Talk:Hemu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

117.198.127.131 edits[edit]

You have removed well sourced matters from the page. Also broke a description in to 3 paras and demand 3 citations. The para is one in the book, why demand 3 citations? Why did you remove disambuagation of Shah Kuli Khan without citing any reason. Such deletions spoil the page 117.198.127.131 (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The above is a copy of the message left on my talk page by talk--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@117.198.127.131: You have attempted to merge unsourced content into a sourced quote. If you believe that the unsourced content is part of the sourced quote, please provide proof. Looking at the history of this section, it looks unlikely. You have also linked Shah Quli Khan to Narnaul for some unexplained reason. Therefore, please explain and convince the other editors here of your edit before re-adding it. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I have not merged the three paras without reason. Please see your own reference section reference is given at the end also, at the end of the second part, which you segregated in three paras. Also Shah Kulin Khan was the commander of Akbar/Bairam Khan in second Battle of Panipat-1556, who could locate the unconcious Hemu on his elephant and presented Hemu to Akbar for beheading. For this job, Akbar had made Shah Kulin Khan as the Governor of Narnaul area who constructed many structures there, still in good condition.117.198.124.230 (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I've checked Sarkar's tome and only the currently quoted passage is in it. The two subsequent paragraphs in this article are not part of the quote and are also not part of that page (paraphrased or otherwise). As for Shah Quli Khan, just because he was the governor of Narnaul doesn't mean that his name should be linked to it; it currently links to the disambiguation page which does mention him. If you'd like to create an article for him, then please go ahead and then adjust the link accordingly.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The entire para I had merged is published on page 26, of the book Hemu-Napoleon of Medieval India, by K.K. Bhardwaj, ISBN 81-7-99-663-5 published by Mittal Publications, New Delhi. You are right that half the para is credited to Sarkar. The other half should be credited to KKBhardwaj then.59.91.218.31 (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────KK Bharadwaj's book is unfortunately not a WP:RS.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
If KKBhardwaj's book is not a WP:RS, there are others who quote similar views. Even KKBhardwaj has quoted other authours extensively. His own interpretations/quotations should not be called unreliable. If reputed books are called unreliable, large number of pages will get wiped off from Wikipedia. Please suggest some mean the copy of those citations which are not on line, can be displayed somewhere or shown. Also please suggest what do you mean by ping. I have no idea how it is done.117.212.127.133 (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are trying to make. If Bharadwaj's book is not a reliable enough source for use on Wikipedia, then it follows that its contents are not either. However, if he is quoting from (or referencing) a reliable source, then it's perfectly fine (and recommended) to check if that source does carry the quotation and reference that directly. (Ping is a synonym of Reply to.)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Capt.a.haddock Appreciate your efforts to streamline the page. But removing John Clark Marshman all together dilutes the page. Also chapter on Hemu's Army is completely removed. Hemu had won 22 battles in entire north India, his constitution of army needs to be explained on the page.117.198.125.200 (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see the section above. I've been unable to verify the Marshman quote. Besides, it's also really dated. (As a general rule of thumb, colonial and pre-colonial sources are to be avoided. This applies to VA Smith as well. Newer reliable sources need to be found where possible.) This section also needs better balance. The section on Hemu's army was not reliably sourced. But I plan to expand the battles section to incorporate some of the elements mentioned in it.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Capt.a.haddock Removal of more than 60% reference books shows that editings are flawed. While Abul Fazal, Badauni are rejected as primary sources at some places, at other places they are quoted prominently. All modern authors are rejected and removed, while many old ones, 100 yrs old, were also removed earlier saying they are old. Para on Coronation is removed all together and matter written now doubts whether Hemu was coronated at all. Those authors who described his coronation and victory are declared unreliable. This is mockery of a page. It does not look neutral at all. It shows Hemu on low esteem. Once the page had all information on Hemu and consisted of more than 30,000 bytes, now it has irrelevent 19000 bytes and has no information on Hemu, the last Hindu Emperor of India, like when was he born? Who was his father?All about his childhood, community and family. This happened because all references which provide this information have been declared unreliable. This page with only 'Biased' references has become unreliable like thousands of other pages on Wikipedia. Wonder these objections will be attended?117.198.131.146 (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Abu'l-Fazl and Bada'uni have not been quoted as primary sources here. They have been used via a secondary source as it is Satish Chandra who quotes (and interprets) them. You are welcome to find modern reliable sources that describe the coronation and include them in the page. The same applies to all the other information that you lament has not been included. I recommend that you familiarise yourself with WP:HISTRS. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Capt.a.haddock What is intriguing is that you have removed all the authors who wrote exclusive books on Hemu or wrote positive about him.Why it is so?117.212.120.232 (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Capt.a.haddock Removal of para on 'Coronation' once again is unwarranted. It has all the relevent secondary citations from European authors while present para As Raja Vikramaditya has some confusing and primary sources. This needs to be replaced.117.198.141.25 (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There are no primary sources being directly cited in the current section. All the quotes by Abu'l-Fazl et al. are from Satish Chandra's book and I've restructured the paragraph to make this explicitly clear. The "secondary citations from European authors" that you refer to are very dated and not recommended when there are newer sources about. Vincent Smith's book is dated to 1917. Wolseley Haig's Cambridge History of India is from 1937 (and not 1965). There have been subsequent Cambridge Histories, one of which by John F. Richards, I have liberally cited in the article. Again, please find modern reliable sources that support whichever bias you are leaning towards and include them. And no, KK Bharadwaj is not one of them.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Capt.a.haddock Splitting the hair of historians won't take us anywhere. I wish other editors to comment on this page. There is nothing wrong with para on Coronation which is removed. However the present para on 'As Raja Vikramaditya'is based on medieval writers is more a POV. (2) Also please clarify if you would mention President Obama as Senator Obama after he leaves office, if not then why in the first sentence of page you write Hemu as Chief Minister and General of Adil Shah, and not Hindu emperor of medieval times in India. He was an independent king when he went to Battle of Panipat on 5th Nov. 1556, and died. Hemu was called Emperor because of 22 wins in entire north India.61.2.109.176 (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, please feel free to point to reliable modern sources that call Hemu an emperor, give primacy to his royal status rather than his position in Adali's court, etc. FWIW, I will be expanding the section in question with additional sources in the next few days. Also, you might also want to familiarise yourself with WP:ILLEGIT.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Capt.a.haddock Mughal authors you have mentioned were rather abusive describing Hemu. They are not neutral authors. However, Abul Fazl despite using derogatories for Hemu, has described Adil Shah/Adli as a debauch and drunkard and Hemu as a defacto king during his rule. He also mentioned that Hemu held all powers in administration, appointments and justice. European authors have rather been neutral and have described Hemu as Emperor. At present time Govt publications or the modern authors write Hemu as medieval time Hindu emperor and several references can be given for that, which may or may not be online. I appreciate your efforts to put facts on the page, which also remains my intention too.117.198.138.92 (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
As above, please support your statements with modern reliable sources. All we know about Hemu is from Mughal sources. And we know and have stated in the first section that they are not neutral. It is also why we avoid using primary sources directly and rely on historians to interpret them instead. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Capt.a.haddock Now that we have several citations on Hemu becoming an independent king after Delhi win and assuming the title of a Vikramaditya king, request you to change the first sentence as "Hemu or Hemu Vikramaditya or Hem Chandra Vikramaditya was a Hindu Vikramaditya king during the medieval period of indian history, when Mughals and Afghans were vying for power in the the entire north India. He was the Prime Minister and Chief of Army of Adil Shah Suri and won 22 battles for him against Afghan rebels and Mughals from Punjab to Bengal ------. Here I may point out that Hemu acted as Prime Minister and Chief of Army of Adil Shah, looking after his entire territory holding all powers in administration, employment and justice as per Abul Fazl. So writing him as a general and chief minister may not be appropriate. (2) Also in para "As a Vikramaditya king", Satish Chandra's views are out of place. His book is entirely based on the four Mughal era historians. While he maintains that none of the Mughal authors has said that that Hemu took independent charge as a king, the same para mentions that Badauni and Nizammudin Ahmed did indeed say that Hemu acquired the Vikramaditya title. This is all confusing. His view are contradicting in the para itself. Please advise59.91.216.15 (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm not sure that you realise that just about all that any of these modern historians know of Hemu comes from the same handful of Mughal-era historians. It's in how they interpret them that they differ because, as you've noted, they are often biased, use excessive hyperbole, or are simply plain wrong. Chandra is not quibbling over whether Hemu took on the title; he is quibbling over whether that implied that he was breaking away from Adil Shah and setting himself up as an independent king. Anyhow, I'll try to make this clearer and I'll also be looking to expand the lead a little bit. Please have a look again then. As for "prime minister" vs. "chief minister" and "general" vs. "chief of army", I'm simply using the terms that the cited historians tend to use to describe Hemu. I don't think either term lowers the importance of Hemu's position in the hierarchy in any way; the article also makes it quite clear that he was the one in charge.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Capt.a.haddock was to make some changes which are vital for this biography as promised above 5 months ago but nothing happens. What is the use of talk page? ping 117.198.137.248 (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hem Chandra Vikramaditya (from Cpt.a.haddock's talk page)[edit]

