with you. THIS my friend is "bias". Mentioning a claim about a mythological character and not mentioning other versions and hypothesis leads to misinformation and certainly affects the NPOV of the page. Barthateslisa (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that is the most accepted historical evidence we have. Kautilya3 as such has been rightfully mentioning it. It is not your job to dismiss a reference as an editor. Again, your rebuttles are moot. Kautilya3 provided the best way to move forward. (2600:1001:B010:93FE:9DF5:8A11:14FB:3A56 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC))

Read what you wrote, "most accepted historical evidence", its clearly your POV. Barthateslisa (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't twist my words. You are clearly being untrustworthy. History always has a most acceptable version, and others that are more debated. Don't pretend to be asinine. There is a consensus between me and K3, you can't keep your version without any of your fellow editors agreeing to it. Again, 2/3 editors provided evidence and reason to keep the original content. I support moving with Kautilya3. (2600:1001:B010:93FE:9DF5:8A11:14FB:3A56 (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC))

What is more untrustworthy than an IP which keeps on changing, and its not about voting here, if a biased POV is reflected in the content it will be corrected. Of all the available versions for Mir's early life, you can't selectively pick one and add it as primary. No bias and POV on Wikipedia is allowed, be it of many or one. Barthateslisa (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

@Barthateslisa: I am getting lost with all the noise in this discussion. Do you still have any objections to the original content I contributed? If so, please state them. Please focus on the content, and not the editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

History about Mir's origin is unclear, period. You are selectively adding information as per your bias. The whole, Mir being "descendant of Arjuna" hypothesis by Jonaraja might appeal to you but its dismissed by mainstream historians. You are only adding Jonaraja's claim, despite the fact that there are many other theories about his early life and origin. Either add all of them or don't highlight one dismissed theory. Mir being a descendant of Arjuna, who I repeat again, is a character in an epic not a historical figure, is a fringe theory, you can not put it up as mainstream hypothesis about history. Some fringe also believe that Jesus visited India in his lifetime or that Cleopatra and Julius Caesar were Jesus' parents, do we add those theories in their bios? No. Learn to differentiate between history and fringe theories. You can't add one fringe theory in his early life section and not mention other mainstream hypothesis. If you are really worried about the early life section of Mir's life, add other theories before adding mythological trivia. Barthateslisa (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I see. So, the fact that is it is in-text attributed to Jonaraja doesn't make any difference to you? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

A fringe theory can be attributed to anybody, to mislead Wikipedia users, if you want an informative early life section, then add all available theories about Mir's origin. Don't push your POV. Barthateslisa (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you also saying that you will continue to oppose and delete the reliably sourced content? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying you will continue to add selective content as per your bias and POV to mislead the Wikipedia readers? Barthateslisa (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Which part of "reliably sourced content" you don't understand? (2600:1001:B027:D14:6505:680A:4F26:BB32 (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC))

Barthateslisa Please demonstrate your claim that this is a fringe theory. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

A fringe theory is a hypothesis which is off the mainstream, in this case, saying Shah Mir, who is a well recorded historical figure, was a descendant of Arjuna, a character in an epic, is a fringe theory, not a mainstream theory. Shah Mir's origin is uncertain, it has many theories, for example as per your favourite source and author here, he was of Turco-Persian stock from Swat. That is a mainstream theory, as it doesnt involve mythological characters. Every citation you provided for Jonaraja's theory, has ridiculed and dismissed his claims. You on the other hand have been putting up that claim selectively, without dismissing it. Barthateslisa (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I wrote It is likely to be concocted history, which is dismissing it. If you want different wording, please suggest it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I am also not sure that there is a "mainstream" theory. How do you decide what is "mainstream" here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Arjuna as a historical figure is not mainstream hypothesis. If you believe otherwise, the onus is on you to to prove it not the other side. Barthateslisa (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that you are merely repeating the same old arguments without addressing any of my points. I think we have reached the end of the road here. I will take to WP:DRN. Please continue the discussion there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Brother, hard to believe one can be so ignorant but Shah Mir was a tribe called Swati of Dehqan/ Tajik origin therefore, was styled as persian. He didn't come from persia. Now this tribe is counted amongst Pathans but aren't so and and part of Mountain Tajiks in North Western Afghanistan and majority live in Mansehra and Azad Kashmir. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Origins

