User talk:Talhachaudhary1111

May 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Zamindar. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 17:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Zamindar, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Do not add unsourced content. If you want to list Arain, use a WP:HISTRS compliant post British Era source per WP:RAJ which explicitly mentions "Arains as Zaminders", and only mention it once alongwith other castes in the lead. The article is not about Arains, so you don't need to add all these extra things about Arain. Which, if necessary and well sourced, should be restricted to Arain article only. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks for calrification Talhachaudhary1111 (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Ratnahastin (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Ratnahastin (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello, I'm Flemmish Nietzsche. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Bahmani Sultanate seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Flemmish Nietzsche,

Thank you for your message. I understand the importance of maintaining a neutral point of view on Wikipedia. I made the edit based on the research of S.A.Q. Hussaini and Dr. K.R. Qanungo, who have provided detailed evidence in their works that Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah was from the Gango clan of Punjabi Arain, rather than Afghan or Turk. These sources are from reputable scholars and have been included in academic curricula, such as at Deccan University.

You can check this book on Google Books: Bahman Shāh, the Founder of the Bahmani Kingdom - Abdul Qadir Husaini (Saiyid.) - Google Books

or from Archive Library: Bahman Shah: Husaini, S.A.Q.: Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming: Internet Archive

You can also check this book from official website of Govt. Of India (India Culture): Bahman Shah: The Founder of the Bahmani Kingdom | INDIAN CULTURE

The information I added was intended to reflect this scholarly perspective and was not meant to be biased. I can provide specific references from these works to ensure the content is well-sourced and in line with Wikipedia's guidelines.

If there is a concern about neutrality, I am open to discussing how we can present this information alongside other viewpoints to maintain a balanced and informative article.

Best regards,

Talha Chaudhary Talhachaudhary1111 (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Flemmish Nietzsche,

Thank you for your message. I understand the importance of maintaining a neutral point of view on Wikipedia. I made the edit based on the research of S.A.Q. Hussaini and Dr. K.R. Qanungo, who have provided detailed evidence in their works that Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah was from the Gango clan of Punjabi Arain, rather than Afghan or Turk. These sources are from reputable scholars and have been included in academic curricula, such as at Deccan University.

You can check this book on Google Books: Bahman Shāh, the Founder of the Bahmani Kingdom - Abdul Qadir Husaini (Saiyid.) - Google Books

or from Archive Library: Bahman Shah: Husaini, S.A.Q.: Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming: Internet Archive

You can also check this book from official website of Govt. Of India (India Culture): Bahman Shah: The Founder of the Bahmani Kingdom | INDIAN CULTURE

The information I added was intended to reflect this scholarly perspective and was not meant to be biased. I can provide specific references from these works to ensure the content is well-sourced and in line with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Talhachaudhary1111 (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the source you used isn't reliable or isn't academic, but it is nevertheless only one source. Saying in wikipedia's voice that the definite origin of Zafar Khan is "Punjabi Arain", which is somewhat of a fringe view, gives undue weight to only one view of the many held by scholars; removing any source which says something other than what Hussaini says, which you have done, is disruptive editing; what one source confidently says does not outweigh what other equally reliable and academic sources say which contradicts Hussani's writing. Wikipedia in it's own voice should not be saying at all what Zafar Khan's origin was, only what the various views on what his origin is are. The way the text was, only stating Hussaini's view among the many others, is fine. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Flemmish Nietzsche,

Thank you for your clarification. I understand the importance of representing all scholarly views and maintaining a neutral point of view. My intention was not to give undue weight to any single perspective but to ensure that the view presented by S.A.Q. Hussaini and Dr. K.R. Qanungo, which is also academically credible, is included.

I propose adding a line that acknowledges the different scholarly opinions on Zafar Khan's origin. For example, we could write something like:

"Scholars have different opinions about Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah's origin. While some sources suggest he was of Afghan or Turkic origin, S.A.Q. Hussaini and Dr. K.R. Qanungo argue that he was from the Gango clan of Punjabi Arain."

