Jump to content

Talk:Isa Khan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moved section

[edit]

moved this redundant information here. altaf 05:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Bangla was a very crucial area for the outcomers and Bhuiyans always tried to keep it independent. Isa brilliantly resisted Mughal aggression and succeeded in maintaining his independence against the Mughal onslaughts for a quarter of a century. Emperor Akbar failed to establish his authority over the Bhati region during the lifetime of Isa Khan.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.altaf.rahman (talk • contribs) 05:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

more info :

It would not be an exaggeration to designate him as one of the national heroes in recognition of the heroism which he demonstrated to preserve the regional sovereignty of Bengal in a transitional phase of her history.


Remove irrelevant image

[edit]

The following image of Panam City is irrelevant in this article. Panam City was established in around mid 1800s, at least 250 years after the death of Isa Khan (1599 CE). Until a suitable image is found, the photo is removed from the article. altaf 22:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.altaf.rahman (talk • contribs) 22:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Bhara Buiyans?

[edit]

correct me if im wrong, by checking Baro Bhuiyans it seems they divided to 2 groups, Adi Buyans and western group. which one was led by Isa Khan?Ahendra (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isa Khan. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administration

[edit]

I removed the section because the only source given pointed to Bengali ballads. It would be interesting to find out all the regions under Isa Khan's control (particularly for the Kingdom of Bhati article, where it makes more sense), but this list is neither complete nor reliable. For example, it doesn't mention areas in Jessore (which fell under Isa Khan's reign, according to the Jesuits) Additionally, the notion of Isa Khan's submission to Akbar is not supported by most sources, which maintain that he refused to travel to Agra despite an invitation. All reliable sources note Akbar's failure to conquer Isa Khan's dominion, which happened under Jahangir.--F2416 (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isa Khan. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan / Rajput background

[edit]

@Noorullah21: @Sutyarashi:
Opening this discussion re the potential Bais Rajput background of the article subject as I notice there is back and forth editing in the recent page history.

I believe its a mistake to omit all mention of the potential Rajput background which seems to have been the case recently. A cursory search reveals a large number of publications which appear to be RS discussing this (perhaps more so than appears for an Afghan background?) Among these is The Zamindars and Nawabs of Bengal by Samir Ganguli, which Noorullah21 used as a reference here, though oddly as a citation for Khan being Afghan, despite the cited page actually discussing him being Rajput.

I suggest replacing the article sentence in question with the below. Note that the reference is RS (the author is Atul Chandra Roy, who was Professor of Islamic History and Culture at Calcutta University for three decades until the 90s) and mentions the origins of both alleged background theories.

In his Ain-i-Akbari, Abu'l Fazl refers to Isa Khan as Afghan, though conversely in the Akbarnama assigns a Rajput origin, specifically of the Baiswaras of Oudh. The latter background is mirrored in a family tradition noted by James Wise that Isa Khan's father had been a Bais Rajput named Kalidas Gajdani, who received the title Sulaiman Khan upon converting to Islam.[1]

