Talk:Hyder Ali/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Change Nawab Bahadur Hyder Ali to Sultan Bahadur Hyder Ali

Please change Nawab Bahadur Hyder Ali to Sultan Bahadur Hyder Ali. Because Hyder Ali is known as Sultan Bahadur Hyder Ali not Nawab Bahadur Hyder Ali Gayatri Acharya ERT (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruption

@User:CrashLandingNew instead of manipulating sources or all together changing them, please provide proper citations. Also, add proper page no. as well as quotations in the support of the cited content otherwise it cannot be verified. The previous Bowring source did not mention respective theories and they couldn't be checked due to those incomplete references.Sutyarashi (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop using sources which suit your POV. Bowring sources is clearly defined and mentioned on the page with all the pages marked and link provided, kindly bother to check. If you couldn't check them it's seems a technical glitch on your part and stop deleting sources which states something you do not like, like you did with Navayat citation and information. It has already been observed by others that you have made significant changes on various articles and all those should be reverted to status quo before having discussion for each of them. Stop adding selective information to suit your bias. CrashLandingNew (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems like you didn't even bother to check the references. Anyways, tagged your Nawaiyat reference and also corrected citation per Bowring .Sutyarashi (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of source backed data

Stop removing citations which do not fit in your bias. Hyder Ali has different theories of origin as per different schools. Removing them won't change the history. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I have removed not a single of the claims. Not sure where you saw that. But there is no need to mention every possible path by which they may have come to India separately, this is clearly WP:UNDUE. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not undue. The topic of discussion is his ancestry and it is important to mention the brief of all the sources. Nobody is writing multiple paragraphs here, only few lines. CrashLandingNew (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

No it's making it hackneyed. For example, every reference for his Punjabi origin can be treated separately as they provide varied information, but that will give it undue weight just like your additions. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

What hackneyed? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a magazine. Every detail regarding his origin shall be mentioned here for the readers. Nobody is complaining about the length of the paragraph except you. CrashLandingNew (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Added content about his Punjabi origins too. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit

@CrashLandingNew explain your this revert [1]? Sutyarashi (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The edit summary is self explanatory, did you start a discussion on talk page to seek consensus before making the changes? CrashLandingNew (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

My edit summary was previously more than enough I.e WP:RAJ is not to be used regarding ethnicity. You should read the article on it. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@CrashLandingNew: All edits do not need to be discussed. This is not a requirment of Wikipedia. Rather, editors are encouraged to be "bold" and go ahead and make needed edtis. Discussion comes when someone takes issue with changes made. With few exceptions, it is better to discuss you concers rather than to reverse someone else's changes unless the changes are vandalism, lacks a source, or violates a key aspect of MOS. Rublamb (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Being bold is advisable regarding small changes, isn't it? If an editor, wishes to make an edit regarding correct spelling, proper grammar, or a better layout, then he is advised to be bold but if an editor wants to change the facts of an article, it has to be discussed and a consensus has to be achieved, the onus of achieving such consensus lies on the editor adding new facts. CrashLandingNew (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Unless someone is adding poor quality or unsourced statements, being bold applies on whatever you call "facts", too. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit

@CrashLandingNew most recent scholaristic sources seem to agree with Hyder Ali's origins in Punjab. The sources which mention Arab origins either fall under WP:RAJ or WP:SELFPUBLISH. Now, as I don't want another cycle of reversions, what do you think about earlier mention of his Punjabi origins? Its sources are much more reliable than others, which also doubt his Arab ethnicity. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

You are letting your bias come in the way, for you want to present that Hyder Ali and his famous son were "Punjabis". Hyder Ali is not considered a Punjabi by most historians. It's a theory as per "some" sources. Also, how can you mention sources about his family's Arab origin falling under [[WP:SELFPUBLISH]] but the not ones talking about his so-called Punjabi origin? CrashLandingNew (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

What is wrong with Kate Brittlebank?

Another source " Tipu Sultan's Search for Legitimacy: Islam and Kingship in a Hindu Domain", Kate Brittlebank, Oxford University Press, page 79, "Through Haidar's family, on both his father's and mother's side, Tipu claimed Quraish descent. Haidar's mother was a member of the group of Muslims of Arab origin known as Nawayats, who trace their roots to Nazarbin-Kanana, the progenitor of the family of the Prophet." --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

exactly CrashLandingNew (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear is claiming same as being from one group? Your second source seems to emphasize more on Nawayat origins of his mother, than his father, for which it is mentioned he only "claimed" Quresh origins.

