Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 12:56, 11 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

South Asia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. India: History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Top-importance). This article was a past Indian Collaboration of the Month. Pakistan Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Bangladesh High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. The article falls into the work area of the History workgroup of WikiProject Bangladesh WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list: edit history watch purge Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengalis and related pages Take a look at the requested articles. Make a MRT line 3 article. Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton. Maldives Mid‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Maldives, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Maldives on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.MaldivesWikipedia:WikiProject MaldivesTemplate:WikiProject MaldivesMaldives Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. British Empire Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Jayapala was copied or moved into History of India with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Kabul Shahi was copied or moved into History of India with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Second urbanization

What was the speed of population growth during the second urbanization? --95.24.60.6 (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Mauryan Empire map

Recently the Mauryan Empire map included in this article was changed from to . Both maps are labelled as the "Maurya Empire c. 250 BCE" but show significantly different extents; and both have gone numerous revisions over the years so that they are unlikely to bear much relation with the cited sources on their description page. Anyone know offhand which map (if either) is accurate? Pinging @RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler: for sanity check. Abecedare (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The one on the left is the one with support in the modern sources and therefore the correct one; the one on the right is the traditional one. We mention what the map on the left shows in words in the India page, "Politically, by the 3rd century BCE, the kingdom of Magadha had annexed or reduced other states to emerge as the Mauryan Empire. The empire was once thought to have controlled most of the subcontinent except the far south, but its core regions are now thought to have been separated by large autonomous areas," cited to the books of Burton Stein and Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund. The map on the left is also the main map in the Maurya Empire page and was the result of a consensus; someone changed it, probably very recently, and I had to revert it. That map has quite a few sources, including Monica Smith of UCLA whose work addresses this very issue. Also, historian David Ludden, now of NYU, but then of Penn, (and perennially the stepson of Betty White, who said in an interview, "Our son is a historian at Penn, who works on the agricultural history of South India. Go figure. :)) in India and South Asia has addressed this. We have cited Ludden in the sentence, "Early political consolidations gave rise to the loose-knit Maurya and Gupta Empires based in the Ganges Basin." in the lead of India. I have italicized the reference to the map on the left. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to ping @Abecedare: in my reply. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I've copied the maps and aligned them; "left" and "right" were, on my screen, due to length of the lines, different from what I understand F&f to mean. The 'map with the holes' is the modern understanding, right? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks F&F! Based on your input, I have undone the recent edit (pinging @Gauhar2806: in case they wish to argue for the change they made).

Interestingly, Avantiputra7 had added a note to "Version 2" of the map in 2017, saying This is the standard "textbook" map of the Maurya Empire. Historians are now arguing that the Maurya Empire did not include large parts of India, which were controlled by autonomous tribes. For such a map, see File:Maurya Empire, c.250 BCE.png. But the "outdated" map is nevertheless used on several articles on wikipedia, which may need a clean-up. Abecedare (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

A lot of?

The south Indian mathematician Madhava of Sangamagrama founded the famous Kerala School of Astronomy and Mathematics in the 14th century which produced a lot of great south Indian mathematicians like Parameshvara, Nilakantha Somayaji and Jyeṣṭhadeva.

Why does "a lot of" in this sentence sound so cluncky and redneck to me? 2600:6C44:74F0:80F0:B7F0:A9B2:C1EA:BD65 (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The entire article needs grammatical improvement. How can I propose changes? Ashok (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This would be how I'd rewrite it:

The mathematician Madhava of Sangamagrama founded the famous Kerala School of Astronomy and Mathematics in the 14th century, which produced several great mathematicians such as Parameshvara, Nilakantha Somayaji and Jyeṣṭhadeva. Ashok (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Misleading History of Jainism

This page in its current state claims that Jainism "originated" in 600 BCE. This is an incorrect information as there is no documented date for beginning of Jain religion. It is obscure. The 23rd Jain Tirthankar, Parshvanath is a historical figure who lived in 900 BCE. Apart from this, many notable researchers from the archaeological survey of India had opinion about the existence of Jainism in Indus valley era which I can add with proper citations. I would encourage input from other members of Misplaced Pages community for their suggestions and wait for a couple of weeks to make a consensus based update. Livingstonshr (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Content

I’m willing to work with you, but have I not already given a pretty detailed explanation for why this shouldn’t be here on my talk page? Obviously I can’t form all my points in one edit summary(which is supposed to be summary). There was more detail written there.

“Pretty sure I did provide an edit summary. Nonetheless I’ll explain my edits. Two sources are problematic. One(bowman) doesn’t actually refer to the empire as indianized. The other source is raj. All of these sources were used by another user in the past(mydust) whom added it the khalji dynasty and Delhi sultanate pages. (Although a different user added it to the history of India page). But this was undue because there were more authoritative sources that contradicted the claim that the sultanate became “indo-muslim”. Including Satish Chandra. “ Thus, in a highly fragmented society it is hardly possible to speak of an "integrated" Indo-Muslim state. The position of converted India Muslims from the lower classes hardly changed.” pg 268. Here’s the source. Worst of all, the two sources used aren’t even referring to the dynasty that founded the sultanate(Mamluks). Those two sources were talking about the khalji dynasty(which btw, was not indianized at all, per Chandra). So why is it being used for this particular sentence? “ The Delhi Sultanate was founded in 1206 by Central Asian Turks who were Indianized”, the sources aren’t even referring to that dynasty. Based on that alone, this section should be removed because the sources don’t actually back up what’s written in the article. But even if it did, it would be undue. “also the RfC was only for Mughal Empire” Thats not what I meant. If you looked at the RFC, you would see that the issue is that it’s a short synthetic title. Let me show comments made by a couple of administrators and content experts in that page. Scroll down to RegentsPark and Abecedares vote. “short synthetic labels are always fraught and "Indo-Muslim" is especially so. What is the "Indo" part supposed to denote: the geographic location of the empire (for which, as RegentParks indicates, South Asian is preferable) or the "character" or non-colonial nature of the empires as in the Richards quote (in which case, one needs to spell it out as Richards does)? And does "Muslim" refer to the religion of the Mughal emperors, subject or the state? Both the article lede and body can discuss the geography and character of the empire without trying to label it as something that has little to no currency in the relevant literature and is more likely to to mislead than edify the reader.” By abecadare “No reason for inclusion has been given and the references above (I am definitely not impressed by the WP:REFBOMB) are dubious. Take the first two, for example. All they are saying is that the Mughal Empire was in "India". Since that India doesn't exist anymore, our formulation ("in South Asia") captures this perfectly. Indo, or Indian, in the context of the Mughal empire which also spanned modern Pakistan and Bangladesh, just doesn't fit.”(RegentsPark) The Delhi sultanate much like the Mughals, also encompassed India and Pakistan. Which means that the same exact issue also applies to the sultanate. So like RegentsPark mentioned, a term like “indo-muslim” doesn’t fit, especially sense our modern day conception of India didn’t exist back then. It’s a synthetic label and shouldn’t really be used to describe any of these kingdoms.