This would provide a more balanced representation of the varying views. I'm happy to work on integrating this information in a way that aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Best regards, Talhachaudhary1111 (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding my perspective. I agree with the need to present a balanced view that includes all scholarly opinions. Since the article already mentions Turk and Afghan origins, it would only be fair and balanced to also include the perspective of S.A.Q. Hussaini and Dr. K.R. Qanungo, who argue that Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah was from the Gango clan of Punjabi Arain.

Including this view will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the different scholarly interpretations regarding his origin, ensuring that the article reflects the diversity of opinions in the academic community. This will enhance the neutrality of the article and ensure that all significant perspectives are represented.

I suggest we include a sentence like:

"Some scholars suggest that Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah was of Turk or Afghan origin, while others, including S.A.Q. Hussaini and Dr. K.R. Qanungo, argue that he was from the Gango clan of Punjabi Arain."

This way, we can maintain balance and provide readers with a fuller picture of the historical debate.

Best regards, Talhachaudhary1111 (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding my perspective. I agree with the need to present a balanced view that includes all scholarly opinions. Since the article already mentions Turk and Afghan origins, it would only be fair and balanced to also include the perspective of S.A.Q. Hussaini and Dr. K.R. Qanungo, who argue that Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah was from the Gango clan of Punjabi Arain.

Including this view will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the different scholarly interpretations regarding his origin, ensuring that the article reflects the diversity of opinions in the academic community. This will enhance the neutrality of the article and ensure that all significant perspectives are represented.

I suggest we include a sentence like:

"Some scholars suggest that Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah was of Turk or Afghan origin, while others, including S.A.Q. Hussaini and Dr. K.R. Qanungo, argue that he was from the Gango clan of Punjabi Arain."

This way, we can maintain balance and provide readers with a fuller picture of the historical debate.

Best regards, Talhachaudhary1111 (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, S.A.Q actually argued against the assertion that he was a Punjabi Qango, even refuting Dr. Qanungo’s claims.

“ Dr. Qanungo’s line of argument appears to be sound ; but the assumption that Hasan or some ancestor of his might have been a convert to Islam is not backed by any evidence. According to Firishtah, he was the nephew of zafar Khan, the great general of ‘Ala’u ’d-Din and a brother of ‘All Shah”. Pg 60

“For the reasons given above, the contention of Dr. Qanungo that Hasan was a Hindu convert or the descendant of a Hindu convert belonging to the Punjabi clan known as the Qango is untenable. There is overwhelming evidence to prove that he claimed to be a descendant of Bahman, son of Isfandiyar, as witnessed by contemporary evidence and the testimony of later writers.” Pg 61

“It is true that there have been cases in which new converts to Islam have carved out kingdoms in India. But Hasan’s case is one in which the old Muslim officers had the option of choosing him or some one else ; and the proud foreign Muslims would not have normally chosen a new convert or his offspring. Further, the marriage of Bahman Shah’s son with the daughter of Qadi (Malik) Sayfu ’d-Din Ghurl 0 is another fact to be taken into consideration. No proud old Muslim of Malik Sayfu ’d-DIn’s standing would have consented to give his daughter to a new convert’s son or descendant. Bahram Khan MazandaranI the first was the sister’s son of Bahman. This establishes the fact that long before Hasan became the Sultan, his family had matrimonial relationship with Muslim families of Central Asia“. Pg 60-61

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.532600/page/n83/mode/1up?view=theater

There’s a lot more detail and he’s added MANY more reasons why this theory is largely untenable, part of which I quoted on the talk page Bahmani Sultanate but I’d recommend reading the full chapter of his book to get an idea of how unlikely this assertion is.

This is also something that’s mentioned on the wiki article itself. So I’m not sure what made you think that S.A.Q Hussaini agrees with this claim. Someguywhosbored (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Axedd. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Axedd (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for replying , i will give you authentic proofs where Bhutto's are written Arain Talhachaudhary1111 (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]