Talk:List of Punjabi Muslims

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Stop adding people with no clear origins.

Stop adding people who have multiple theories of origin as one user is trying to do to push his POV. For instance, Hyder Ali and his son are not identified as Punjabis in mainstream school of history and politics. Their disputed origin is well documented on their respective pages. Stop adding them again and again. CrashLandingNew (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's you who is removing every bit which you call pseudo history. Hyder Ali's ancestry is clearly mentioned with multiple references, though as it is disputed we can remove it. Also, Muzaffar Shah's has no other origin except one cited by André Wink, you were pushing your unsourced POV by repeatedly adding "From Rajputana", while no source stated that.Sutyarashi (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are adding and removing all the references and information which might be not of you liking. Muzaffar Shah's origin also has multiple theories including one from being Rajputana. Stop doing blank reverts with no explanation like you just did by adding multiple names and even adding wrong information for them. What is genealogically Punjabi btw? CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which source, to be precise, says that he was from Rajputana? There is a difference between being Rajput and this. Punjab has also them. Stop edit warring.Sutyarashi (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There you go, the reference Mehta, JL. Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India. ...his family belonged to a Rajput sect of Tonk (Rajputana)
Another reference Abbas, Saiyed Anwar. Confluence of Cultures. Saharan by name, men of wealth and consequence, who belonged to Tanka Tribe of Rajputana CrashLandingNew (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a bare minimum, people included on this list should with all certainty have spoken Punjabi as their mother tongue.
More concerning, however, is the absence of any women on this list. عُثمان (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@عُثمان Indeed, it is unfortunate no women have been listed. One important woman I can think of is Mughlani Begum. ThethPunjabi (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting history, I did not know about her. It should be easy to diversify this page, I just added Noor Jehan عُثمان (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple theories of origin

You cannot add the names of people who have no consensus regarding their origin being Punjabi. A lot of these people have been described as having other ethnic origin as per other theories. CrashLandingNew (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's matter of reliability of source. Ethnicity is a fluid concept, and people can actually identify with more than one ethnicity. Also I'm not aware of any WP policy regarding it. You can remove any individual only if the source cited is unreliable. Sutyarashi (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you've questions regarding reliability of the sources, then post them. Otherwise same individuals are present in the various Wikipedia lists, still no one has raised any question about them. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are relying on an idea about race not ethnicity. And even this is just an opinion, not fact. It's also not relevant here as there are completely different theories of origin for the people under discussion here. The category of their ethnicity is not under discussion but the factual position is. A person regarded as belonging to ethnicity 'A' by various sources and of ethnicity 'B' by others cannot be declared as a person only of ethnicity 'B' on Wikipedia. It's quite obvious, it's misleading for the readers. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We shall invite editors at :Dispute resolution noticeboard to join in the discussion. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you've still any objections after such lengthy explanation, you should go to WP:DR. If talk page remains stale for more than than a week, I would restore the removed bits. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation has not been satisfactory and has been countered. How can you restore it? Building consensus is as much your job as it's for others. You can't restore it without consensus for that would be furthering the edit war in your part. Go and seek opinion to build consensus to add your material on the pages. CrashLandingNew (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ONUS. CrashLandingNew (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed it for third opinion. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Response to third opinion request:
I am using WP:PEOPLELIST to respond to this debate. First some general information. WP:PEOPLELISTS suggests that editors should "document the list selection criteria on the talk page of the list." While this is not essential, it can be helpful when resolving this type of debate in the future. Since there is already debate, I suggest asking for the assistance of [WikiProject Biography to create the criteria. Secondly, all names on this list require a source, not just a mention in their main article. Since most names currently lack a source, I went ahead and added the "Refimprove" notice to the article. WP:PEOPLELISTS also says that "special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion" and refers to WP:BLPLIST. That guideline says: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such)...should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such)...and the subject's beliefs...are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources...Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside."

