Talk:Tipu Sultan

Talk:

Tyrant

Tipu was a tyrant and religious bigot. His atrocities and persecution of Hindus and Christians in Malabar, Karnataka (Coorg) and Tamil Nadu wee well documented. He was a Southern version of Aurangazeb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.179.4 (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV issue

1. My recent edit which I did following WP:NPOV policy has been reverted without giving any proper reason, only reason given was Original wording was better (some claim isn't good), which is not fair enough reason. Article more sound like "anti-Tipu" when there are sufficient reliable sources which claim that "Tipu was secular leader". We should mention both claims. Because there are also reliable claims for his act of "religious bigotry". Both claims should be mentioned in lead. (Not only one). --Human3015^TALK  09:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

1. "Tipu is regarded as hero in Pakistan" lacks source and seems POV.
2. "The Karnataka Government has been lately trying to portray Tipu Sultan as a State Hero" is WP:UNDUE to mention in lead and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Also this sentence is original research which indirectly says "Tipu is not hero but Karnataka government is trying to make him hero".--Human3015^TALK  10:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• This doesn't need an NPOV tag Human3015. My reversion was mostly because of the way the statement was framed (some claim is not a good way to phrase things). Either way, that part of the lead is way too detailed. A statement about the contrasting views of Tipu Sultan is likely more than enough. Agree completely about the two points you've raised above. --regentspark (comment) 01:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Faith in Astrology

As the combined forces of the British, the Nizam and the Marathas opposed Srirangapatanam, Tipu Sultan developed faith in astrological predictions which foretold a malefic period for him from 1790 onwards. Upon the advice of local Brahmin astrologers, Tipu offered pujas and carried out feeding of Brahmins and advanced land-grants to temples, especially after his defeat of 1791 and the subsequent Srirangapatanam Treaty of 1792.

Reference: 1. Life of Raja Kesavadas by V.R. Parameswaran Pillai, N.B.S. Publications, Kottayam, Kerala, 1973 [Book]

2. To be ascertained: Tipu and astrology references in Lewis Rice's Epigraphia Carnatica

http://www.archive.org/details/epigraphiacarnat04mysouoft 

(this will require several hours of study)

3. Or the book History of Mysore by Lewis Rice (which sources from the voluminous Epigraphia Carnatica).

Enter2n1 (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Wrong fact about Tipu Sultan

Dear Sir,

There is wrong fact mentioned on wikipedia that Tipu sultan has forcefully converted 200 Brahmins to Islam, No such evidence is present in Gazette of Maysore or British India Library, Kindly delete this information from your website with immediate effect, Your prompt reply on this matter will be highly appreciated Amjad.siddiqui1984 (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Wrong fact mentioned on wikipdia: Calicut (Kozhikode)

In 1788, Tipu ordered his governor in Calicut Sher Khan to begin the process of converting Hindus to Islam, and in July of that year, 200 Brahmins were forcibly converted.[48]

Why should we remove it? It is cited to what appears to be a reputable source. Magic♪piano 16:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Whitewashed

@Sitush and Utcursch: it looks like this article has been whitewashed to make Tipu look like a hero. Can we at least have a link to persecution of Hindus by Tipu Sultan in this article (I could not do it myself due to it being protected)?-IvankaTr (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC) IvankaTr (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

please also mention the protests by Hindus to the celebration of the Tippu Jayanthi by the Congress Government of Karnataka on 10th November citing appropriate references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvankaTr (talk • contribs)

@IvankaTr: I am busy with other things right now, but dropping a note at WT:IND may help. utcursch | talk 01:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@IvankaTr: thank you for bringing it up. I have edited some of the article and will look more. Capitals00 (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI, Estefania Wenger is just a journalist that writes biographies of people, is not an historian, has no specialization in this area or time period and is not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Source replaced with other multiple sources. Capitals00 (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Maestro2016: your edits are contrary to the unanimous consensus about Tipu. Your sources are really weak, "Review of The History of Tipu Sultan by Mohibbul Hasan (1953)", Hasan published that book through Bibliophile publishers, a children book publisher, not WP:RS. Then a source from Irfran Habib, and last one is a chapter from Subbaraya Chetty written with Irfan Habib and found in Habib's book "Confronting Colonialism". So that means @Geunineart: objections are correct. These sources have already got a place in sections, which is already enough, don't push them on lead. Also he didn't persecuted people just because he thought they are aligned with British. Capitals00 (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no "unanimous consensus" about Tipu. The topic is still debated by historians. The article itself names a number of historians (such as Brittlebank, Hasan, Chetty, Habib, and Saletare) who conclude British accounts of Tipu to either be unreliable or fabricated. The lead also completely contradicts the very source it is citing, Binita Mehta, who specifically says that Tipu's persecutions were politically-motivated, targeting communities he suspected of helping his British enemies. The lead as it is currently written is a complete misrepresentation of Mehta. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, Mohibbul Hasan and Irfan Habib are leading Indian historians, who have had a number of historical scholarly works published by the likes of Oxford University Press. In the former case, the source actually cited is C.C. Davies writing for The English Historical Review, a reliable journal. Also, the other sources I cited (which you and Geunineart reverted) are all reliable, including Parthasarathi Prasannan (published by Cambridge University Press), Binita Mehta (who the article grossly misrepresents, as mentioned above), and B. N. Pande (published by University of Michigan). On the other hand, the source that the lead currently cites, Alexander Varghese, is published by Atlantic Publishers, which does not appear to be an academic publisher. The sources I cited are definitely more reliable than the Varghese source cited. And the other source cited in the lead, Mehta, is grossly misrepresented. Also, neither source uses the term "atrocities", but both use "persecution", while Varghese describes it as "atrocious persecution". The use of the term "atrocities" is also a complete misrepresentation of both sources. That sentence in the lead is poorly written and grossly misrepresents the sources, not to mention strongly POV and lacking neutrality, so it clearly needs to be re-written in a more neutral manner. Maestro2016 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No they are not leading historians. How about those who don't ever doubt British accounts? There were also French, Indian, Portuguese and Dutch accounts. Still there is no specific rejection of the atrocities from anyone. A minority of writers say that he may haven't carried out that many atrocities but they don't reject the atrocities as non-existing. Where as you are simply rejecting them. I have changed the source. You don't have to exactly copy paste what source say, "atrocities" is a fine word, that covers forced conversions, killings, etc. you can find many sources if you want that word to be stated. Capitals00 (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of reliable sources that refer to Irfan Habib as a leading historian of the period. I didn't reject the accounts altogether, but was attempting to give a more balanced view on the issue. A number of historians say many of these accounts come from British sources deemed unreliable, and other historians say his persecutions were targeted against specific communities who he suspected of supporting his enemies, which you outright rejected. The existence of some non-British accounts does not negate the unreliability of the British accounts. And the latter explains why he supported certain religious communities (such as the 156 Hindu temples he paid regular endowments to) while targeting other religious communities (which he deemed a threat to his rule, including several Muslim communities). The issue is complex and debatable, not so simplistic like you are portraying it. And finally, the term "atrocities" is a loaded word, just like terms such as "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing". Loaded words such as these should only be used if the sources specifically describe them as such. In this case, the cited sources use the word "persecution". Maestro2016 (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we make it absolutely clear that there is no evidence that British accounts are unreliable just that a handful of modern historians feel that they might be. This is not the same as "British accounts are unreliable", which is what you appear to be saying. Furthermore, we ought to say that those historians/authors have a vested interest in portraying British accounts in that way (in the same way that we have said the British might have had a reason to portray Tipu in a less favourable light). Also, If we are going to rubbish British accounts, should we not say that Tipu's cruelty and violent temper was recorded in French, German, and Portuguese accounts.