Alivardi (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source of Samir Ganguli states:
"Isa Khan Masnad-i-Ali was an Afghan Bhuinya..." -- They show a depiction of his family tree stating that his grandfather (?) Bhagirath was a Kshatriya Rajput. [1]
I don't want to use earlier sources like Abu Fazl since more reliable WP:RS secondary sources clearly push forward the idea of an Afghan origin -- especially complying with WP:AGEMATTERS, scholarly secondary sources are preferred.
James Wise would also be against WP:RAJ. If there's any notion of reliable secondary sources that can be added further providing information on his family background, then we can definitely add more.
"Note that the reference is RS (the author is Atul Chandra Roy, who was Professor of Islamic History and Culture at Calcutta University for three decades until the 90s) and mentions the origins of both alleged background theories."
Can you cite it for further evaluation? Noorullah (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noorullah21
Re the Ganguli source, could you please clarify what you're interpreting this page is saying? It extensively discusses his Baiswara Rajput grandfather and his Hindu-to-Muslim convert father.
Re Abu'l Fazl and James Wise, neither of these works are cited by the suggested insert. The citation is for the secondary source by Roy. The use of secondary sources is discussed in WP:AGEMATTERS: "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."
Re Atul Chandra Roy:
"Prof. Atul Chandra Roy , who was with the Department of Islamic History and Culture , Calcutta University , for more than 30 years , retired in 1996 and joined the Asiatic Society as a Research Professor . He died in 1997 ."
(P.T. Nair, 'Decline of Persian Studies in Calcutta.' Indo-Iranica Vol.52, p.38)
Alivardi (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alivardi actually Ganguli is not a historian at all. Hence I have removed it. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your assessment of Roy, he is an established historian. His source can be included in the article. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked, I agree with Sutyarashi, Roy can be added. Noorullah (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
​​Re-opening this discussion due to recent edits regarding this topic by Noorullah21 here, here and here. Pinging the previous participants.
@Noorullah21 I'm confused about the edit summary you posted here. Are you arguing that a Raj-era source should not be cited unless it is via a reliable secondary source such as Roy's? If that is what you're saying, I'm inclined to agree, and that is why the latter had been the case in the passage we agreed to above. Could you please therefore clarify why it had been removed in your edit?
Re these edits, I can see you added the sentence "Modern scholarship cites that Isa Khan was of Afghan origin". This information is not mentioned in any of the citations you added, but rather appears to be a conclusion which you have drawn yourself based on sources you have searched up. As editors we cannot do this, especially since it can be suggested that we are cherry-picking sources to support a particular narrative. Also, I am not seeing a mention on page 176 of the Roy source that calls Isa Khan an Afghan. Could you please clarify.
And for future reference, if there was more you wanted to add following a recently agreed to consensus, I would advise doing so via the existing discussion in the Talk Page, rather than in the summaries of edits pushed through in spite of it. Alivardi (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Could you please therefore clarify why it had been removed in your edit?" -- Because roy didn't cite the WP:RAJ individual (on the page), that is why I removed it.
Modern scholarship as in WP:RS secondary sources seem to all state Isa Khan was of Afghan origin. You're right though it should be rephrased.
"Also, I am not seeing a mention on page 176 of the Roy source that calls Isa Khan an Afghan. Could you please clarify." -- Thanks for bringing this up, I actually didn't notice this until now..but this was a different Roy I was citing. -- Meant to be citing this: [2]. Will fix that. Noorullah (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
​Roy does refer to him? Page 50 of the cited source as had been mentioned in the reference.
Regarding modern scholarship, this would still be your own evaluation and therefore cannot be included in the article. And it would be an inaccurate conclusion regardless, please see below:
My recommendation would be to restore the section to the state it had been at the time of our earlier consensus. Alivardi (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alivardi These all refer to his father as a Rajput, is there on the contrary calling him a Rajput?
If there is then this can be split into...
Some sources say he was of (x) origin, while other sources state he was (x)... Noorullah (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the ping: I agree with Alivardi that the statement Modern scholarship cites that Isa Khan was of Afghan origin is original research, as neither the sources cited state so nor all sources agree upon the Afghan origins for Isa Khan. Furthermore, the Afghan mentions are all one-liner without going into any further details, while those for Bais Rajput origins shed significantly more light upon his ancestry. The version as of 27 May nicely covered the both theories; although what Noorullah21 proposed can be considered as well. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also notable that out of the three sources for Afghan theory, only one actually deals with history of Bengal, unlike the sources provided by Alivardi above. We should go with what historians specialising in the field consider more probable. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
​​Personally, I fail to see how the 27 May edit does not cover what Noorullah21 is suggesting. It states there are diverging claims for his background; one saying he was of Rajput origin (i.e. referring to his paternal ancestry which the sources discuss). The other that he was Afghan. It also specifically names the contemporary sources which made both these claims. Alivardi (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alivardi @Sutyarashi Yup, after looking above in the previous response I mentioned it should definitely be changed, but now we are just focusing on agreeing to what.
One where is states "Some sources state that Isa Khan has (x) origin, while others suggest a (x) origin."
Or the previous version. I don't like the previous origin because it cites a British surgeon which isn't cited on its own and cites it alongside Roy, who doesn't state anything about the Surgeon ? (from what I know).
Thus the surgeon alone would be WP:RAJ.
But the reason I suggest my version (not the modern scholarship one, I mean the one I'm suggesting), is that it is more clear and concise and then it moves onto what the contemporary sources say. The secondary sources should in my opinion at least, always go above. Noorullah (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
​​No primary sources are used as references. Wise (or "the Surgeon") was cited via Roy, a secondary source. All information cited from Wise was through Roy's publication. Roy relayed this information without naming any concerns about it nor any caveats. What appears to be the ultimate concern here is whether the Professor had adequately evaluated Wise as a valid source to have done this? Alivardi (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alivardi Check Roy's source, theres 0 mention of James Wise (the surgeon). [3] Noorullah (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind that. The main concern here is the communication and that Roy shouldn't be the only source used, it'd be more appropriate to have it, as all pages similarly do when origins are disputed, to lead with
Some sources state (x) origin, and others say so and so. Noorullah (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
​Before we continue this discussion further, could you please confirm what exactly you are proposing this section should say? Could you please write it out? Alivardi (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

​ In my opinion, the background section can be written as:

There is dispute over the origins of Isa Khan. According to one tradition, his grandfather Bhagirat was a Bais Rajput from Oudh who came to Bengal in search of fortune. His father Sulaiman, originally named Kalidas Gajdani, converted to Islam and carved out a principality in Bhati. According to some other historians, Isa Khan was an Afghan  – with statement of Abu'l Fazl following.

Let me know what you think of this version. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

​​This seems good! Though I'd make an adjustment re Abu'l Fazl:
There is dispute over the origins of Isa Khan. According to one tradition, his grandfather Bhagirat was a Bais Rajput from Oudh who came to Bengal in search of fortune. His father Sulaiman, originally named Kalidas Gajdani, converted to Islam and carved out a principality in Bhati. According to another account, Isa Khan was an Afghan; Abu'l Fazl, in his Ain-i-Akbari, calls him "Isa Afghan", though in the Akbarnama assigns the Bais Rajput origin.
Alivardi (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
​ all right then. You can proceed with the agreed version. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
​Thank you. Let's first wait for @Noorullah21's input. Alivardi (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alivardi@Sutyarashi Yup I'm good with that. Noorullah (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
​​Thank you both, now updated. Alivardi (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Roy, Atul Chandra (1968). History of Bengal: Mughal Period (1526-1765). Kolkata: Nababharat Publishers. p. 50.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isa_Khan&oldid=1230043590"