Thats what I wrote. What exactly was your issue with the removal? As I’ve already mentioned, the two non raj era sources aren’t even referring to the mamluks. They are referring to another dynasty entirely, and that’s just one of the bigger issues. There’s a lot of problems I’ve already been over(it’s undue, one source is raj, one source by bowman doesn’t even use the term indianized, and as a label, indo-muslim shouldn’t be used here).

@Garudam Someguywhosbored (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

On a final note, my intention was never to edit war. I only made the second revert because I thought it was a open and shut case because it’s pretty clear the text doesn’t follow the source. But evidently, you still disagreed and I welcomed you reverting me if you had another dispute as I mentioned on the talk page. I didn’t expect you to just simply not respond to any of the points made, claim I was disrupting the page, and than requesting page protection out of nowhere, even though I welcomed a revert and further discussion. I already was discussing about it with you on my talk page.

And I don’t mean to make this seem like I’m attacking you or throwing shade, I was just genuinely a little perplexed. I would love to end this discussion on a good note rather than a negative one. Still, I do believe we need to find a solution to this discussion. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I see, however if you are referring to this falling into Raj then you might me wrong, as the author is an expert and the paper is also sourced from IHC and JSTOR. You should also look at the degree of sources that is Oxford and California which contradicts your undue part. The more reliable the source, the more weight we should give its opinion, on the other hand you were straight away removing those sources as if the weigh to nothing. Please go through WP:RSUW. Garuda 13:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

“ I see, however if you are referring to thisfalling into Raj then you might me wrong, as the author is an expert and the paper is also sourced from IHC and JSTOR”.

This is a common misconception. A lot of people seem to think that WP:RAJ doesn’t apply to certain sources from the era for a variety of reasons including supposed reliability, but this is not the case. We’ve had many discussions about this on Misplaced Pages, I will show you.

“I would suggest discounting most Raj era texts regardless of who wrote them and be careful about using obscure or popular texts post-Raj. Sticking to modern academic writers is probably the safest. Context, to quote TB below, matters”.

Per RegentsPark, he also went into detail about it here

Talk:Third Battle of Panipat

Even sources like jadunath sarkar are disregarded. There’s been many more discussions about this in the past so if you still don’t believe me, I can send more discussions about this after. But essentially, Raj era sources should never be used. Instead one should rely on more modern sources which is always preferable. Regardless, the issue of raj isn’t even my biggest issue here, that just shows a problem with one source. Bow for example didn’t say anything about the dynasty being indianized.

My issues with the other sources should also be quite clear. For one, they are contradicted by a source which is more authoritative(Chandra) thus it’s undue. But even worse, it isn’t even referring to the mamluk dynasty. The author was writing about another dynasty entirely, so why does this sentence(“ The Delhi Sultanatewas founded in 1206 by Central Asian Turks who were Indianized”) remain? The source doesn’t even say that the khaljis were indianized! It just says Indian Muslims gained more power than they had previously(more authoritative sources like chandra would completely disagree with this point regardless). The dynasty was still turco Afghan, and there’s no mention of any supposed “indianization” within those sources. Again, the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. So why is it still there?

“ You should also look at the degree of sources that is Oxford and California which contradicts your undue part. The more reliable the source, the more weight we should give its opinion, on the other hand you were straight away removing those sources as if the weigh to nothing. Please go through WP:RSUW.”

The sources your referring to have nothing to do with the sentence I was talking about. Your referring to another sentence I removed, which was undue for different reasons.

For one, I think I’ve adequately proved that the title “indo-Muslim” shouldn’t be used on Misplaced Pages. The issues RegentPark and abecedare brought up apply to the Delhi sultanate(it expanded beyond India, and our modern day conception of “Indian” is not the same as it was in the past).

Regardless, the sources you have there wrote about the sayyid dynasty. And the problem here is that the sayyid dynasty had multiple possible different ethnic origins. With the two biggest theories being sayyid Arab (according to eraly and others), and the other being Punjabi khokhar.(see sayyid dynasty origins section Sayyid dynasty). The dynasty could have just as easily been Arab so why are we adding one viewpoint while ignoring other? Either you say that the dynasty was possibly Arab or Indian, or you simply don’t add that section at all per undue weight.

Like I said, I think this is a pretty open and shut case when half the problem is that the sources don’t even follow what was written on the article. But of course that’s not the only issue. Someguywhosbored (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Someguywhosbored. We literally had this exact discussion on the Khalji Dynasty page before.