There is continuing battling about the origins of Shah Mir [2]. As far as I can see, people are merely POV-pushing. There are two sources: Jonaraja and the unnamed Persian chronicles. Most reliable sources accept Jonaraja. He was after all the court historian of one of his descendants. What we have here in the article is perfect NPOV, as perfect as it can be. Anybody contesting it should express their views here instead of edit-warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

After some more investigation, I find that a large majority of modern scholars side with the Swati origin theory. They could all be wrong, for all we know. The only source that critically checked all the sources, N. K. Zutshi, sides with the Panjgabbar theory. I don't think this is a debate we can settle here. I have updated the content as per WP:NPOV. I request all the editors to stop edit-warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

ELABORATUON REGQRDING THE TERMS "SWAD-GABAR" AND "SWAT"

An elaboration is in order, regarding the discussion and presumtions on this page -- about the terms "Swad-Gabar" and "Swat". This is a very common misconception, which has unfortunately been fostered by the almost total lack of access to the actual information in this regard.

Swat takes its name from its Sawadi Tajik rulers -- a community of administrative "Dehqans" of ancient Persian origin, thought to have existed here since the days when Gandhara and its environs were a longstanding Satrapy of Imperial Persia in the days before Islam. Sawad was a kingdom that extended far beyond the area presently known as Swat -- and at its height covered most of Gandhara between Parwan in present day Afghanistan and the Kashmiri town of Baramula near the Jhelum River. One of the areas under their control was the town of Panj, on the Amu (Oxus) River, and now in Tajikistan.

Sawadis and Sawad (Swat) are mentioned as such by the Timurid Babar in his celebrated "Baburnama"; he encountered and helped overthrow the last Sawadi King, Sultan Owais and facilitated the takeover of Sawad by the invading Yusufzai Pashtuns in 1520. All of this is recorded but hardly mentioned. After Sawad was taken over and repopulated by the Pashtuns 500 years ago, they corrupted the pronounciation of its name to the currently used "Swat".

As regards "Gabar" it does not mean "neighbourhood" as some have surmised here, on this page; it is infact the early Muslim pejorative term for Zoroastrian, "Gabr" -- which is what the Sawadis originally were, and like many Khorasani Dehqans they retained their original religion for quite a while till after the arrival of Islam in these parts. They therefore came to be called "Gabaris" and the name has stuck long after they converted...even now, the dominant tribal section of the Sawadi community (now called Swatis) is called "Gabari". One last item needing mention in relation to the above facts is that the Sawadis/Swatis spoke the Middle Persian dialect called Gabari or "Zoroastrian Dari" which is still spoken in an around Yazd and Kerman in Iran. It is on record that this language died out among them after the Pashtuns dislodged them from Sawad/Swat beginning 500 years ago. In substantiation of this, genetic investigations have also revealed that key Sawadi paternal lineages originated in and around Kerman and Sistan. [by Arif Akhundzada] 116.71.7.15 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written based on reliable source. Please refrain from proposing your own theories here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

[Arif Akhunzada] I agree with you on this Shah Mir son of Qehwar Shah from Batkhela has been recorded by a number of local as well as foreign authors. His grand daughter Princess Hura is still remember to have great influence in courts of Kashmir and Sultani Swat as I call Sawad Gabar or Gabari. Interesting subject well recorded but little known. (Regards) Azmarai76 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@116.71.7.15 Sorry Mr. Kautilya if I ruffled your smarmy Indian feathers a bit....I know you are eager to term Shah Mir a "Khassa" and regard "Panj Gabbar" as some Kashmiri valley (in fact it is) -- but the mistake is my own, I should have provided a list of books and references....these are something beyond the ken of your shallow and childishly impulsive and biased shrill scholarship. Well here they all are. Let us see whether you have the ability to get hold of them and read them, or not. Khassa indeed..