For example, François Ripaud, a French soldier and ally of Tipu, wrote of the atrocities he witnessed in Calicut, "Most of the Hindu men and women were hanged...first mothers were hanged with their children tied to their necks. That barbarian Tipu Sultan tied the naked Christians and Hindus to the legs of elephants and made the elephants move around till the bodies of the helpless victims were torn to pieces. Temples and churches were ordered to be burned down, desecrated and destroyed. Christian and Hindu women were forced to marry Mohammedans, and similarly, their men (after conversion to Islam) were forced to marry Mohammedan women. Christians who refused to be honoured with Islam were ordered to be killed by hanging immediately."

This story was corroborated by Fra Bartholomew, a famous Portuguese missionary and traveller, in his book, Voyage to East Indies.

Ripaud also writes how, in Kozhikode, "Over 2,000 Brahmin families perished as a result of Tipu Sultan's Islamic cruelties. He did not spare even women and children". A German missionary (Guntest?) of the same incident, wrote, "Accompanied by an army of 60,000, Tipu Sultan came to Kozhikode in 1788 and razed it to the ground. It is not possible even to describe the brutalities committed by that Islamic barbarian from Mysore". Should these things not be added to the article also?--Ykraps (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The article should reflect the secondary sources of modern historians who have researched the primary sources, not our own original research interpretations of the primary sources. It's not up to us to determine whether the British accounts are reliable or unreliable, but that's up to modern historians to determine. And from the historians I've seen, more seem to lean towards British accounts being unreliable. That's not to say anything about the French or Portuguese accounts (which I wasn't aware of until recently), but they do not negate what historians are saying about the British sources, which should be viewed with caution. As for the French and Portuguese sources, they are mentioned in the article, but the source they cite is a political journalist, rather than an academic historian, so they might need some better sourcing. Maestro2016 (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

That the article should reflect the secondary sources of modern historians, is your opinion. There is no policy which says so. Modern historians are no more reliable than ancient ones, whose opinions are equally valid. However, there are modern secondary sources available including: TipuSultan- The Tyrant of Mysore By Sandeep Balakrishna [[1]], The Naked Mughals By Vashi Sharma [[2]] and Tipu Sultan: Villain Or Hero? - an analogy by Sita Ram Goel [[3]]. You might also try reading articles by Francois Gautier. The fact that you haven't heard any of this before goes some way to explaining your point of view editing which I hitherto had assumed was politically motivated.--Ykraps (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The reason we prefer to use only modern historians is because if there is anything meaningful (significant) said by earlier historians, it will be referenced and used by a modern one. Also, modern historiography is more reliable because it has been vetted by the peer review process. FYI and not a comment on your edits.--regentspark (comment) 13:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand how, in some situations, newer sources are more desirable, but WP:AGE MATTERS also says, "With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing". Using a mixture of sources seems to me, the best solution.--Ykraps (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the guideline. In most (not some) situations, newer sources are desirable. As the guideline goes on to say However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt.. This is particularly true when dealing with vintage primary sources. For example, you use a quotation from, amongst others, a German missionary and a Portuguese priest. These would be examples of old sources that should either not be used or used only when supported by modern academic sources. Clearly, if the priest and missionary were reliable and correct about Tipu Sultan, then modern histories would quote them or use them to bolster their own academic interpretations of the history of that period. If modern histories are silent on the sayings of these people, then we should be silent as well. --regentspark (comment) 23:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Maestro2016 only you seem to be worried about it, bar none. Reviewing the history of this article, I have found that the last edit made in 8 August 2017[4] shows article was neutral until you started to edit it.[5] And this section is dedicated to such "whitewashing" of article, though it took you really long to join the discussion. You should just read Mysorean invasion of Kerala. D4iNa4 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ykraps: As per WP:HISTRH, recent scholarship should take priority over older scholarship. Here is a message that User:Utcursch sent me before regarding this: Colonial-era history textbooks are obsolete: you should avoid using them as sources, wherever newer scholarly work is available. In other words, it is best to avoid using colonial-era sources if newer sources are available. As for the modern references you cited, none of them seem to be published by known academic publishers, so they don't look reliable to me. Maestro2016 (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys for understanding the issue. Maestro2016 doesn't understand or rejects factual basis because his agenda is to cover up Tipu Sultan, about the crimes he himself boasted, by using sources of Islamic sympathisers, one of his source is 63 years old, but he wants to talks about recent scholarship. But I will show it and hopefully others will agree that [6](p.324-326 at least) [7][8][9] and lots of many other recent books by academics/scholars have great basis and they have discussed crimes of Tipu in great lengths. Not just respected British scholars, but there were many Portuguese sources. One of them wrote:

