Talk:Somnath

Possible copyright violations

Parts of the article look like copies from some of the listed websites. Of course, the Wikipedia article may be what was copied. Robin Patterson (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

• Historic Images of Somnath British Library --Ekabhishek (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Prabhas Patan

I'm proposing a merge since these two articles seem to refer to the same thing. Clifflandis (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Somnath refers to the temple, Prabhas to the place.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Somanth is a small town in Junagadh district. It does not refer to the temple but to the town or to the Jyotirlinga in the temple. Prabhas Patan is often referred as Balukha (Balkha) tirth. I think a separate article named Somnath temple has to be created and the present article should give info about the town. --WorLD8115(TalK) 16:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: Somanth refers to the temple, where as Prabhas Patan is the place in which it is located. Yessrao|Sushanth 11:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessrao (talk • contribs)

"occupation" vs "control"

A user by the name TEK has reverted my efforts to make the article seem as neutral as possible; and free from any POVs. I believe that the article should state control instead of occupation, since it makes the efforts by the Indian Govt. to liberate the area seem illegal. The overwhelming majority of people in Junagadh reject any claim that the region is anything other, and has been anything than an integral district of India. Would anyone else believe otherwise? --92.20.213.74 (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is one of those India-Pakistan debates that would last till the end of time if it didn't exhaust everyone. NPOV is something I agree with always, but your words above ("makes the efforts by the Indian Govt. to liberate the area seem illegal") express one POV on the issue. A different POV would say that the Junagadh issue shows selective application of rules by India - i.e. supporting the ruler of Kashmir against the "general population" of the state and conversely supporting the "general population" of Junagadh against the ruler of the state. We need to present both sides of the argument and the word "control" does not seem appropriate here. Instead I would recommend "stabilisation" followed by a few words to say that this was seen as an occupation by the Pakistani side. Green Giant (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Somnath to the Antarctic?

I have added a citation request for a small unsourced paragraph in the "Architecture" section which states:

“

The temple is situated at such a place that there is no land in straight-line between Somnath seashore till Antarctica, such an inscription in Sanskrit is found on the Arrow-Pillar called Baan-Stambh erected on the sea-protection wall at the Somnath Temple. This Baan-Stambh mentions that it stands at a point on the Indian landmass, which happens to be the first point on land in the north to the south-pole on that particular longitude.

”

From somnath.org, I note there is a paragraph stating:

“

The Kalash at the top of the Shikhar weighs 10 tons and the Dhwajdand is 27 feet tall and 1 foot in circumference. The Abadhit Samudra Marg, Tirsthambh (Arrow) indicates the unobstructed sea route to the South Pole. The nearest land towards South Pole is about 9936 km. away. This is a wonderful indicator of the ancient Indian wisdom of geography and strategic location of the Jyotirling. The temple renovated by Maharani Ahalyabai is adjacent to the main temple complex.

”

This is probably the source of the Wikipedia paragraph, but since it is a pretty significant claim and "somnath.org" cannot be regarded as being neutral on such a matter (especially given the sentences about "Indian wisdom"), I think it would be better to have this verified by a reliable source. Green Giant (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Although it might verge on original research, I tested the veracity of the claim by drawing a line directly from Somnath to the South Pole on Google Earth, and found that the Kerguelen island of Grande Terre lies on that line. If it was a tiny outcrop of rock, I might have been convinced but Grande Terre covers 6,675 km² (2,577 sq mi). In order to fulfill the claim, the temple would need to be located either some 24km to the southeast (a place called Muldwarka) or some 300km to the northwest in the district of Kutch. I have therefore removed the paragraph until such time as there is a reliable third-party source. Green Giant (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

edit warring by IP editor

An IP editor is edit warring to remove sourced content. He began with removing portions of a direct quote with misleading edit summaries. When i reverted and added more reliable references, he is now removing the entire quote because he doesn't like it. He is even claiming google books should not be used as a source!. The source i am using is Sir Henry Miers Elliot's The history of India, as told by its own historians: the Muhammadan period; which is one of the most authoritative compilations of original accounts of Islamic historians of India.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)