MAJOR REFERENCES REGARDING SWATIS

PRIMARY

Tawarikh-e-Hafiz Rehmat Khani Tazkira-tul-Ibrar wal Ashrar (A. Darweza) Makhzan-e-Afghani (N. Harawi)

MODERN Notes on Afghanistan and Baluchistan (H.G.W Raverty) Hayat-i-Afghani (Hayat M. Khan) The Pathans (Olaf Caroe)

ADDITIONAL Khulasat-ul-Ansaab Zakhira-tul-Mulook Tabaqat-e-Naseri Baburnama Alamgirnama Siyar-ul-Mutakherin

MAIN Tajik Swati wa Mumlikat-e-Gibar Tareekh kai Ainay Mein (M. Akhtar) 203.135.44.95 (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The memoirs of Ameer Kabir Shah Ahmed Hamdani is also a reference which very few have gone through primarily because it is persian. Shah e Hamdan was mentor of Shah Miri Swati Sultans. (Regards) Azmarai76 (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

These are all WP:PRIMARY sources. You can believe them as you wish, but they are of no use for Wikipedia. Only reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, contemporary historical scholarship can be cited for history on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The last one is contemporary source. Similarly, Ahmed Hasan Dani, Schimmel are all contemporary secondary sources. Azmarai76 (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

we live in this region and its Zoroastrian heritage is intact as is other. Azmarai76 (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Caroe was printed in 1957 is that not modern??? Azmarai76 (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Noorullah21 I found more than enough WP:RS for Shah Mir's origins in Swat after a simple search. By far, this seems to be mainstream view. That's why I moved it up in the section.

Beside, can you provide more information about Aziz Beg (whether he is a historian) who traces his origins to Jalalabad? Sutyarashi (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I moved the origin from Swat up since what your saying is sound and is believed by most modern historians.

The book by Aziz Beg seems to originate from the University of Michigan. Noorullah (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Afghan origin is a minority view. With a Google search, I found grand total of three sources (which are already added by you) plus Wink's speculative statement. Its mention in the lead clearly violates WP:NPOV.

I was asking about expertise of Aziz Beg. Is he a historian or simply an analyst? His book deals with present Kashmir conflict, and University of Michigan does not solely print history books.

If you can't provide his expertise or particular degree in history than it should removed, as no reliable source states that. See WP:UNDUE. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi How is the idea of an Afghan origin a minority view? This was already addressed on the Shah Mir Dynasty page on a discussion you didn't respond to in the end in a discussion with @Someguywhosbored.

Saying it violates WP:NPOV makes no sense if there is WP:RS stating so. This includes scholarly sources such as Wink, the Encyclopedia of Islam.

In contrast, some of the sources you have added: [3] - Christopher Snedden Not a historian.

[4] - Jyoti Bhusan Das Gupta, An Author, not a historian.

So how is it accepted by Modern Historians that he was from Swat if none of these above are historians? Annemarie Schimmel however, checks out.

Aziz beg can be removed since I found no further reference.

Here are some more sources you put on the page and incorrectly stated they were "scholars", or the sources had other issues with them.

[5] - Savitri Saxena, Not a historian, hasn't made any significant books either.

[A Comprehensive History of India: pt. 1-2] - The Source doesn't even state he was of Dardic origin. The quote is also quoting Jonaraja.

[6] - An Author, not a historian.

[7] - Unsure about this source, I believe it is reliable to attribute a Dardic origin (though just from reading the content of the book).

@Sutyarashi Noorullah (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources about Dardic origins were added around 6 years ago, not by me.

Besides, I had actually cited enough WP:RS previously which got reverted by you. Still, feel free to remove the sources you don't think are reliable enough. I would replace them with WP:RS afterwards.

With someguywhosbored, discussion was about speculative statement of Wink, which indeed is. He doesn't give a clear origins.

You again fail to prove how Afghan view is more mainstream than that for Swat. Most authors mention Swat, and that should be the lead section, adhering with WP:DUE.

@Kautilya3 (pinging because you've been involved in the past discussions about article) what is your opinion about the mention of his possible Afghan origin? Sutyarashi (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I have replaced sources in the article, which I think are reliable enough. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi Swat is a region, not an ethnicity. Not that it entirely matters but since it might be relevant: Swat District#Demographics "Swat is mostly inhabited by Pashtuns who make up 90.78% of the population."

Saying that Shah Mir is from Swat doesn't mean hes another ethnicity, Swat is the region he is from. Noorullah (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources that say hes from Swat state that alone, not of a specific ethnicity in Swat. Noorullah (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Swat became Pashtun majority only in the early 16th century, see for example, ":::::::Swat: An Afghan society in Pakistan: Urbanisation and Change in a Tribal Environment". Université de Genève. p. 68. or Arlinghaus, Joseph Theodore (1988). The Transformation of Afghan Tribal Society: Tribal Expansion, Mughal Imperialism and the Roshaniyya Insurrection, 1450-1600. Duke University. p. 177. Before it, it was exclusively populated by Dardic peoples. See Sultanate of Swat.