"The barbarian Tipu Sultan tied the naked Christians and Hindus to the legs of elephants and made the elephants to move around till the bodies of the helpless victims were torn to pieces Temples and churches were ordered to be burned down, desecrated and destroyed. Christian and Hindu women were forced to marry Mohammadans and similarly their men were forced to marry Mohammadan women. Those Christians who refused to be honoured with Islam, were ordered to be killed by hanging immediately. These atrocities were told to me by the victims of Tipu Sultan who escaped from the clutches of his army and reached Varappuzha, which is the centre of Carmichael Christian Mission. I myself helped many victims to cross the Varappuzha River by boats."

This analysis is also published on this another[10] recent scholarly book. Geunineart (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

As already said above, I was not aware of French/Portuguese accounts until recently, but was only referring to colonial British accounts. As for modern historians, regardless of whether you believe them to be Islamic/Hindu/Christian/Marxist sympathizers, that is irrelevant to their academic credentials. On Google Scholar, the 2005 edition of Mohibbul Hasan's History of Tipu Sultan is the most widely cited work on Tipu Sultan (79 scholarly citations), followed by Kate Brittlebank's Tipu Sultan's search for legitimacy: Islam and kingship in a Hindu domain (1997, 62 scholarly citations), [11][12] and then Irfan Habib's Confronting colonialism: Resistance and modernization under Haidar Ali & Tipu Sultan (2002, 34 scholarly citations). Regardless of your views on these historians, these are the most widely cited scholarly works on Tipu Sultan (according to Google Scholar). As for the Portuguese account you quoted, the historian you cited, Charles Allen, describes it as "hearsay". Maestro2016 (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it might be best to follow the example of Enyclopedia Britannica, which states:

"Tippu was an able general and administrator, and, though a Muslim, he retained the loyalty of his Hindu subjects. He proved cruel to his enemies and lacked the judgment of his father, however."

Maestro2016 (talk)

Brilliant! With the exception of eye-witness accounts, which you aim to discredit, the whole of history is hearsay. Yes he heard it, he heard it from the people fleeing Tipu and his soldiers. This hearsay of Bartholomew's nicely corroborates the testimony of Ripaud, a man who spoke a different language and whom he'd never met. I think it best we present a balanced article with a neutral point of view, rather than offer an opinion like the Encyclopaedia Britannica. --Ykraps (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out the fact that the secondary source (historian) cited in this case (Chales Allen) doubts the reliability of the account. As per WP:SECONDARY, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." You cannot simply interpret primary sources yourself, but they need to be subject to analysis/research/interpretation from reliable secondary sources (i.e. academic historians). And as per WP:TERTIARY, "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias" and "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." In other words, Britannica is an ideal source for an overview/summary. Maestro2016 (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think he doubts it? Describing something as hearsay can simply mean, "Of the nature of or based on report given by others" - The Chambers Dictionary: 11th Edition. Edinburgh EH7 4AY: Chambers Harrap. 2008. p. 705. ISBN 978 0550 10289 8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |titlelink1= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) Ykraps

"I'm merely pointing out the fact" you are not pointing out any facts but trying to do some nitpicking. Charles Allen has himself greatly detailed those crimes. You ignored the recent reliable scholars I provided but doubting a single quote without a good reason. You are just throwing mud thinking that it would stick. Also I am opposed to your Britannica source and information, because they admittedly get their information wrong often. Geunineart (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

However Charles Allen may have interpreted the quote, that's how it should be written. If not word-for-word, then at least something equivalent, such as either "hearsay" or "is said to have" or "he was told by so and so". As for Britannica, it is widely recognized as a reliable source. Claiming they "get their information wrong often" is not a valid reason for rejecting a reliable source. And as mentioned above, WP:TERTIARY sources such as Britannica are "helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." In this case, Britannica is clearly neutral, mentioning both the positives and negatives regarding this issue. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop this copy pasta. We don't have comprehension problems like you. You don't need Britannica because we have no problem with "due weight" here. You are only mentioning something that is already established by his status, such as "He was an able general and administrator". Also read Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia. Geunineart (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

That page mentions that many of the errors listed there from years ago have since already been corrected by Britannica. The fact still remains that Britannica is a reliable tertiary source. And you still haven't mentioned what issue you have with the Britannica statement. It looks accurate and neutral, and its use is consistent with Wikipedia's policy on tertiary sources. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the secondary sources mentioned above, let us compare the number of scholarly citations (as mentioned on Google Scholar) between the sources mentioned by myself and by the opposition (Ykraps, Geunineart, Capitals00) to give us an indication of which are the more authoritative sources on the subject:

Sources mentioned by myself: Mohibbul Hasan's History of Tipu Sultan (79 citations), Kate Brittlebank's Tipu Sultan's search for legitimacy: Islam and kingship in a Hindu domain (62 citations), [13][14] Irfan Habib's Confronting colonialism: Resistance and modernization under Haidar Ali & Tipu Sultan (34 citations), Roddam Narasimha's Rockets in Mysore and Britain (13 citations), Prasannan Parthasarathi's Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not: Global Economic Divergence (201 citations), Binita Mehta's Widows, Pariahs, and Bayadères: India as Spectacle (32 citations).