After all, Safavids of Iran too claimed Arab ancestry from Muhammad, and legitimized their rule through this, but we mention this only over the article for dynasty (and with just one line) and not upon Safavid Empire. Ghaznavids claimed descendance from Sassanid Empire, but we mention this in their article by just a single note. Clearly, just claiming is not a marker of one's ethnicity.

I have not seen evidence that proves Claritas publishing is a self-publishing company. And per WP:SELFPUBLISH, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Like Oxford University Press, Modern Asian Studies(Cambridge University).

Kate Brittlebank, per the link I supplied, appears to be an expert on this matter. Perhaps you should take the source to Reliable sources noticeboard, instead of edit-warring? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear Kate's primary publisher (the one on Amazon books and others) is Juggernaut Books which is a self-publishing forum. Also, Claritas is not an academic source per se, little information is available about it online, and according to its own statement it is a "credible voices on Islam and the Muslim faith in the 21st Century", clearly, it's concerned with religious books mostly. Sutyarashi (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Leaving issue of self-publishing, I have no problem with Kate's sources (like the one published by Oxford University Press), but it too only mentions claims for being from Quresh, instead of ascribing him of Arab ancestry. Sutyarashi (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Even if it is self-published, Kate Brittlebank appears to be an expert per the Columbia University site. As I said, WP:RSN would give an outside opinion on the matter.--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Right, what do you think of Muhammad Ilyas Nadvi's source? He's a grand total of only one book and no information is available about him or his publisher. The book allows only snippet view (with mention of both Punjabi and Arab claims). Sutyarashi (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, William Dalrymple and others, clearly call him Punjabi, but none state him to be "Qureshi Arab", though they do mention that he claimed to be. Sutyarashi (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@CrashLandingNew because none of those sources are self-published. They are published by Bloomsbury Books, Greenwood Publishing Group and Duckworth Books, which are far more reputable than some Aakar Books (the publisher of Mohib ul Hasan source) for which not much is known. Sutyarashi (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Viewing this, the Oxford source provided by Kansas Bear is much better than this Aakar Book one. Sutyarashi (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Also mister, you need to watch your tone (which I have been ignoring for past multiple months) and stop accusing me of bias. I am not adding any unreliable references in the article, it is exactly as per sources. Infact, one can say that about you as you are the one who has been edit warring and mass removing content since March[2], evengoing as far as accusing me of being a sock, all without any evidence. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, why have you clubbed Tarikh-i-Tipu, Sultan-ut-Tawarikh, Karnama-e-Haidri and Haider-Namah as one source? Mohibbul Hasan's comment about manufactured pedigree is only in relation to the illustrious background mentioned in Karnama-e-Haidri not his Arab origin. CrashLandingNew (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

You're over emphasising on a single reference, I believe, and you do need to provide additional references for this. Sutyarashi (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they have been produced using a single reference. They are still different sources. CrashLandingNew (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

No it does, because they all are still primary sources in essence, and we need additional historians who have evaluated them to be reliable or otherwise. Referencing just a single book for a theory in major part of section is a sheer WP:UNDUE. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, they still remain multiple resources even if they have been sourced on Wikipedia using one citation. Tarikh-i-Tipu, Sultan-ut-Tawarikh, Karnama-e-Haidri, Haider-Namah and work of Kirmani are 5 different sources, further evaluated by Mohibbul Hasan in the citation added. WP:UNDUE is not applicable as we are not relying only on one primary source. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Whether there are 5 primary sources or 500, they don't count. It's the author whose reliability matters. You cannot cite even a single primary source directly (see WP:PRIMARY). This definitely means more references are needed for such claims.

Anyways, now I am not going to waste my further time in going in circles with you. I am thinking of asking other editors for this. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Opinions are secondary

Caleb Simmons OPINION of 2020 regarding Tipu Sultan cannot be caveat while mentioning the primary sources, which are the first sources regarding bio of Hyder Ali. Also, Simmons opinion is only limited to the linkages with Muhammad not his ethnic origin. The primary sources are the first source regarding his origin whereas the opinion of some modern authors is mere commentry to be followed. You cannot start with Caleb's opinion over the primary source. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The primary sources, especially the "anonymous version" one should not be even cited in the article; rather only what modern researchers describe. You're unnecessarily giving undue weight to them. I'm not fond of wasting any more time on you; it's better that you now go for dispute resolution as it's only you who seem to have problem in the section. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You've added that these sources were contemporary to Hyder Ali, but several of them were written years after dynasty ended. Avoid making these unsourced claims. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)