@Ymblanter I'm requesting this page be unprotected now, this is the case of a dead argument that was long removed from the page I mentioned above, from a blocked sockpuppet user. To see this user now trying to revive that shows WP:DUCK behavior. -- That aside, the sources themselves don't even call the Khaljis "Indianized", it's blatant misrepresentation of the sources.

The sock puppet's edits on the Khalji Dynasty page long ago for this exact same thing:

This is the blocked sockpuppet user: User talk:Mydust Noorullah (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

That discussion is completely opposite of this case in which you were not present, also Someguywhosbored was getting warned here by Drmies and Abecedare had proposed a better way to resolve the issue. How the argument is dead? The page should not be unprotected unless the issue is resolved. The blocked sock may have been added those sources two years ago but that does not mean it should be removed. You do realise accusing me as their WP:DUCK could be considered as WP:PA? Garuda 11:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Did you read through the entire conversation?

Drmies only warned me because he didn’t see that I had already brought up my points in the talk page and that I didn’t have an edit summary(fun fact, while I never brought this up, I did write an edit summary but for some reason it showed up as “no edit summary”). By the end of the conversation, Drmies thanked me for clarifying why I deleted it. The entire thing was started by a simple communication error that your making out to be like I was intentionally trying to disrupt the page when that was far from the case. That was like at the start of when I started editing too.

Talk:Khalji dynasty

“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary, I likely wouldn't have reverted. I don't mind assessing Bowman vs. Chandra, but really this is a matter (also) for those with experience in this topic area.” Per Drmies.

Also your not even responding to any of the points I made.

“ The page should not be unprotected unless the issue is resolved. The blocked sock may have been added those sources two years ago but that does not mean it should be removed”

Okay so than can you please explain why you have a problem with the contents removal? You haven’t given me an adequate response. There’s a lot of problems but let’s start the obvious which is this sentence, “The Delhi Sultanate was founded in 1206 by Central Asian Turks who were Indianized”.

literally ALL 4 sources including the raj source, was referring to a different dynasty. And non of them state that the other dynasty was indianized, just that Indian Muslims gained more power and positions than before(the dynasty was still ruled by foreigners and Chandra disputes this anyway). But regardless, if the source doesn’t even say what’s written on the article, than why does that content still remain? You haven’t responded to this point. I can’t even find where Eaton says the Tughlaqs were indianized although that’s a separate problem altogether.

You requested protection despite the fact that I not only responded and explained in detail why this content shouldn’t be in the article, but I welcomed a revert especially if you had any points or concerns with its removal. Instead you requested page protection despite the fact that there was no sign that I was gonna revert again, and you didn’t even respond to a single point made on the talk page! It took me bringing this here to get any response and I haven’t been given any reason as to why content that doesn’t follow the sourcing should remain in the article. Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Eh, I can't follow you this way, please make your replies more reader friendly. At least don't quote my words, instead reply chronologically. Coming to the topic, the removal of authoritative sources by you has been previously pointed out by Drmies, and yet you're doing the exact same here. I will be analyzing the sources and then would make a reply, untill then pinging Malik-Al-Hind & Flemmish Nietzsche, have seen them on Talk:Mughal Empire/Archive 5, they have a lot of know-how when it comes to discussing around the same Indo-muslim topic. Garuda 14:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay…but the issue is you didn’t respond and instead are now pinging others to get involved in your conversation for you. The sources aren’t even lining up with what the text wrote. It literally says that the first mamluk dynasty was “indianized” even though the sources are talking about an entirely different dynasty(the khaljis). And those sources don’t even say that the khaljis were “indianized”. So it’s not even about the sources reliability at this point. The problem is that the sources don’t even follow what’s written in the article.

And did I not already explain to you the situation with drmies? We came out of that situation with an agreement in the end. The entire thing was started simply because I didn’t have an edit summary. That’s it. Read the quote, I’ll shorten it for you.

“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary, I likely wouldn't have reverted.”

And again this was around when I first started editing. The entire issue was for some reason my edit showed up without an edit summary and he didn’t see the talk page because of that fact. That’s it. Your making this out to be a bigger deal than it was. He didn’t even care about the content removal in the end. He accepted my response. So why are you acting like he didn’t eventually agree with me in the end?

But anyway it doesn’t seem like your going to be responding to those points so I guess your just gonna bring others to help you out. @Flemmish Nietzsche given that he’s pinged you, if your interested in this discussion, I don’t know what to say other than the content he’s protecting are a bunch of sources that aren’t even talking about the dynasty in the page. It says that the mamluk dynasty was founded by indanized Turks, but the sources aren’t even talking about the mamluk dynasty. This is a fact that he’s been ignoring since the beginning of this conversation when I brought it up.

And non of those sources use the term “indianized” to describe that dynasty either. All they say is that Indian Muslims gained more power than before, replacing Turks(as the khaljis were seen as Afghan usurpers) but even k s lal and the other sources mentioned that the dynasty was turco Afghan. Non of them use the term “indianized”. Also the more authoritative and modern source Satish Chandra disagreed with that position regardless(see WP:AGEMATTERS), the sources used are quite old except bowman who btw doesn’t actually say anything about Indian Muslims like the other 3, so it doesn’t matter, and he’s not a historian for that matter. You can check the sources yourself. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, Radhey Shyam Chaurasia seems recent, but again, completely different dynasty he’s talking about, and he doesn’t say that the dynasty was indianized. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Someguy is clearly in the right here; all of his arguments have been sound, as has the content of his removals; the only thing I would suggest is to change "from native Indian elites to Turkic and Pashtun uslim elites" to "from native Indian elites to Turkic Muslim elites" to better align with what Asher&Talbot says (the term "Turkic Muslim" is actually used there, while "Pashtun" is nowhere to be seen).