Sources mentioned by Ykraps, Geunineart and Capitals00: Sandeep Balakrishna's Tipu Sultan: The Tyrant of Mysore (1 citation), Vashi Sharma's The Naked Mughals (0 citations), Sita Ram Goel's Tipu Sultan: Villain Or Hero? An analogy (2 citations), Kaveh Yazdani's India, Modernity and the Great Divergence: Mysore and Gujarat (1 citation), Roland Miller's Mappila Muslims of Kerala: a study in Islamic trends (68 citations), Sanjeev Sanyal's The Ocean of Churn: How the Indian Ocean Shaped Human History (2 citations), Charles Allen's Coromandel: A Personal History of South India (0 citations), Alexander Varghese's India: History, Religion, Vision and Contribution to the World (5 citations).

The above shows that almost none of the secondary sources mentioned by Ykraps, Geunineart or Capitals00 are authoritative sources on the subject (with the exception of Roland Miller's Mappila Muslims of Kerala: a study in Islamic trends), whereas all of the secondary sources I have mentioned are authoritative sources on the subject. Maestro2016 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

First you claimed that only British accounts fabricated claims about Sultan, once it was debunked you went to claim that there is lack of recent scholarly material backing his crimes, and that it has been debunked already, and that you couldn't even understand that meaning of "hearsay", now you are talking about how many times those sources have been cited? Look, you are only becoming more disruptive by time. After giving you enough time already, now I have reverted your Britannica edits. Given that you are too biased, you would need to get consensus for any controversial edits that you want to make. Geunineart (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Strawman argument. I never "claimed that only British accounts fabricated claims about Sultan," but said that British accounts are considered either questionable/unreliable/fabricated by leading historians on the subject. Nor did I "claim that there is a lack of recent scholarly material backing his crimes," but was stating Wikipedia's policy on recent scholarship in response to Ykraps' claims concerning the use of colonial-era sources. Also, the comparison of scholarly citations is to address the issue of WP:UNDUE weight, which states, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." What you are presenting is a minority viewpoint, not the majority viewpoint. The majority viewpoint is represented by the sources with a high number of scholarly citations (such as the secondary sources I mentioned) and by tertiary sources (such as Encyclopedia Bricannica). And finally, you still have not given any kind of justification about what issue you have with Britannica's statement. You claimed they sometimes make errors, yet have failed to point out any such error concerning Britannica's statement on Tipu. Maestro2016 (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me you don't like the sources that fail to fit with your point of view, and I don't understand why you're suddenly clutching at WP:UNDUE, this is not minority viewpoint. The sources you have been given look reliable to me and furthermore, I can't find any evidence that the authors you mention are anymore scholarly or better qualified to offer an opinion. You don't appear to be interested in writing a balanced article so I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.--Ykraps (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The number of scholarly citations is representative of scholarly consensus, i.e. the majority of scholars agree with them, hence majority viewpoint. Also, explain how the following statement from Enyclopedia Britannica is not "balanced":

"Tippu was an able general and administrator, and, though a Muslim, he retained the loyalty of his Hindu subjects. He proved cruel to his enemies and lacked the judgment of his father, however."

This is a neutral statement, generally representative of scholarly consensus, yet you and Geunineart reject it without any valid reason, indicating to me that neither you nor Geunineart have any interest in neutrality. Maestro2016 (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Firstly, citing a particular source is no indication that you agree with it. Secondly, what I said about the excerpt from Britannica was that it was opinion and "opinions should not be presented as facts". The other problem with Britannica online is that it can be edited by all and sundry. Thirdly, here are some examples of your POV editing -

"The authenticity of these accounts have been debated by historians, some deeming them to either be unreliable, fabricated, or untrustworthy".[[15]]

As far as I’m aware, some authors (not all are historians) suggest that British colonial accounts may have been made up to justify their war with Tipu. You are saying that they think the accounts were definitely made up. You are also saying that all accounts of his atrocities were fabricated, but the sources only question British accounts.

Here you try to reinforce your claim that all references to the Tipu’s atrocities are made up. You also imply that only the British made such allegations but as you now know, others have also had negative things to say about him. [[16]]

Here you use a single source to say that he significantly improved the economy and living standards in Mysore[[17]] but fail to mention that others claim it was virtually bankrupt and that Tipu had squandered his wealth warring with other princely states. See for example: India for the Indians--and for England by William Digby, Indian history and culture, Volume 2 by B. S. L. Hanumantha Rao and K. Basaveswara Rao, Selections from history of Tamilnadu, 1565-1965 by K. Rajayyan, and The History and Culture of the Indian People: The Maratha supremacy by Ramesh Chandra Majumdar.

