Talk:Yudhishthira (Huna king)

Subject

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There exist no historical evidence (coins/inscriptions/sculptures...) which attest to the existence of this king. And, it is not surprising that apart from two/three scholars, none has written anything about this king. Atreyi Biswas (1973) was the original scholar, to speculate about this king, as described over Note c of our article on Karkota Dynasty and Dani simply reiterates it, sourcing to Biswas. Hyun Jin Kim mentions the king in a very trivial fashion, sourcing to Dani and uses the word apparent. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: It's a little-known king, with just a few scholarly sources discussing him, it's not surprising. But our role is only to relay what academics say, not second-guess them and deem their work irrelevant based on our personal opinions. Actually, he is quite important as the last of the Alchon Huns. But if you know sources that dispute his existence, you are welcome to add them, and balance the opinions of academics already in the article. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

She is speculated to be one by Atreyi Biswas and as we have seen, her chronology is widely criticized. That is not my personal opinion. No serious scholar (apart from Dani, who is not a specialist scholar) has bothered to engage with her thesis of Yudhishthira in about 50 years. This lack of engagement makes it impossible to write a NPOV article since we can't fill up the article with random criticisms of Biswas's scholarship. Hyun Jin Kim is a specialist but his work is quite lacking in recent developments (personal opinion), has no review over any journal, and his first work was fairly criticized (1, 2, 3 etc.) TrangaBellam (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam:So you should do just that: provide sources challenging what is being said about Yudhishthira.पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Nobody challenges her, because there's no way of challenging her hypothesis. She shows a way in which the narratives of Rajatarngini can be connected to rulers, whose historicity is not under doubt. We cannot create articles about rulers hypothesized by a scholar, and reiterated by another. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not true. Any scolar could challenge her hypothesis. You just have to find such the sources if there are any. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't wish for this article to be a discussion on Biswas's scholarship and its bright spots/lacunae. Her commentary about the two previous rulers Pravarsena II and Narendraditya Khingila (who have historical evidence and set the ground for Yudhishthira) is far from mainstream and atleast 4/5 scholars have rejected the entirety of her thesis concerning these two rulers over multiple publications. The notes over Karkota dynasty give a rough idea. The idea that the Hunas did not migrate post-Mihirakula is quite disputed, as well.

If you insist on keeping this article, I have to discuss those things in depth since they are very relevant. But I do not think so much deviation is allowed. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Kautilya3: Since you are providing opinions on these issues, can you help us resolve this dispute? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me TrangaBellam. It is one of the weak points of Wikipedia policies that WP:NPOV does not address the existence of pages themselves. If some sources state that a topic exists and others state that it doesn't (or doubt it), should the page exist? Editor consensus is an important part of the decision, and I don't think पाटलिपुत्र should be railroading his way through it.

I also don't see WP:GNG having been met in this case. So if this page goes to WP:AfD, I would vote to delete. I also don't see why this page is needed. Narendraditya Khinkhila already has a paragraph on the supposed Yudhishthira, and a couple more lines can certainly be added to it. There is no requirement that every king that ruled some part of India over its two-thousand year history, should have a dedicated page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I will be redirecting the page (based on a 2-1 vote), after copying part of this to Narendraditya Khinkhila. If पाटलिपुत्र reverts, I will start an WP:AfD. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Yes, you can't just blank and redirect like that. You have to do an WP:AfD. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.