@Garudam, please read Someguy's replies instead of dismissing them; it will help this "discussion" conclude much faster. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m saying your behavior highlighted duck behavior because it was reviving something from a year ago. @Garudam Noorullah (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Well that is quite disappointing. WP:NOASSUMESOCK Garuda 13:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Someguywhosbored I have not been "ignoring" you, I have already said that I would be analyzing the sources before replying to you and only asked for the views of Flemmish and Malik not "for my help". Flemmish Nietzsche upon thoroughly going through the sources, it does not seems like someguy is entirely correct.

• Bowman p. 267:

The Mamluk (former slaves) dynasty is overthrown in a coup by the Khaljis, a tribe of Turks settled in northern India in wake of Turkish conquest. Khalji sultans create an Indo-Islamic state and broaden their power base by including non-Turks and Indian Muslims among government officials.

While it can be seen that he does not refer directly it as "Indianized" but "Khalji sultans creates and indo-islamic state" could be moulded in the article as "Inclusion of the Indian Muslims in administration of an Indo-Islamic state."

• Ahmad p. 841 follows the same tone as that of Bowman's:

The government had passed from the foreign Turks to the Indian Mussalmāns and their Hindu allies. India was henceforth to be governed by administrators sprung from the soil.

However this may fall under RAJ but I would rather seek to RSN, so the benifit of doubt should be given.

• Exact same in Chaurasia p. 30:

In spite of all this, capturing the throne for Khilji was a revolution, as instead of Turks, Indian Muslims gained power.

• Similarly Lal p. 14 follows the other sources:

The khalji revolt is essentially a revolt of the Indian Muslims against the Turkish hegemony, of those who looked to Delhi, against those who sought inspiration from Ghaur and Ghazna.

So I don't get what is the issue in the inclusion of these sources here. Also the removal of Indo-Turkic was unnecessary (please see this). The only good removals I found in someguy's diff are the removals of the Sayyid Dynasty as Indianized and "turkic Monopoly to an Indianized Indo-Muslim polity." as it does not reflect the sources which only spun around a specific dynasty which is Khalji not the Delhi Sultanate as a whole. But down again in the subsection of Delhi Sultanate it was unnecessary and disruptive to remove sources from the subsection. Lastly, I support your suggestion. Garuda 22:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

After I made my points on my talk page, you requested page protection and didn't reply until I brought up the issue here. Even after, I mentioned that I welcomed a revert. If you weren’t even sure about what you were arguing at this point, than why did you reach to a conclusion before you analyzed the sources? Why did you claim I was disrupting the page?

Regardless, could you point out where I was “not entirely correct” exactly? The sources didn’t follow what was written on the article. That’s why it was removed.

secondly non of those sources say that the dynasty was indianized. Just that Indian Muslims gained more power than before. And again, they are more authoritative sources like Chandra that refute this. Even if they were right though, the problem is you can’t just keep content on the page saying that the dynasty was “indianized” if the sources don’t actually align with that.

Also I want to point out that two of sources aren’t actually reliable. I’m telling you, the source is raj and that means it’s always liable for removal. Again we’ve seen sources like jadunath sarkar who was a well regarded historian at the time with many credentials, but he’s still seen as unreliable for the most part. I’ve shown two conversations about this already per administrator RegentsPark. I can show you many more if you still aren’t convinced after this comment. You can see many more discussions about this on RSN’s archive in fact. There’s a community consensus for that at this point.

Moving onto Bowman, all he’s saying is that the state included Indian Muslims. That’s it. However, an important fact to note is that Bowman isn’t actually a historian. I mentioned that last year on the khalji dynasty talk page. While he’s written about that topic strangely, he never actually received any credentials related to history.

He received a BA in English literature at Harvard. That’s about the only information I can find about his credentials. In fact he’s actually relatively unknown to the public eye, so it was difficult to find anything about him. Nonetheless, a guy without any credential related to history is not a reliable source when it comes to that topic. That leaves you with two sources, only one of which is recent. But now you are running into the same problem regarding the sayyid dynasty. Because there’s another viewpoint, spearheaded by an actual specialist within this particular period(medieval India), who disagrees with this assertion entirely. So leaving this information would be undue for the same reasons as calling the sayyid dynasty “Indian” here. Because it’s leaving out another major talking point. And btw, you agreed with removing the title “indianized” from the sayyid dynasty.

More on Satish Chandra: if you didn’t know, he’s an actual specialist on medieval Indian history. Satish Chandra (historian).

Anyway, I’d like for us to come to some sort of agreement here(at the very least you seem to have agreed with some of the changes I had made). But I do want to point out that there is a 3-1 consensus here. So I’ll probably request this page to lose its protection level through the proper channels, or ask an admin some time in the future very soon. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This is quite ridiculous Someguywhosbored, why should I reply to you at your talk page when a similar discussion thread already exists here? And did you actually review that how much disruption you did there? Any one would have raised the question by viewing it at the first sight as you were removing sources and destabilizing this article, thereafter I thoroughly looked into your revision and pointed the positive and negative changes OTOH you have completely overlooked the last paragraph of my reply, which deals with the concerns of "Indo-Turkic" and "removal of sourced from Delhi Sultanate subsection". I would suggest you to re-read that part and thoroughly review your changes.

2. Coming to Bowman's credentials, this would be useful for you to know that publisher speaks more of the degree of reliability than that of the author himself, Tony Jacques and George C. Kohn does not have any credentials related to history but their writing for publisher (that is Routledge), speaks of their degree of reliability. Similarly in this case Bowman is very much reliable because their work is published by Penguin Books, you can further discuss or ask your queries at WP:RSN. So you might have to change your notion that a guy without any credential related to history is not a reliable source.
3. Moving forward, I have already discussed about Sayyid Dynasty, which is so far a good removal from you other than "turkic Monopoly to an Indianized Indo-Muslim polity." But I'm disappointed of this:

at the very least you seem to have agreed with some of the changes I had made). But I do want to point out that there is a 3-1 consensus here. So I’ll probably request this page to lose its protection level through the proper channels, or ask an admin some time in the future very soon.