Do you have any examples of my POV editing?--Ykraps (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)--Ykraps (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, what you are proposing about not presenting opinions as facts applies to virtually every source cited. You cannot just single out a source you disagree and not do the same for sources you agree with. And secondly, as I've already explained above several times, I was not aware of the Portuguese or French accounts at the time, nor did the article mention anything about bankruptcy, therefore your POV accusations against me are unfounded. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not my proposal, it is the proposal of WP:NPOV, and secondly, POV editing out of ignorance is still POV editing.--Ykraps (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Whitewashed, isint there a controversy about how the indian goverment is having his potrait as an Arian in the state published school books, like actually washing him as white, regardless of his crimes. Should a section be added on how he is being portrayed by different publishing bodies in the culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.165.209 (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tipu Sultan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tigerandthistle.net/tipu315.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://portal.kinnigoli.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28:sarasvatis-chi.
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060825074241/http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/asia/object_stories/Tippoo's_tiger/index.html to http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/asia/object_stories/Tippoo's_tiger/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Gauravsarai edits

I'm reverting all the edits made by Gauravsarai because, unfortunately, they appear to be guided by their own opinions and motivations (see the edit summaries) rather than on a dispassionate reading of history. For example, Tipu Sultan's rule was like Talibani rule, warlord is a better term, Why not add all the world events here which happened during Tipu's childhood, emoving content without reference (whole of article looks biased with repeated mention of Tipu making Mysore an invincible power), looks like this article will end up giving him credit for creation of Justice league as well. This is unfortunate because some of their edits are probably good ones but, in a volunteer environment like this one, it is impossible to separate the good ones from the bad ones. I urge Gauravsarai to discuss their edits here on the talk page, get consensus, and then make changes. --regentspark (comment) 01:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes a lot of his edits were really good ones, I will find some time to restore them. But there are also other edits that are really not enough and he will have to provide reliable sources on talk page for disputing them. Geunineart (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Freedom fighter

QUOTE: Tipu Sultan was one of the first Indian kings to be killed on the battlefield while defending his Kingdom against the Colonial British. END OF QUOTE.

Tipu was supported in his freedom fight by the French and Italians, in his fight for saving India from the British. It is high time the government of India declared Sultan Tipu, the French and the Italians as the first freedom fighters of India. Tippu's French General Lally should be given a place of honour in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D388:1EE8:D9BC:7E1B:9240:64CF (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2018

AzharInamdar (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Summary style in the lead

@SahbBrit: The lead is meant to be written in summary style. Avoid peacock terms ("described to be one of the most powerful kings"), include only material that is discussed in the article ("rockets" are the only innovation discussed), etc. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section for help. Best. --regentspark (comment) 20:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• I understand, but since they are sourced i think it is okay. Pls don#t undo the entire edit, remove whatever necessary.--SahbBrit (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  Being sourced is not enough. "since they are sourced i think it is okay" is an inane argument. In the degenerate case, the entire article would be one long single paragraph.--regentspark (comment) 23:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Relevant sections should be added to the body of the article to discuss the info in the lede (e.g. Mysore silk, calendar, coins etc) in more detail. Khestwol (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Reversions

{{Help me}} I believe these reversions were unnecessary: Special:Diff/908539869 and Special:Diff/908540114

I am sure we can cite references for them instead of removing them. Please re-insert them. Thanks!- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.248.124 (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This can be cited as a reference: www.deccanherald.com/amp/state/karnataka-politics/bjp-govt-orders-cancellation-of-tipu-sultan-jayanti-750690.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.248.124 (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Chewings72. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Khestwol.... please re-insert what was removed as requested above!

It was celebrated for 2years and subsequently when they came to power the BJP cancelled the celebrations, earlier this year as cited in the reference above! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.248.124 (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

so it will not be celebrated this year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.248.124 (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I have restored the section, Tipu Sultan Jayanti, and added the source. Khestwol (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Krishna Raja Sagara dam

The previous Chief Minister, Siddaramaiah, claimed that Tipu Sultan laid foundation for the Krishna Raja Sagara dam [18]. If this is correct, and can be backed by reliable sources, then we should add the info here and in the main article about the dam. Khestwol (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I added the info in the Economy section. Khestwol (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Reversion by Bbb23

Bbb23 you reverted my edit here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/917673642 However, the cited reference does mention it, so please restore it!— Ritchie11 (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Please use a normal diff, not a mobile diff. Both your edits to the article were vandalism. You're a hair's breadth from being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Tipu's religious policies in the intro vs contents: WP:DUE is missing

The article's contents discuss Tipu's religious policies in great detail. Around 3200 words of the total 9000 words in the contents is regarding this. Giving it a single line (20 words out of 450 words) in the intro is not giving the topic enough due. We need atleast a paragraph summarising it.

There was one such paragraph since November 2018 as you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tipu_Sultan&oldid=869690230. This edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tipu_Sultan&oldid=917085559 done in September 2019 has removed it without a talk, giving the reason "move text below to its section". The paragraph was removed from the intro and moved inside the section "Religious policy". The edit misses the point. The point is that the para needs to be in the intro as well that will act as a summary of what is discussed in the contents.

I propose restoring the para, the second para under "Religious policy" to the intro with appropriate edits. Edithgoche (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Edithgoche

In my opinion, a good summary is given in the last paragraph of the lede: "In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, Tipu Sultan is celebrated as a hero of colonial resistance. However, he has been criticized for his repression of Hindus, Christians and even Muslims for both religious and political reasons." A reader can check out the "Religious policy" section about who these Hindus, Christians and Muslims specifically were. I think it would be wrong to repete the whole religious policy section in the lede rather than the summarization. Also, not everyone criticizes him. Many, including the former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, in fact praise him as an "Indian hero". Khestwol (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

1) It is not a good summary in my opinion. 30% of the article discusses his religious policy and only 4.5% space is alloted for it in the intro. WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE are violated and the intro looks biased, like we are trying to avoid mentioning it in the intro and hiding it under a pile of contents. The religious policy must be given proportionate weight in the intro.