So, present demographics matter little. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That's why in my opinion, we should go with what Shah Mir believed himself to be (i.e a descendant of Arjuna) as well as what region he hailed from in the lead para. Rest of the opinions of authors (Turk, Afghan, Persian, Tibetan, Khasa etc.) can go down. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi I pointed that out that it might not matter. So putting that aside, there is very little reliable academic sources attributing a Dardic origin. Modern sources agree he is from Swat. But there is a scholarly consensus from major academic sources such as the Encyclopedia of Islam calling Shah Mir Afghan, with Wink adding in that Shah Mir may be Afghan, Turk, or Tibetian in origin.

Contemporary sources (and what they themself claimed to be descended from) shouldn't be placed over in contrast because we use secondary sources on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No original research. -- This is off-topic but I'd like to draw an example of Sher Shah Suri claiming to be descended from the House of the Ghurids, despite being Pashtun in origin. Noorullah (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

No, there's no scholarly consensus. That's what Andre Wink states: The first Muslim dynasty of Kashmir was founded in 1324 by Shah Mìrzà, who was probably an Afghan warrior from Swat or a Qarauna Turk, possibly even a Tibetan

That's what Encyclopedia of Islam states : Shah - Mir Swatt ( probably an Afghan)

Thus, even these two sources don't agree on it, and are opinions. You can't present mere opinion of minority as a fact or consensus. See WP:YESPOV.

Then there is A.Q Rafiqi who doesn't even hint any Afghan origin, and states him to mixed ancestry from Turkish or Persian migrants into Swat. Then there's Mohibbul Hasan who states him to be Turkish

In short, there's no any sort of consensus, and no reason to keep it in lead. At best, it can be moved down with opinions of other authors. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

So, in my opinion, that would be structure of the section after rewrite:

• Origins in Swat
• Possible descent from its rulers (mention by four sources)
• Either Afghan theory or that he claims to be descendant of Arjuna
• Rest of opinions.

The lengthy quotation of A.Q Rafiqi is unnecessary, and can be removed. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi I see how you are formatting it.

Can you elaborate on Possible descent from rulers, I didn't understand what you meant there? Noorullah (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Responding to ping. Swat and the Panchagahvara valley are the two established theories. The "Afghan" theory comes from nowhere. Wink is generally considered respectable, but he is known to have used plenty of dubious sources (among his primary sources). I don't see him providing any basis for a new theory. The Encyclopedia of Islam may be ok, but I can't quite read what it says. Please provide a quotation. The third source published by Altantic Publishers is no good. That is a borderline vanity press. The total weight of these sources is negligible compared to the sources for the other two theories. At best, this theory can be mentioned at the end, as "other theories". It doesn't merit going up front. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Kautilya3 The sources are referring to an ethnic origin. Wink is an established historian, and I added a quote for the encyclopedia of Islam. Both of these are academically reliable sources. "Swat" and 'Panchagahvara valley" are not ethnic origins, but where he is from. The other theories are only mentioning where he is from, or are contemporary sources mentioning his lineage to claim to be a descendant of Arjuna.

  The sources that describe a Dardic origin, as I already described above have shown to be mostly unreliable sources, most of which are not academically reliable -- nor even by historians. Noorullah (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

All the sources that were existing before you started editing the article were established historians. Which source is not?

You have two sources saying "probably Afghan" without any explanation of how they arrived at that conclusion, and you think they trump all the other sources that have examined the issue in detail? At the least these sources should be ignored as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which says Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Your sources are simply too weak. If you were following WP:NPOV, you would have simply disregarded them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 As I showed above in this edit [8], these sources were not academically reliable stating that Shah Mir was of Dardic origin. I removed them in this edit: [9]

What other sources have examined the actual ethnic origin of Shah Mir? You are saying this but there is in actuality very little, the rest of the sources only state where he is possibly from, which is Swat, a region, not an ethnicity.

The sources that mention his ethnic origin are by Wink, Encyclopedia of Islam, and A.Q rafiqi. (excluding the contemporary sources), so what do you mean by examined the issue in detail if these are the only sources of modern scholarship that attribute an ethnic origin?