To apply these policies to this situation: If the people in question are living or have died within the last two years, they should not be included on this list unless they have "publically self-identified" as a Punjabi Muslim. For people who are deceased for longer than two years and historical people, their inclusion or lack of inclusion depends on both the criteria for this list/article (which has yet to be established) and the availability of a reliable source. If there are conflicting sources, this fact may or may not be established, and/or the authors may be making claims that back their political or religious agenda. Thoughtful evaluation of each source will help determine whether or not there is undue bias. Note that a source with bias can still be used as a reference in Wikipedia according to WP:BIASED because it is the Wikipedia article that is supposed to be neutral, not necessarily the reliable sources used. Given the historical nature of some of these individuals, I suspect some of the information about their religious beliefs is the author's educated speculation based on a scholarly review of sources; it is not uncommon for two scholars to have different opinions and does not invalidate using a publication as a source. I see two reasonable solutions when two reliable sources contradict each other: 1) add the person to the list with an explanatory footnote (use the efn template) that says, "Author B says that Person X is not Punjabi but..." This gives the reader added information to clarify the situation 2) Another option is to create a new section for "Historial people believed to be Punjab". An introductory sentence for this section could explain that some scholars have identified the following individuals as Punjabi, but there is yet to be scholarly consensus. The section would accommodate various opinions in academia and also be a quick solution when there are debates. Rublamb (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rublamb, for your reply. The dispute is purely regarding historical personalities. I think having an efn note after such individuals will easily solve the problem, though I'm ok with either of the two options.
Regarding criteria for rest of people, especially for those who're living, perhaps self-identification can be primary criteria. Though I'd ask WP project Biography too. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2nd option is the most feasible, though I still don't understand the urge to add those names. How does adding those name improve the articl? CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because we can't overlook that there exist reliable sources which describe such individuals as Punjabi...like those of William Dalrymple and Richard M. Eaton. By adding a clarifying note after them, it would easily answer the concerns of potentially "misleading" readers. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no overlooking. Those people have their own Wikipedia pages, where the readers can read about their ethnic origin in detail. Also, what's the need to add speculative names. If a person is not identified as Punjabi by everybody or is being called Punjabi just because his ancestors were from Punjab, how can he be called Punjabi? CrashLandingNew (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the names should be individually discussed and a consensus should be achieved by inviting editors who are experts on the issue. CrashLandingNew (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a person being of "Punjabi origin" is very different from being ethnic Punjabi. CrashLandingNew (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any difference between a person of "Punjabi origin" and an "Ethnic Punjabi". Perhaps you should read on Punjabi people. They're a heterogeneous ethnic group.
WP list articles should contain most notable entries. As for your concerns, already a note is added after such individuals, so now you can't say that it's "misleading" others. You're unnecessarily debating here, even after neutral moderation. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are unnecessarily adding people whose ethnicity is not clearly described as Punjabi. Punjabi origin and ethnic Punjabi are not the same, do read the difference between two. A person whose ancestors were settled in Punjab briefly cannot be considered Punjabi it's as simple. CrashLandingNew (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the third opinion. I'm done here debating with you. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ,create a separate section, titled "Historial people believed to be Punjab". No need to debate on that. CrashLandingNew (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said earlier, I don't have any objection over it. Feel free to do so. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sutyarashi you added the name without consensus? Don't you understand the concept of talk page? A new section, "Historial people believed to be Punjab" is the most feasible as I said above and suggested by the third opinion but you don't bother to factor in the opinion of other editors don't you? Create a new section first. Don't engage in the edit war again. CrashLandingNew (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one engage in edit war here.
WP list articles set a criteria, and add individuals according to it. It's impossible to debate on each and every entry.
Well, if you want a separate section, it can be done too. Feel free to add a separate section per their opinion in the article. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add these names then create a section. CrashLandingNew (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For third opinion

For anyone interested in providing third opinion, the specific dispute is about whether individuals who have unclear origins but have been called Punjabi by reliable sources (e.g Khizr Khan, by Richard M. Eaton[1] and Simon Digby[2]) can be included in the article. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Eaton, Richard M. (2019-09-17). India in the Persianate Age: 1000–1765 (First ed.). Oakland: University of California Press. p. 117. ISBN 978-0-520-32512-8.
  2. ^ "After Timur Left: North India in the Fifteenth Century". academic.oup.com. pp. 47–59. Retrieved 2023-09-14. And we find that a Khokhar chieftain, Khizr Khan who was sent to Timur as an ambassador and negotiator from the most adjacent area, the Punjab, ultimately became the power holder in Delhi, thanks to the contacts he had acquired

Inclusion criteria

Following third opinion, I suggest following inclusion criteria:

  • For historical personalities who were born before 20th century, the source cited should be reliable and should describe them as a Punjabi, as well as their link with region of Punjab. In case of any alternative origins, a note should be added.
  • For people born after 20th century, the inclusion should be based upon self-identification as well as a reliable source. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Punjabi_Muslims"