2) The first line of the summary you showed is not regarding religious policy. Only the second line is. A one line summary for a grand 3200 words! Not fair. And it gives only criticism. No mention of other viewpoint.

3)"I think it would be wrong to repete the whole religious policy section in the lede rather than the summarization". I agree. We need something shorter than that in the "Religious policy" but longer than the current line. The below para had been the summary in the intro from Nov 2018 to Sep 2019 (check https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tipu_Sultan&oldid=916590533). We can build from here. The article discusses extensively about his treatment of Kodavas, Nairs and Mangalore Catholics and hence mention must be made in the intro itself. These events are important enough that they have separate wiki articles and this para provides links to them.

'Tipu has been criticized for his repression of Hindus and Christians. Various sources describe the massacres, imprisonment, forced conversion, and circumcision of Hindus (Kodavas of Coorg and Nairs of Malabar) and Christians (Catholics of Mangalore) and the destruction of churches and temples which are cited as evidence for his religious intolerance. Other sources mention the appointment of Hindu officers in his administration and his endowments to Hindu temples, which are cited as evidence for his religious tolerance.'

4)"not everyone criticizes him" I agree. The above para gives both viewpoints, of tolerance and intolerance. We can edit it as appropriate and finalise the summary. Edithgoche (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)EdithGoche

Thanks for your response, Edithgoche, but another question is that to what extent can we trust the sources about religious persecution? The section "British accounts" talks about it: "Historians such as Brittlebank, Hasan, Chetty, Habib, and Saletare, amongst others, argue that controversial stories of Tipu Sultan's religious persecution of Hindus and Christians are largely derived from the work of early British authors (who were very much against Tipu Sultan's independence and harboured prejudice against the Sultan) such as Kirkpatrick and Mark Wilks, whom they do not consider to be entirely reliable and likely fabricated. A. S. Chetty argues that Wilks' account in particular cannot be trusted." I think, even if the lede is expanded, it must be kept neutral. Khestwol (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Khestwol.

1) We don't have to trust any source as the truth. If we write in the style, "Tipu persecuted Kodavas", we are putting our trust in the source and presenting it as a fact, which is POV. We can write in the style, "Some sources say Tipu persecuted Kodavas... which is disputed by others", which is indeed a fact.

2) Not all of the persecutions are disputed.

They were mentioned in British, Indian and French sources. Even the French, an ally of Tipu and enemy of the British have recorded some of them.

If you read the "Persecution of Christians" section, you can see several sources describing the persecution. The only defense I see is, "The Europeans were doing it, hence Tipu also did the same", which did not deny the persecutions took place but presents the acts in a historical context. The Persecution of Mangalore Christians is presented as a fact in the article without any counterview.

3) Even the sources you mentioned did not outright deny the persecutions ever took place but think it could be exaggerated by the British as seen from the words "not entirely reliable" and "likely fabricated". The article notes this point, "Mohibbul Hasan, Prof. Sheikh Ali, and other historians cast great doubt on the scale of the deportations and forced conversions in Coorg in particular. Hassan says that it is difficult to estimate the real number of Coorgis captured by Tipu".

4) "even if the lede is expanded, it must be kept neutral" I agree. The lede needs to be expanded and be neutral. Edithgoche (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Edithgoche

It has been too long and no reply has come. I propose replacing the last line in the lede with this para. "Tipu's religious policy is controversial with some groups proclaiming him a great warrior for the faith or Ghazi, while others revile him for the persecution of Christians and Hindus. During the captivity of Mangalorean Christians he ordered the destruction of 27 churches and imprisoned around 60,000 christians whose release was conditioned on their conversion to Islam. He also imprisoned and forcibly converted Hindus like Kodavas of Coorg and Nairs of Malabar. Some historians cast great doubt on the scale of the deportations and forced conversions. Many sources mention the appointment of Hindu officers in Tipu's administration and his land grants and endowments to Hindu temples, which are cited as evidence for his religious tolerance." Edithgoche (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)edithgoche

Hello. The page also says that Muslims were also persecuted by Tipu Saahib. How can Muslims be persecuted by another Muslim Sultan? It should be that those were Muslims of other branches, such as Shia. Please see correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.81.29 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Kings or kingdoms are always cruel with rebels and kind with loyal. There is no partiality on religion or any other aspects. For example,

1. Tipu had keep a good relationship with Cochin Raja around 25 years (Cochin Raja was hindu, and his people also mostly).
2. Palakkad Raja also had good relationship.
3. Pazhassi, was Hindu king who fought against Tipu, But help from Tipu came to him during War with British.
4. Mangalore Christians had relation with Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan since 1763. (Later Tipu took action against them after they cooperate with British East India Company) Reference
5. Muslim rulers like Nizam, Tipu fight with them. There are more like some Mappilas, Mahadevi Muslims, Savanur Navab etc.
   The thing is not religious, but political.--Irshadpp (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

"There is no partiality on religion"

You cannot make a general statement like this and apply it to all kings. There were some kings who did religious persecution, that is in addition to suppressing political rivals. He suppressed Mappila rebels but DID NOT touch their religion. But when it came to Christian and some Hindu rebel communities he suppressed them, just like any king would, but he also forcibly converted them to Islam. Most kings didn't do that to rebels. Tipu imprisoned Mangalore christians and said he would release them only if they converted to Islam. He forcibly converted and circumcised (an Islamic practice) Nairs and Kodavas. These are clearly religious persecutions.