In July 2016 you wrote on talk page Hemu, that you intend to change the version and improve a bit. What happened Sir? Page is completely biased as of now. Modern authors and Haryana Govt are ignored who name him as Hem Chandra Vikramaditya. Please visit the page and remove anomalies. Talk page has dozens of citations which address him as Hem Chandra Vikramaditya, his complete name. @Cpt.a.haddock:[Special:Contributions/182.68.112.225|182.68.112.225]] (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"Hemchandra Vikramaditya" has been provided as an alternate/popular name in the lead. Scholarly sources name him as Hemu. As for bias, please feel free to cite modern scholarly sources that contend otherwise. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The lead para on this page confirms that Hemu's history was written by his enemies. But you consider Abul Fazal as an eminent writer. Those who read 4 books and written the 5th cannot be eminent writers. New age historians visit places related to him before writing. His Haveli and estates and Temples are now in public domain, but some editors are ignoring the facts and give credence to Hemu's enemies only. This page needs to be rewritten as per new findings. He died after he was coronated as an independent king, but page shows he was the general of Adil Shah. It is like saying Indira Gandhi was an MP in India. If Indira Gandhi is mentioned as one of the PMs of India, Hem Chandra should be written as Last Hindu Emperor of India, rather than General of Adil Shah Suri, who never came out of Chunar fort from 1553 to 1556. Hope good sense prevails! @Cpt.a.haddock: 1.187.125.88 (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
You still have failed to cite any source. Please specify a wp:reliable source i.e. an acceptable academic journal. Specify the name of the journal, volume, issue, month, year, etc. Without this, there will be no changes to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Talk page has many citations on the fact that Hemu was coronated at Purana Kila as a king. He went to fight at 2nd battle of Panipat as an independent king. But you do not write him as a king and mention only as general of Adil Shah on first sentence of this page. Adil Shah was zero as a king, this fact is mentioned even by Abul Fazal in the citations. But you want more citations on Hemu's coronation and title as a king ignoring all the old citations. 173.56.105.239 (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Again, no source. Put the source in this section. See wp:BURDEN - your job, not mine. This repeated request here and on the article edit summaries is at the wp:tendentious editing and WP:LISTEN threshold. Jim1138 (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)