To summarize what the three scholarly sources state: Wink; Believes Shah Mir was of Afghan, Turk, or Tibetan Origin. Encyclopedia of Islam: States he was probably of Afghan origin, A.Q Rafiqi: Believes he was of Turk or Persian stock from immigrants that moved to Swat. All of these are reliable sources and matter in the context, nor are they passing as they dive into the history of the region.

Older and near contemporary sources (such as from Jonaraja) or Persian chronicles, state that he was a descendant of Arjuna, based off of the Rajatarangini.

So from the academically reliable sources, we can see the opinion is that Shah Mir was of Afghan, Turk, Tibetan, or Persian origin. Noorullah (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

They aren't trumping anything if there is only 3 scholarly opinions present on the page on the origin of Shah Mir. Noorullah (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

(2 of which suggest a possible Afghan origin). Noorullah (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

If you are talking about ethnicity, then you should not be using terms like "Afghan origin". "Origin" means a place, not an ethnicity. Secondly, its discussion should not precede the place of origin issue (unless his ethnicity was prominently known and advertised). You should set the text back to what was before, and then add your new content into it unobtrusively. You are really being pushy here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I see what you mean. I apologize if I am being vague with what I am coining in these terms. Just before our recent discussions, Sutyarashi gave a proposal to show his place of origin in first due to the uncertainty of his origin, I am fine with that but was wondering what he meant with “possible descent from rulers”, and am just waiting for him to define that.

So it is nice that a consensus can be reached soon, just waiting to see what @Sutyarashi will respond with next. Noorullah (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The main point of this wasn’t his place of origin. I did add a source from Aziz Beg that said he was from Jalalabad, but as Sutyarashi opened up a discussion, we found it was not reliable and removed it, and instead I believe it shifted more toward his ethnic origin, and disputing how we should specifically format the origins section. Noorullah (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 "Long-standing content" is not an excuse to keep unreliable sources on a page, see this edit explaining why and how they are unreliable sources. [10] They fail WP:HISTRS Noorullah (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I was actually referring to A.Q. Rafiqi and others.

• A.Q Rafiqi: "According to some Persian chronicles of Kashmir, Shah Mır was a descendant of the rulers of Swat"
• Mohibbul Hasan "Others trace his descent to rulers of Swat"
• Saligram Bhat "Shah Mir, runaway descendant of rulers of Swat"

I agree with Kautilya in his analysis of sources, especially the one by Atlantic publishers. Its author does not specialise in Indian history and should not be used to cite for contentious content. Rest seems ok. Hope so you'd agree with the above suggested rewrite of the section. Sutyarashi (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi Yup, I'm good with it, do you want to make the edit? Noorullah (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I will go ahead. Feel free to discuss further in case of any objections. Sutyarashi (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi And can we also remove the sources that attribute the Dardic origin in this sentence? "Some scholars state that the Panjgabbar valley was populated by Dardic peoples and so ascribe a Dardic Khāsa ethnicity to Shah Mir."

As established above these sources aren't scholarly, nor seem to be reliable. Unless you can find reliable sources to replace them? Noorullah (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding it, Ram Sharan Sharma seems to be a credible historian. Zutshi too has been cited by credible historians like André Wink[11]

However, I couldn't find much about Nizamuddin Wani. Also, I think the long following up statement of Zutshi may be removed as it is mainly repetition of what is stated earlier. Sutyarashi (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi I see, okay, sounds good. Noorullah (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright, then. Sutyarashi (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Edits reverted

Tagging user @Noorullah21, you reverted my edits on the article [12] stating they weren't an improvement. I'd like to debate that.

Jonarja was a contemporary poet/historian in the Shah Mir durbar and hence is a contemporary source. Which is why he should be stated first. The section was a mess and I divided it into contemporary and modern historian subsections. What's wrong in that?

I also added more further sources indicating a Khas origin, which I borrowed and added from the Shah Mir dynasty article.

Snippetjet (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Wikipedia follows secondary sources. Noorullah (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, and? The contemporary source was already added, I simply rearranged it into a different subsection. How's my edit unconstructive? Snippetjet (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no "Okay and".

We already discussed on the talk page above on how we wanted to layout the origins section. Noorullah (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)