Edithgoche (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Your statement is mainly WP:OR. You can't use your personal knowledge to dispute what sources say. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Which statement in particular? The lede cites all the sources for the events I mentioned above. Imprisonment of christians mentioned here . They would be released only if they would convert to Islam . Forcible conversions and circumcisions of Nairs and Kodavas . Visit these pages Captivity of Mangalorean Christians, Captivity of Kodavas of Coorg and Captivity of Nair soldiers of Malabar you will get dozens of sources for the religious persecutions. You cannot call cited sources as WP:OR. The lede also gives alternate views which dispute some (Yes, only SOME, not all) of the sources and in my opinion it looks balanced.

• This is way too much detail for the lead. The original text succinctly summarized the content in the body (hero vs religious tyrant) and I'm reverting the new additions. Please obtain consensus here before adding this information to the lead.--regentspark (comment) 17:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello @RegentsPark:, I started this thread in Oct 2020 to obtain the consensus. After a few initial exchanges between me and Khestwol, no one replied for 4 months. I waited for long hoping to build a consensus before I finally made the change in March 2020. What you call as "original text" was infact a "new addition" done by the user Aman Kumar Goel today without consensus. What you call as "new addition" had been there since a couple months [[19]], added by me after talk page discussions. I find your decision to strikedown an old edit added after talks, and to restore a new edit added without talks to be in poor judgment.

If it is too much detail, the current lede is too little detail. Please go through this thread again to see why I think so. In short, the article discusses the religious persecution in great lengths (3000 words, one-third of the article), giving it a one liner in the lede violates WP:DUE. A detailed treatment in the lede itself is justified. For comparison you can see Aurangzeb article which gives a detailed treatment of his religous policy in the lede itself. I request you to restore my edit. Edithgoche (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Edithgoche, there is denial about many things but using apologetic tone to give more weight to denial is itself violation of WP:UNDUE. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

D4iNa4, I don't get what you are saying. Can you elaborate? Edithgoche (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: IMO the problem seems to be not with the lede giving too little space to allegations of religious persecution but with the article giving too much space to the topic.

The section starts off ok outlining the opinon of modern historians that the accounts from the British era were ideologically driven and untrustworthy but then ignores that redflag to provide lengthy quotes and narratives from exactly those dated and unreliable sources. All that needs to be culled.

There are also obvious signs of POV pushing in some places. For example, the first sentence of the Persecution of Christians section is

Tipu is considered to be anti-Christian by several historians.

but the sources are just some random links an editor found by searching for "Tipu hated Christians" and "Tipu anti Christian" on Google books, without regard to what the cited sources actually say. Note, for instance, in one of those cited books the author N. Shyam Bhat critiques the writings (i.e., an unpublished MA thesis) of William X Mascarenhas for their attempt to portray Tipu Sultans policies and actions as "anti-Christian", which Bhat says is "a clear instance of communal historio-graphy". Instead of being rightly read as a critique of the work of writers like Mascarenhas, this is being cited as evidence of Tipu being anti-Chritian just because those words appear in close proximity in Bhat's book!

(TL;DR)  The discussion of Tipu's religious policies in the body of the article needs to be reviewed to be brought in line with wikipedia's sourcing and due weight policies. Abecedare (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the inputs Abecedare. I think the lede is too small and needs to be expanded. Yes, there is POV push in the body like the example you mentioned. "several historians" could be changed to "some historians". But we should not wait for the body to be fully made NPOV inorder to start editing the lede. This should be a parallel process.

There are Indian, British and French (an ally of Tipu, they have no motive to fabricate) sources which mention the captivity of Mangalore Christians. Farias 1999 says that Tipu wrote in Sultan-ul-Tawarikh that he made 60,000 Christians captives. A French Priest Abbe Dubois also the puts the number at 60,000. Barcoor Manuscript, written in Kannada by a Mangalorean Catholic from Barcoor after his return from Seringapatam writes that 20,000 of them died on the march to Seringapatam due to hunger, disease, and ill treatment by the soldiers. Given the wide variety of sources including the French, and that they give similar accounts, and that these sources are not all disputed, the persecution of Christians must be a taken as a fact (all these sources treat them as facts), not an allegation, and given a mention in the lede. Edithgoche (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The lede as it stands now has a false claim. "he has been criticized for his repression of...Muslims". I have two problems with this.

1) There is one line (repeated twice) in the body mentioning the clamping down of muslims. Including it in the lede is WP:UNDUE Contrast it to the treatment of Christians and Hindus which has several paras in the body and hence must be included.

2) There is a "mention" of Tipu clamping down on muslims. "Mention" is not the same as "criticism" which is defined in dictionary.com as "the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything". I don't see any source criticising the clamping down of muslims. While in case of Christians and Hindus, there are sources describing him/his acts as "bigoted", "religious fanatic", "oppression", and hence we can apply the label "criticism" to it. Edithgoche (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe the recent addition to the lede is based on some poor sources and, in particular, ends up misrepresenting Farias 1999 by citing the work for alleged "persecution of Christians" while ignoring what is the central point of the book, which as far as I know is that Tipu did not persecute the Christians qua their being Christians. See Lokesh 2008 (I haven't read Farias 1999 myself):

Kranti Farias, another writer 'with roots from South Kanara', discusses the issue of captivity in his interesting work on the Christian Impact in South Kanara. Tipu accused the Christians of betrayal for their support of the British general at Mangalore and so in retaliation they had to be dealt with firmly. He does not accept the view of William Mascarenhas and others when they say that Tipu was clearly actuated by motives of bigotry and made use of a convenient political pretext to justify his high handedness on the occasion when Mangalore fell into his hands. Farias's conviction was that what Tipu considered as treason is understandable and he dealt with the Christians as any other suzerain would... Farias argues that Tipu's action was motivated by political exigencies of the time

Lokesh also discuses several other sources on the subject of the "captivity" and why many (even modern) sources cannot be taken at face value. For clarity, I should note that I am not claiming that Farias' interpretation is "true" or the only valid one. My point is rather that writing about this topic will require careful analysis of source quality, which is best done on the article talkpage.