Phrases like these tend to make the discussion backforth. This was completely unnecessary as you already overlooked at your "Bad removals" and now claiming to somehow attaining consensus when only two of us have so far deeply involved in the discussion, Flemmish seems to be inactive these days, but I would like to know what are their thoughts on the last three replies of the thread. Someguywhosbored, please do not act in any haste, we are all here to build Misplaced Pages, do not ask for any kind of unprotection for the page unless all of the issues are resolved. Garuda 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Why should you reply on the talk page when a similar thread existed here? This question is disingenuous. There was no thread until I brought the issue up here after you decided to request page protection and ignore what I had written on my talk page. You even requested to take this to your talk page prior to bringing it here. “ And did you actually review that disruption you did there? Any one would have raised the question by viewing it at the first sight as you were removing sources and destabilizing this article,

First of all, everyone including Flemmish, the user you pinged, believed that the content removal was justified. So what do you mean by disruption? What exactly was disruptive if the removal was valid? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the problem isn’t that you raised an issue at the first sight of this. The problem is that you continued to double down even after I clarified my edits for you. Once I had clarified why I had made those edits, instead of providing a valid reason for why the content should remain, you simply ignored my explanation despite repeated requests to stop ignoring until Flemmish firmly told you to stop and actually acknowledge what’s been said. So I don’t blame you for taking issue with this the first time. My contention is that you requested page protection even though I already gave you a valid reason for the contents removal, AND I welcomed any revert, especially if you had any concerns(which you didn’t even bring up until long after). Instead you wrongfully accused me of not only disrupting the page but also edit warring. Furthermore, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points I made as Flemmish rightfully pointed out. So you weren’t even discussing the main issues with me until after Flemmish called you out. Prior to that you just ignored all the points made.

As for the indo-Turkic concerns, please see WP:OTHERCONTENT, which appears to be the crux of your argument because you sent a link to the tughlaq dynasty. Just because something exists there, doesn’t mean it should be here. I have my other concerns with the supposed “indo-Turkic” tughlaq dynasty because just like the sayyid dynasty, that’s an alternative view, that may have stemmed from the fact that Tughlaqs mother was possibly from Punjab, but there’s actually no evidence for this one way or the other(see origins section of the tughlaq page). So I would argue that it’s undue because why would it be near the lead over the origins section where their history and background is already given? Like the issue with the sayyid dynasty, you’re pushing one viewpoint over others.

“removal of sourced from Delhi Sultanate subsection"

Did I not already explain this? The two sources were actually talking about the sayyid dynasty and didn’t even use the term “Indic” in the source(Punjabi khokhar). This as I’ve mentioned, is undue(a point you agreed with) because the sayyid dynasty could have just as likely been Arab. Also one of the sources(not Eaton and Francesca) is RAJ era so not reliable.

Now I want to focus on bowman because I can guarantee that this is just plain wrong. A publisher is just that, a publisher. This doesn’t mean they wrote the book or even went through the time to peer review it. Jstor(I know they didn’t publish bowman’s source, I’m using an example), while not a publisher, is just a compilation of sources, some good, some bad(yes I’m sure you probably didn’t know this but not all jstor sources are good). Despite this, it’s relatively reputable, not flawless. You can make the same argument with with publishers. Even if they are incredibly reputable, they aren’t above criticism. Case in point, Bowman and the people associated with him who actually wrote the book have no credentials related to history. He just earned a BA in English literature. How is he qualified to make such claims on the khalji dynasty? I think you need to get this false assertion out of your head. So even if they had a good publisher, if the writer isn’t qualified, than that isn’t a reliable source. A good publisher does not necessarily mean the source is reliable. Everything depends on a case by case basis.

Also you completely ignored satish chandra. The only historian here who specialized in medieval Indian history and is most renown for the reliability of his works. There’s another completely opposing viewpoint which as I already explained, was spearheaded by a more authoritative source. Oddly you didn’t mention that in your reply. Even though you agreed with the sayyid removal, for some reason this is different?

“you can further discuss or ask your queries at WP:RSN”

You do understand, that’s on you right?

”The burden of proof is on those who add or defend the contentious material to provide sources that satisfy the concerns of the challenging editor.”

Misplaced Pages:But there must be sources!

You’re the one trying to prove the sources reliability(despite there being evidence to the contrary). You’re free to go to RSN if you’d like but I guarantee they will tell you the same thing.

There was no “bad removals”. You’re the only one that thinks so. Flemmish clearly disagreed and so did noorullah. I explained why I did what I did for each edit.

“please do not act in any haste, we are all here to build Misplaced Pages, do not ask for any kind of unprotection for the page unless all of the issues are resolved”

The fact that this is coming from you, all due respect, is incredibly ironic. The entire reason the page got protected was due to an act made in haste. I responded to all your points on my talk page. I welcomed an a revert. I welcomed more discussion. Instead you immediately went to protect the page, then wrongfully accused me of edit warring and disruption. All while ignoring every point made on the talk page here until Flemmish told you to stop. This page should have never been protected in the first place. You went with that because it was the only thing you thought would protect the content you preferred (even though I wouldn’t have made another revert until I reached consensus like I did now).

I never acted in haste and would have waited until I got consensus if this page didn’t get protected. Now, it’s clear consensus has been attained. 3 people disagree with you and it’s pretty clear the content shouldn’t be here when it doesn’t align with the sources(and that’s just one issue). Now that I’ve attained consensus, I’m gonna go ahead and remove this. To be clear, I didn’t actually request to remove page protection. It appears that decision was made on someone else’s accord. As it should be considering you had zero reason to do that and there was no disruption and edit warring as you claimed. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

What difference would it make if I replied on the article's talk page instead of your talk page? Please don't derail the discussion. I noticed that you are restoring your revisions again. What exactly do you mean by a "3 to 1 consensus"? So far, only the two of us seem to be deeply involved, and it's not like there's an ongoing RfC. That said, I won’t revert your changes, but the "bad removals" that were already pointed out above should definitely be restored. Garuda 13:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

“ What difference would it make if I replied on the article's talk page instead of your talk page?”

that’s not the argument and you know it. The issue is that you didn’t even bother to respond to any points made until Flemmish told you to stop ignoring them. There was no such thread until I brought the issue up in the talk page. And even than, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge what was written.

Moving on, consensus is quite clear.

“ What exactly do you mean by a "3 to 1 consensus"? So far, only the two of us seem to be deeply involved, and it's not like there's an ongoing RfC.”

You don’t need RFCs to determine consensus. If enough people come to the same conclusion with little opposition, than consensus has been attained. Also, I don’t exactly get what your argument here is supposed to mean. Just because they didn’t involve or write as many replies I have, doesn’t mean they aren’t involved. Your acting like we should just disregard their comments because we are more invested into this conversation when that hardly makes any sense. They clearly disagree with you.

“ Yes, Someguy is clearly in the right here; all of his arguments have been sound, as has the content of his removals;” Flemmish. More: “ please read Someguy's replies instead of dismissing them; it will help this "discussion" conclude much faster”

both noorullah and Flemmish clearly agree with me. It’s 3 against 1. The amount of comments they made hardly matters.

“That said, I won’t revert your changes, but the "bad removals" that were already pointed out above should definitely be restored”

Did I not already give a pretty detailed explanation as to why those weren’t “bad removals” in my last comment? And yes this includes the subsection and indo-Turkic issue(a relatively minor part of the problem anyway). I already explained why those weren’t bad removals. You didn’t respond to those points in your latest comment. Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

And btw you just re added a bunch of stuff that I’ve already explained, shouldn’t be on the page. You added back even the ones that weren’t so called “bad removals”(even though they weren’t bad removals).

stop adding these changes back. Consensus is clearly against you. Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Garudam for example, why did you re add the “The Delhi Sultanatewas founded in 1206 by Central Asian Turks-who were Indianized.” Even though that has nothing to do with the supposed “bad removals”(which weren’t bad), and was one of my biggest contentions with you in the first place. I thought you said you wouldn’t re add them? You clearly made a partial revert. Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Eh, I was about to re-word that phrase as: "The Delhi Sultanate, founded in 1206 by Central Asian Turks, later became an Indo-Islamic state as Indian Muslims rose to power." before Noorullah restored your revision. Garuda 13:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This would still not acknowledge any of the other points I made. Such as the fact that satish chandra clearly disagrees with this assertion. The fact that one of the sources (bowman) is unreliable. But ultimately it’s undue for the same reasons as the sayyid dynasty which you agreed with. The fact is that we’ve already went over the “indo-Muslim” issue many times in the past. Stop making these changes. Leave it as it is. Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I see that you are not even ready for restoration or rewording of the contents, If Chandra has different views then it should be included rather than undermining other sources as undue weight. Garuda 13:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

No absolutely not. Because we’ve already had this “indo-Muslim” discussion many times in the past, long before this conversation, and my opinion hasn’t changed. Out of all these sources, Chandra is the only one who’s an actual specialist on medieval Indian history. His sources have far more quality and is more reliable. So yeah, I would generally differ to the specialists opinion in this matter. That’s why I believe adding this would be undue. Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Garudamand now your edit warring… Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Garudamcould you actually reply to what we are telling you and stop doing this? You reverted 4 times and thus are edit warring. You even removed the edit warring warning from your talk page. I’d rather not have to take this to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I want to at least show that I tried talking to you on the talk page. But now it looks like your being outright disruptive with the warning removal and edit warring. You should self revert. Someguywhosbored (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed ^ per my most recent comment. Noorullah (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m sorry but this is becoming ridiculous. There is a clear consensus of editors having formed against you ( @Garudam )

and your reverts are starting to become WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Consensus has been established by 3 editors (including me), and you’re still stuck on the same point. Noorullah (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Noorullah21, did you read my replies ? I have there pointed out some of the unnecessary & good removals by someguy. You should take a look into that, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS should not override a stable article. Garuda 14:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay we tried. Someguywhosbored (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Garudam I did.. and I didn’t think they were adequate. You were as I said using that to interpret them as “Indianized”, which the source(s) do not even remotely suggest. Indian Muslims took more charge in the nobility, but you took this akin for calling the dynasty itself Indianized. That is textbook WP:OR. Noorullah (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, this is what I was trying to achieve here but before I could mould "Indianized", it was reverted by another editor. In my reply right there, I had already pointed out that: While it can be seen that he does not refer directly it as "Indianized" but "Khalji sultans creates and indo-islamic state" could be moulded in the article as "Inclusion of the Indian Muslims in administration of an Indo-Islamic state." And it also looks like you didn't go through the other unnecessary removals by someguy, again I'd suggest you to thoroughly read my replies. Best, Garuda 15:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

You didn’t even respond to me in the slightest. I already told you that satish Chandra disagrees with this statement. And that one of your sources was written by a guy who earned an BA in literature, not history. You have literally only one source that isn’t old and isn’t bad. And his view was already refuted by a more authoritative source who happens to be a specialist in medieval Indian history. I’ve already explained why those supposed “bad removals” weren’t actually bad. At this point, you’re just willfully ignoring the points being made just like you did in the beginning of this conversation. I don’t know what else is there to do with you anymore. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow this discussion is getting hard to track...