Genuine questions: what would be the two or three best modern histories (either journal articles; or books by academic historians published by, and reviewed in, academic press) of Tipu Sultan's rule and, in particular, his religious policies? Looking those up would help us decide on the question of proper relative weight but given the amount of cruft in the article's References and Further reading sections, I wasn't able to pinpoint any obvious contenders at a quick glance. Abecedare (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the lede misrepresented Farias. Farias writes in p.74,

The Christians were divided into battallions of 500 each, named Risalas, and placed under the command of Muhammedan officers. Of these four battallions stationed at Seringapatam and in the surrounding country were forced to become Muhammedan, or as Tipu himself says were ultimately honoured with the distinction of "Islam".

In p.75,

Thus by the year 1784 Christianity was practically wiped out in Kanara. The religious life both in Kanara and elsewhere in Tipu's kingdom was deplorable and Abbe Dubois is most critical of the Christians taken into captivity and does not spare them. He refers to the ceremony of circumcision that the Christians were subjected to and harshly condemns them saying that not a single one among so many thousands had the courage to confess his faith under those trying circumstances and become a martyr to his religion.

In p.77, under the heading "Deplorable state of Christianity in Kanara"

Tipu ordered the destruction of the Churches in Kanara, which then numbered 27, which included the Rosario and Milagres Churches in Mangalore.

This is much more than a political suppression of treasoning people. Were Tipu's actions motivated politically? Yes, I don't deny that as there are sources that attest to that. Do they have elements of religious persecution? Again, yes, but you seem to be denying it while many sources including Farias attest to forced conversions, marriage and circumcision and some sources condemn the same. It is not either this or that. It can be BOTH political and religious at the same time.

I don't see any source denying the forced conversions and circumcisions. The excerpt you gave from Lokesh gives an interpretation of why Tipu had targeted the Christians. It doesn't touch on the methods (conversions, circumcisions, imprisonment) and argue that all the sources were fabricated.

A French source mentions the forced circumcision of thousands of Christians. Still not a religious persecution? Edithgoche (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

While some sources like Lokesh give political reasons for Tipu targeting the Christians, other sources give religious reasons. In the book Sarasvati's Children: A History of the Mangalorean Christians by Alan Machado Prabhu, he quotes Tipu saying,

"to spare them was mercy, to honour them with Islam a favour. No fault being imputed except them being Christians." This in fact is what Tipu himself affirms as the reason for their arrest and exile in the official account, "Among the memorable events of this wonderful year, was the making Mussulmans of the Nazarene Christians..."

Thus we can agree that the reasons for Tipu's captivity are disputed with some sources citing political and others citing religious reasons.

Regardless of the exact reasons, during the course of 15 years, the captivity took on religious dimensions as attested by multiple sources. The French source mentioned by Farias is strong, simply because it is French and I don't see any refutation for it. Edithgoche (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to increase the size of lead. It presently states the facts about him, and should be left as is. WP:DUE would still apply even you have issues with other sections. Hermann Mogling and Karnataka State Gazetteer are not WP:HISTRS. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: We can cut short other parts in the lead like the treaty with Marathas which goes into unnecessary detail for a lede, but we have to expand on the religious part, inorder to keep the lede as a whole concise. Let me give reasons.

1) Article body devotes 3000/9000 words for religious policy and the lede devotes a mere one liner, in 20/450 words. Religious policy is massively under-treated in the lede, WP:DUE is violated. It raises questions, What are we trying to hide in the lede?

2) lede must reflect the body as close as possible. A casual reader who reads the one-liner in the lede will end up thinking that the article doesn't treat the religious policy in detail, which is not the case. We would be misleading the reader.

3) Aurangzeb article treats a similar issue, in a balanced manner. We need to move along those lines. Edithgoche (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I propose adding the following para to the intro. @RegentsPark: don't censor this again citing "too much detail". This is necessary to restore WP:DUE and in line with other articles like Aurangzeb.

"Tipu's religious policy is controversial. He is criticized for the destruction of churches and captivity of 60,000 Mangalorean Christians, whose release was conditioned on their conversion to Islam. He is also criticized for subjecting the Hindu rebels like the Kodavas of Coorg and Nairs of Malabar to forced conversions, circumcisions, torture and death. Some historians cast doubt on the scale of the deportations and forced conversions. He is applauded as a tolerant ruler for the appointment of Hindu officers in his administration and his land grants and endowments to Hindu temples" Edithgoche (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Ongoing edit war

A note to interested parties. I just reverted an addition, because it is using language like 'butchered mercilessly' and 'fiendish carnage' - that sort of flowery language has no space in an encyclopedia article. We should be using neutral, factual language. Please stop reverting each other, and start discussing the content and the sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

​I wouldn't go so far as to call it an edit war, but I guess it's a moot point now since the other editor has now been blocked for a week. The summary of their most recent edit wasn't the first time they had verbally abused another editor, which was part of the reason they had received their first block. In regards to your comment on the Admin noticeboard, my reporting of them as a vandal was a mistake which I will try to avoid in the future. Thank you.
Alivardi (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)