But the only source that really supports "Indo-Islamic" is Bowman. But there's still an issue with Bowman because if no other WP:RS source can properly corroborate such, it looks like WP:FRINGE and may also fall under WP:UNDUE. Ahmad (as pointed out), can fall under WP:RAJ, meaning it can't be used.

@Garudam Noorullah (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep in mind, this was a long standing revision, Eversince april 2024. To make such a change, you need clear consensus. No such consensus has been established yet. I go with status quo, Leave the article as it was before. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, none of the sources refer to them as “Indianized”, the way this is being interpreted is purely WP:OR. Noorullah (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal

Let's set aside Bowman and Ahmad as dubious for the moment. To conclude this discussion quickly, I propose removing and incorporating portions of Someguy’s revision:

• Re-wordings:

1. "The Delhi Sultanate was founded in 1206 by Central Asian Turks who were Indianized." to "The Delhi Sultanate, established in 1206 by Central Asian Turks, following the Khalji revolution, Indian Muslims gradually rose to prominence and eventually secured administrative authority within the Sultanate."
2. Flemmish's suggestion: "the only thing I would suggest is to change "from native Indian elites to Turkic and Pashtun uslim elites" to "from native Indian elites to Turkic Muslim elites" to better align with what Asher&Talbot says (the term "Turkic Muslim" is actually used there, while "Pashtun" is nowhere to be seen)."

• Removals:

1. Dubious sources such as Ahmad, Bowman & Hunter.
2. Sayyid Dynasty as "Indianized".
3. "It turned from a turkic Monopoly to an Indianized Indo-Muslim polity".
4. "Indo-Muslim" from Delhi Sultanate subsection.

• Inclusions:

1. Tughlaqs as "Indo-Turkic"
2. Authoritative sources i. e. Eaton & Orsini/Sheikh.
3. "It was ruled by multiple Turk and, Afghan and Indian dynasties" I don't know why they even removed the term "Indian" from there, if the Indian dynasties ruled some part of the subcontinent.

Noorullah21, Someguywhosbored, Malik-Al-Hind, Flemmish Nietzsche and Mr.Hanes, I hope this would be the last time I'd ping you all here. Share your thoughts on this proposal and feel free to rephrase/challenge my proposal. Garuda 21:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment:“It was ruled by multiple…Indian dynasty”. The problem is that’s only one viewpoint. The only dynasty of possible Indian descent is the sayyids. But the problem is that it’s just as likely that they were Arabs. So what’s the point of adding that? Maybe you could make an argument for the Tughlaqs, but again, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Just because it exists there doesn’t mean it needs to be here. The supposed “indo-Turkic” is weirdly given more weight than the other sources in the origins section. Even though they were a lot more sources there, which didn’t use the term “indo-Turkic”, which brings up questions of notability.

Moving onto the bigger issues. The indo Muslim problem. Satish chandra refutes this point. So mentioning it would be undue weight. He’s a specialist in this period. You only have one source that is recent and he’s certainly not as authoritative as Chandra.

As for Flemmish’s suggestion, I don’t completely mind but I think it could be easily remedied by a source which does mention that the dynasty was also ruled by Afghans(which would be really easy to find since two Afghan dynasties did rule the dynasty). Kind of odd only mentioning Indians when two dynasties were ruled by Afghans proper.

Nonetheless if your changes do get reverted, stop edit warring. As seen on the edit warring page, you’ve been given a chance because it appears that your taking a break and have stated that you will refrain from edit warring. Someone like say Flemmish or noorullah reverts you(or even me as I’ve old made 2 reverts so far), don’t revert back if you actually mean it. Let’s work through the process. Your report has been declined on condition as you’ve been already aware of the ctops warning. So stop and talk it though here before you make any changes. I’d probably be more open to your changes if you actually avoided reverting back and forward. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support:@Garudam seems to be right here, incorporating multiple views by scholars is always better, which follows the suggestion of Abecedare (shall I ping?) here. I would also tend to support their proposed changes. Someguywhosbored should adhere to their suggestions and WP:LISTEN instead of unnecessarily WP:STONEWALL and dragging the discussion. WP:FORUMSHOP to other talk pages is also not the way for a healthy discussion. Mr.Hanes Talk 09:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  The issue is that when there’s only 1 scholar who’s actually recent that came to this conclusion, it brings up questions of Misplaced Pages:Notability. Furthermore, we’ve had so many discussions in the past about the “indo-Muslim” topic.

  Satish chandra is the only historian here who actually specializes in medieval Indian history. And he completely refuted this interpretation your bringing up. Which I’ve shown multiple times above.

  the only way something like this could work is if you say that one scholar “is of the opinion that the dynasty allowed Indian Muslims into positions of powers, but this view has been rejected and refuted by more authoritative sources such as Satish Chandra”. And than we can write a note that states satish Chandra is a specialist of medieval Indian history, unlike the sources Garudam is using. Even than, this page is just supposed to be a summary of Indian history. So honestly I see no reason for adding these changes.

  so either no changes(my preference) or you mention the source but also state that it’s been refuted by those who are more authoritative. If you don’t mention satish Chandra, than this would be undue.

  Anyway before we make certain changes, the article should first remove the mention of “indianized” in the body when no sources use that term.

  im waiting until someone else will make those changes. But if nobody does, I’ll probably do it myself. Garudam stated he’s taking a step back(, that’s one of the conditions of his block being declined. As long as he doesn’t get further involved in this discussion, or make any more reverts, and actually take a break like he said, than it should be fine.

  also I don’t think you understand what forum shopping is. Garudam was disruptively edit warring(despite ironically calling me out for the same thing). When someone edit wars, your free to take this to the administrators. Thankfully they made it clear that Garudam needs to step away from this conversation. If he comes back, than he’s violating that agreement which will likely lead to a pblock, per administrator daniel case. Garudam should have known better as he was alerted to ctops. Reporting him for edit warring was completely justified. And now once someone reverts him, he’s thankfully not allowed to revert it back. If you want to make changes, you first need to gain consensus first like I did when I went to remove the content. You haven’t really been giving me any adequate reason for adding it.

  before any changes happen, we need to remove the “indianized”

  and other parts of the content that we agreed shouldn’t be there. Even Garudam at least wants it to be reworded(despite my opposition). I’ll wait one more day. If nobody makes the change, I’ll do it myself. Someguywhosbored (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  "Satish chandra is the only historian here who actually specializes in medieval Indian history." No, other experts exist (Eaton, Jackson & Lal), Chandra's work is not empirical. Even so including their views with others is the best way to represent our encyclopedia. And what does Garudam's stepping back have to do with this, I could make the changes by myself if the consensus is reached. Please stick to the topic, your whole second para is just lengthening this proposal (RfC?). If you have more concerns please reply so, above this sub-topic but do not make changes in the article as the proposal discussion is ongoing, I just re-organised this proposal to make it more engaging and readable. Mr.Hanes Talk 11:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Again your misrepresenting the sources. Not even Garudam was making these claims. Eaton did not write anything about the Indian Muslims. He was talking about the sayyid dynasty which was a different conversation. Garudam actually agreed with me in the end on that point btw, that the it’s undue to refer to the sayyids as “indianized” because there’s other reliable sources like Eraly who believed the dynasty was of Arab descent.

  Also Jackson? When did he mention that the dynasty was indianized? He’s not part of the sources that claimed the dynasty allowed Indian Muslims into positions of power. Did I even remove him? What part are your talking about.

  The only thing your left with is K.S lal who while is a historian I believe, is quite an old source. See WP:AGEMATTERS.

  That leaves you with just chaurasia who is the only modern scholar cited that is actually a historian I think(again can’t find much info about his credentials but he’s probably okay). Nonetheless, that’s one source, which is being compared to satish Chandra. He actively refuted the supposed “indo-muslim” claim. And out of all these sources, he’s the only one who’s a specialist on medieval Indian history(see his wiki page) in particular and is renown for his books authenticity and reliability. He’s the most authoritative source here. So if your adding a claim like that, it just seems entirely undue.

  The one thing pretty much everyone including Garudam agreed on is that the content can’t be saying “indianized” like that. So we need to remove it. The only other option I can think of is my suggestion I just made. Basically mentioning the viewpoint but also clarifying that it’s been refuted by a more authoritative source.

  Anyway given that we pretty much all agreed the sources don’t actually say “indianized”(also a completely different dynasty). Including Garudam. So that should be removed pronto regardless. I’m sure even you would agree that “Indianized” would be inappropriate for that section when

  A. The sources don’t use the term “indianized”

  B. It’s a completely different dynasty

  I sure hope you would at least agree on that point considering everyone else did. So removing the “indianized” section, when pretty much everyone agreed that it doesn’t make sense is completely fine to do even as discussions are ongoing. The next step is talking about whether we should add the Indian Muslims part. Obviously I disagree, but we can have discussions on that. But prior to that, there’s nothing wrong with removing the indianized part of the text when pretty much everyone agrees that it’s wrong. Like I said, if you want to add the Indian Muslims viewpoint because you supposedly want to add “everyone’s viewpoint, than you need to be adding satish Chandra’s viewpoint as well. If your just putting one in, than it’s undue.

  So let’s remove the indianized part and than discuss about whether we should add Indian Muslims into the article or not. My proposal there is if you really want to add the Indian Muslim part, you need to also add the material that refutes it. Otherwise this whole “adding everyone’s viewpoint” makes zero sense if your ignoring one from a prestigious source. Otherwise no change.

  Your very well free to continue discussion, but if someone like me or another user deletes the “indianized” part. You adding it back would basically be disruptive because everyone agrees that the sources don’t follow the text there. Again, the Indian Muslims debate is an entirely different topic/issue. So why shouldn’t we remove content that doesn’t align with the sources cited? Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Also are you claiming the other sources were also specialists in medieval Indian history? If so, send a source. Otherwise satish Chandra is obviously more authoritative on that topic. Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  On a final note @Mr.Hanes. Like I said, I’m willing to make a compromise if you will also add satish Chandra’s refutation of it. So basically, let’s remove indianization as everyone agreed with. And if you want to add the Indian Muslims part, sure go ahead. Nobodies stoping you. Just make sure you also mention that this viewpoint was refuted by satish Chandra in the article, and cite both sources. I’ll probably also make my own tweaks to it. But for now, indianization part should be removed as everyone including Garudam agreed per his new proposal. Someguywhosbored (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Supporting the proposal, I think it provides a balanced approach here. Nxcrypto Message 14:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use Indian English
• Old requests for peer review
• B-Class level-3 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-3 vital articles in History
• B-Class vital articles in History
• B-Class South Asia articles
• Low-importance South Asia articles
• South Asia articles
• B-Class India articles
• Top-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Top-importance
• B-Class Indian history articles
• Top-importance Indian history articles
• B-Class Indian history articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Indian history articles
• Past Indian collaborations of the month
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Pakistan articles
• Top-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• B-Class Bangladesh articles
• High-importance Bangladesh articles
• Help of History Workgroup of Bangladesh needed
• WikiProject Bangladesh articles
• B-Class Maldives articles
• Mid-importance Maldives articles
• WikiProject Maldives articles
• B-Class British Empire articles
• Top-importance British Empire articles
• All WikiProject British Empire pages
• B-Class history articles
• High-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists