Talk:Hyder Ali

Change Nawab Bahadur Hyder Ali to Sultan Bahadur Hyder Ali

Please change Nawab Bahadur Hyder Ali to Sultan Bahadur Hyder Ali. Because Hyder Ali is known as Sultan Bahadur Hyder Ali not Nawab Bahadur Hyder Ali Gayatri Acharya ERT (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruption

@User:CrashLandingNew instead of manipulating sources or all together changing them, please provide proper citations. Also, add proper page no. as well as quotations in the support of the cited content otherwise it cannot be verified. The previous Bowring source did not mention respective theories and they couldn't be checked due to those incomplete references.Sutyarashi (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop using sources which suit your POV. Bowring sources is clearly defined and mentioned on the page with all the pages marked and link provided, kindly bother to check. If you couldn't check them it's seems a technical glitch on your part and stop deleting sources which states something you do not like, like you did with Navayat citation and information. It has already been observed by others that you have made significant changes on various articles and all those should be reverted to status quo before having discussion for each of them. Stop adding selective information to suit your bias. CrashLandingNew (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems like you didn't even bother to check the references. Anyways, tagged your Nawaiyat reference and also corrected citation per Bowring .Sutyarashi (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of source backed data

Stop removing citations which do not fit in your bias. Hyder Ali has different theories of origin as per different schools. Removing them won't change the history. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I have removed not a single of the claims. Not sure where you saw that. But there is no need to mention every possible path by which they may have come to India separately, this is clearly WP:UNDUE. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not undue. The topic of discussion is his ancestry and it is important to mention the brief of all the sources. Nobody is writing multiple paragraphs here, only few lines. CrashLandingNew (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

No it's making it hackneyed. For example, every reference for his Punjabi origin can be treated separately as they provide varied information, but that will give it undue weight just like your additions. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

What hackneyed? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a magazine. Every detail regarding his origin shall be mentioned here for the readers. Nobody is complaining about the length of the paragraph except you. CrashLandingNew (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Added content about his Punjabi origins too. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit

@CrashLandingNew explain your this revert [1]? Sutyarashi (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The edit summary is self explanatory, did you start a discussion on talk page to seek consensus before making the changes? CrashLandingNew (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

My edit summary was previously more than enough I.e WP:RAJ is not to be used regarding ethnicity. You should read the article on it. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@CrashLandingNew: All edits do not need to be discussed. This is not a requirment of Wikipedia. Rather, editors are encouraged to be "bold" and go ahead and make needed edtis. Discussion comes when someone takes issue with changes made. With few exceptions, it is better to discuss you concers rather than to reverse someone else's changes unless the changes are vandalism, lacks a source, or violates a key aspect of MOS. Rublamb (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Being bold is advisable regarding small changes, isn't it? If an editor, wishes to make an edit regarding correct spelling, proper grammar, or a better layout, then he is advised to be bold but if an editor wants to change the facts of an article, it has to be discussed and a consensus has to be achieved, the onus of achieving such consensus lies on the editor adding new facts. CrashLandingNew (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Unless someone is adding poor quality or unsourced statements, being bold applies on whatever you call "facts", too. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit

@CrashLandingNew most recent scholaristic sources seem to agree with Hyder Ali's origins in Punjab. The sources which mention Arab origins either fall under WP:RAJ or WP:SELFPUBLISH. Now, as I don't want another cycle of reversions, what do you think about earlier mention of his Punjabi origins? Its sources are much more reliable than others, which also doubt his Arab ethnicity. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

You are letting your bias come in the way, for you want to present that Hyder Ali and his famous son were "Punjabis". Hyder Ali is not considered a Punjabi by most historians. It's a theory as per "some" sources. Also, how can you mention sources about his family's Arab origin falling under [[WP:SELFPUBLISH]] but the not ones talking about his so-called Punjabi origin? CrashLandingNew (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

What is wrong with Kate Brittlebank?

Another source " Tipu Sultan's Search for Legitimacy: Islam and Kingship in a Hindu Domain", Kate Brittlebank, Oxford University Press, page 79, "Through Haidar's family, on both his father's and mother's side, Tipu claimed Quraish descent. Haidar's mother was a member of the group of Muslims of Arab origin known as Nawayats, who trace their roots to Nazarbin-Kanana, the progenitor of the family of the Prophet." --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

exactly CrashLandingNew (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear is claiming same as being from one group? Your second source seems to emphasize more on Nawayat origins of his mother, than his father, for which it is mentioned he only "claimed" Quresh origins.

After all, Safavids of Iran too claimed Arab ancestry from Muhammad, and legitimized their rule through this, but we mention this only over the article for dynasty (and with just one line) and not upon Safavid Empire. Ghaznavids claimed descendance from Sassanid Empire, but we mention this in their article by just a single note. Clearly, just claiming is not a marker of one's ethnicity.

I have not seen evidence that proves Claritas publishing is a self-publishing company. And per WP:SELFPUBLISH, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Like Oxford University Press, Modern Asian Studies(Cambridge University).

Kate Brittlebank, per the link I supplied, appears to be an expert on this matter. Perhaps you should take the source to Reliable sources noticeboard, instead of edit-warring? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear Kate's primary publisher (the one on Amazon books and others) is Juggernaut Books which is a self-publishing forum. Also, Claritas is not an academic source per se, little information is available about it online, and according to its own statement it is a "credible voices on Islam and the Muslim faith in the 21st Century", clearly, it's concerned with religious books mostly. Sutyarashi (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Leaving issue of self-publishing, I have no problem with Kate's sources (like the one published by Oxford University Press), but it too only mentions claims for being from Quresh, instead of ascribing him of Arab ancestry. Sutyarashi (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Even if it is self-published, Kate Brittlebank appears to be an expert per the Columbia University site. As I said, WP:RSN would give an outside opinion on the matter.--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Right, what do you think of Muhammad Ilyas Nadvi's source? He's a grand total of only one book and no information is available about him or his publisher. The book allows only snippet view (with mention of both Punjabi and Arab claims). Sutyarashi (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, William Dalrymple and others, clearly call him Punjabi, but none state him to be "Qureshi Arab", though they do mention that he claimed to be. Sutyarashi (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@CrashLandingNew because none of those sources are self-published. They are published by Bloomsbury Books, Greenwood Publishing Group and Duckworth Books, which are far more reputable than some Aakar Books (the publisher of Mohib ul Hasan source) for which not much is known. Sutyarashi (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Viewing this, the Oxford source provided by Kansas Bear is much better than this Aakar Book one. Sutyarashi (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Also mister, you need to watch your tone (which I have been ignoring for past multiple months) and stop accusing me of bias. I am not adding any unreliable references in the article, it is exactly as per sources. Infact, one can say that about you as you are the one who has been edit warring and mass removing content since March[2], evengoing as far as accusing me of being a sock, all without any evidence. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, why have you clubbed Tarikh-i-Tipu, Sultan-ut-Tawarikh, Karnama-e-Haidri and Haider-Namah as one source? Mohibbul Hasan's comment about manufactured pedigree is only in relation to the illustrious background mentioned in Karnama-e-Haidri not his Arab origin. CrashLandingNew (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

You're over emphasising on a single reference, I believe, and you do need to provide additional references for this. Sutyarashi (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they have been produced using a single reference. They are still different sources. CrashLandingNew (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

No it does, because they all are still primary sources in essence, and we need additional historians who have evaluated them to be reliable or otherwise. Referencing just a single book for a theory in major part of section is a sheer WP:UNDUE. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, they still remain multiple resources even if they have been sourced on Wikipedia using one citation. Tarikh-i-Tipu, Sultan-ut-Tawarikh, Karnama-e-Haidri, Haider-Namah and work of Kirmani are 5 different sources, further evaluated by Mohibbul Hasan in the citation added. WP:UNDUE is not applicable as we are not relying only on one primary source. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Whether there are 5 primary sources or 500, they don't count. It's the author whose reliability matters. You cannot cite even a single primary source directly (see WP:PRIMARY). This definitely means more references are needed for such claims.

Anyways, now I am not going to waste my further time in going in circles with you. I am thinking of asking other editors for this. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Opinions are secondary

Caleb Simmons OPINION of 2020 regarding Tipu Sultan cannot be caveat while mentioning the primary sources, which are the first sources regarding bio of Hyder Ali. Also, Simmons opinion is only limited to the linkages with Muhammad not his ethnic origin. The primary sources are the first source regarding his origin whereas the opinion of some modern authors is mere commentry to be followed. You cannot start with Caleb's opinion over the primary source. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The primary sources, especially the "anonymous version" one should not be even cited in the article; rather only what modern researchers describe. You're unnecessarily giving undue weight to them. I'm not fond of wasting any more time on you; it's better that you now go for dispute resolution as it's only you who seem to have problem in the section. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You've added that these sources were contemporary to Hyder Ali, but several of them were written years after dynasty ended. Avoid making these unsourced claims. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Not native of Punjab

No source describes the so called Punjabi origin of the dynasty or calls them ethnic Punjabi, no citation calls them of being native of Punjab. Whereas their presence in Punjab for a brief period of time has been described by some citations. A passing remark in a book mentioning them having Punjabi origin without discussing the details about their ancestry is misleading and unreliable. CrashLandingNew (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

There are five references tracing his ancestry from Punjab, three of which call him Punjabi, and they are well-known authors like William Dalrymple and James S. Olson. You're unnecessarily edit warring here and adding obscure sources about whom nothing is known. Nadvi, for example, doesn't have any expertise in the field of history. "A Silence in the City and Other Stories" which you've added isn't academic source either, and I am going to put it on WP:RSN.

(Personal attack removed) Sutyarashi (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

plus, WP:ONUS is on you to show that random sources which are adding are reliable. Especially the Nadvi and recent (A silence in...) one. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

They are reliable sources, published by reliable publisher. You have removed Kate Brittlebank's source, citations from Rediscovery of India, The: A New Subcontinent and Nadvi's work, again published by a well known source. You cannot remove citations based on your own judgement. CrashLandingNew (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Please show how Nadvi is a well-reputed author. If you're claiming so, you must have some source stating him to be saying so, right?

I've not removed citations from Rediscovery of India, The: A New Subcontinent, don't know where you saw that. However, the cited quote is actually from its sub-section "A Silence in the City and Other Stories", a clearly non-academic work.

Kate Brittlebank's source is self-published, also when she has been already cited (through a much better reference) there is no need to cite same author twice. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The work is by a well known historian Anwar Hussain Khan in his book Rediscovery of India, The: A New Subcontinent and is published by a proper publisher. You use your own definition to categorise a work academic or non-academic. The books mentioning the so-called Punjabi origin are also non-academic and do not discuss the ancestry. They only make a passing remark which is unreliable.

Kate Brittlebank's citation is not self-published, she is a well known historian and an authority on the dynasty. Her claim regarding patriline Navayat ancestry has not been mentioned before. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

So Dalrymple, Olson and Moon at non-academic now? Even their WP pages mention them to be reputed authors.

As for your claims about AH Khan and others, cite any reliable source stating them to be so. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

So AH Khan is not reputable? Not having a Wikipedia page means your work can't be cited? His book by a well known publisher has been cited. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that not having a WP page means you can't cite any book. Though, I am still waiting for evidence that how is he a "renowned author". On which basis you say so. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

What evidence? You can Google him for yourself. His multiple work has been published by reputed publishers. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, you are asking me to tell you about a well-known author just because you have not read his work in the first place. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm asking you because WP:ONUS is upon you to show how sources added by you are reliable (I think I've already repeated this multiple times before). Sutyarashi (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

And I've published his work from a reputed publisher. You want me to give a bio of the author? CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Here CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Still not called a reputable author anywhere. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You are using your own definition of reputable. He is reputable enough. CrashLandingNew (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Have Dalrymple, Olson and Moon written about his ancestry in detail? They have only made a passing remark, without backing it up with any explanation or citation. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

A neutral person trying to help resolve this disagreement. The link provided for historian Anwar Hussain Khan is to a book published by Cambrdige University Press (see it here). That does indeed prove the author's notability and the reliability of the source. In fact, it does not get much better than this publisher when it comes to scholarly works. That being said, we must also acknowledge that Khan's book was originally published in the late 1950s. Not only has much changed since that time, our general understanding of the world and interpretation of history is very different from a multicultural perspective. So, a source like this is perfect for documenting facts but should be used thoughtfully and carefully when citing an analysis of historical events. If being used for the latter, more modern sources should also be included. Hope this helps. Rublamb (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The book was actually published in 1996, here is an article about the author and his book by Shashi Tharoor in Mathrubhumi. CrashLandingNew (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Rublamb Actually the concerned quote is not from the book of Anwar Hussain Khan but from A Silence in the City and Other Stories from page 111, apparently a sub-section of A.H Khan's book in that particular edition and actually written by Marie Cruz Gabriel (again, couldn't find anything about the author). Seems like a work of fiction. I hope that you would see more closely into the source. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay. That makes a difference. (My abologies for not digging deeper) A Silence in the City and Other Stories from page 111 is indeed of work of fiction and not suitable as a source in Wikipedia. Content related to that source should be removed. Rublamb (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable source

@ToBeFree the first reference in the ancestry section is a self-published source (published by Xlibris). Is it ok if I remove it and the unsourced lede sentence? Sutyarashi (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sutyarashi, thanks for asking! As long as you invite people reverting you to a discussion instead of reverting their revert, I think you can safely be bold. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

OK thanks. Sutyarashi (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Why did you revert it without inviting other editors as advised above? You were asked to "invite people reverting you to a discussion instead of reverting their revert". The sentence that you have removed/altered is a literal sentence with no mention of facts,hence it is not dependent on a source. There are some variation in his ancestry, you don't need a citation to say that. details of his ancestry have been discussed below. CrashLandingNew (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

A simple glance over page history will show that who's infact reverting and edit warring. Regardless, unsourced statements should not be added in the article, neither should be the unreliable sources. In other words, stick to the sources. Sutyarashi (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no unsourced statement. The sentence that you have removed/altered is a literal sentence with no mention of facts. There is a variation regarding the origin of Hyder Ali's family, which is mentioned in the opening sentence of the paragraph. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Still unsourced, because none of the sources hint to any "variation". Provide reliable reference that there's indeed this case, or alternatively, go with the previous version you reverted. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

What? It's a literal word. You don't need sources to write English. No need for go to previous version. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You do need to provide source. See WP policy regarding it. It's simple as that. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Point the sub para. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be no policy regarding this. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Read the inline citation section. Perhaps this maybe too helpful. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Not relevant here. It says that you need citations for facts, even as obvious as something like sky being blue, which is true, you do need citations for stating facts. The contention here is regarding using citations for language not facts. CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Which language? It's exaggeration that there's variation when there's grand total of two pointed origins (Punjabi or Arab). This is presented as a fact. You, that's why, should provide reference.

Or in other case, lede sentence should mention both with explanation later. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a variation and the variation is already explained in the paragraph. The detail regarding the two theories and the relation between the two is already discussed. There is no need to alter the sentence. Also, there are not just two theories, that would again be misleading. The so-called Punjabi theory is not even well explained and the sources cited have only made a passing remark and where nothing substantial has been discussed regarding the origin. They've added only to keep it neutral.

I've already mentioned how to proceed further. Take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. CrashLandingNew (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, the so-called Arab theory has only unreliable references. Anyways, I have no problem if you bring it for dispute resolution. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

We shall invite editors at :Dispute resolution noticeboard to join in the discussion. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Or even better, we can opt for third opinion. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:DR is better, as also suggested by Aoidh. CrashLandingNew (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You can go there as well, though I've just listed it for 3rd opinion. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Now as for section, it's better if unreliable self-published sources like that of Xlibris and Nadwi are replaced. Rest are OK. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The issue here is not the neutrality of content, but whether or not the source of the text is reliable. A source is necessary because the text of the Ancestry section states that Hyder Ali was of Arab origin--this is a fact and requires documentation. The text in question has a citation; however, this citation is linked to an edition that was self-published through Xlibris. Self-publishing almost always means the reference is not suitable according to WP:RSSELF. A select few self-published materials can be used if the writer is proven to be an expert in the subject matter. For example, a university professor might self-publish a blog on information related to their field of expertise. In this specific situation, the author is not an expert and the book lacks the editorial or scholarly review required by Wikipedia. In reaching this conclusion, I did an extensive study of the source. It appears that the person listed as its author, Anwar Haroon, is not the author; rather, Haroon self-published a possibly out-of-copyright book written by Mahood Khan Mahmood, with a new introduction. In the book's original forward, Mahmood writes, "I am not a professional writer or historian". (p. 12) Although Mahmood's book includes translations of materials written by others, page 30 which is used as a reference for this article, was written by Mahmood. In addition, Mahmood says on page 14 that he is writing the story of a "Hero" (note his use of capital letters) and wants to "nullify" negative allegations against this individual. I know nothing of this subject matter but it is clear this writer has a bias, in addition to lacking expertise. I tried without success to find information on the original publisher of this material, and since the person used used this source did not reference another edition, the only reasonable conclusion is that both the citation and content lack reliability. As a result, it was correct to remove the content that was sourced to Mahmood/Haroon. No discussion is needed to make this type of change as it was in keeping with Wikipedia community standards. This content should only be returned to the article with reliable sourcing. Rublamb (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

What is attributed to Mahmood Khan Mahmood's work has also been said by other authors already cited, like Kate Brittlebank and Mohibbul Hasan. Their citation can be added then. CrashLandingNew (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Kate Brittlebank and Mohibbul Hasan are both historians associated with universities, so it appears that books by them would be a reliable source. Some words of advice: In the future, if you have the option of switching sources, go ahead and do that rather than getting into a debate with another editor. Life is too short. Rublamb (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

NPOV

For any editor interested in providing third opinion, the specific dispute is about whether lede sentence (currently unsourced) in the ancestry section should mention both origins or not per WP:LEDE. Also, the first source in the section is a self-published source, and should be removed. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear perhaps you can share your opinion. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with mentioning both possible origins in the Ancestry section, but per MOS:Ethnicity, his ethnicity should not be in the Lead. Also, WP:LEDE refers to the Lead section of the article.

As for the self-published source, Kingdom of Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan: Sultanat E Khudadad, I have not found anything about the author, Mahmood Khan Mahmood. So I would avoid using this self-published source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

OK thanks Kansas Bear. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

See my Third Opinion comments above. Rublamb (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, better citations saying the same thing were available, they were here till a few weeks back, when they were removed. If only the citations is an issue they can be added. The subject has variation regarding his ethnic origin and this line was being removed by the other editor in the ancestry section. We can first present better sources here and then add them on the page. CrashLandingNew (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That sounds good. I've replaced the source with Andre Wink one which you added before and also the lead sentence. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

No need to change the lead sentence. The consensus and the opinion is only regarding the quality of citations, which can be used here, not the lead sentence. There is variation regarding his ancestry, it's a literal sentence. Only his Arab ancestry has been discussed, so-called Punjabi ancestry has only been mentioned in passing remarks. In fact as per other citations, his Arab ancestors settled in Punjab and were not ethnic Punjabi, such different theories have already been mentioned in the section, no need to add them in the lead sentence. Keep it neutral. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

See Kansas' Comment. Either provide source then for the "variation". Sutyarashi (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Variation is a literal word. It means differences. You don't citation to add literal words. There are many theories regarding his ancestry and they have been mentioned in the section no need to add them in the lead sentence as that would be misleading. The relation between different ethnic origins is also well explained. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

He says it should not be in lead btw CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Any reason you still want to add back the unsourced statement? You can call it "variation" only if there's some third origin. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Rublamb thanks Rublamb. Can you please run a check on this another disputed source too: Nadvi, Muhammad Ilyas (2004). Tipu Sultan, A life History.. There is no information available regarding its author or publisher, and also I couldn't find anything definite about its reliability at WP:RSN. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Plus, can you please provide your opinion about whether lede sentence (currently unsourced) in the ancestry section should mention both origins or not? I don't know why this is even a issue but apparently this is being disputed by the other editor. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

There are no "two" origins. There are many theories regarding his ancestry and they have been mentioned in the section no need to add them in the lead sentence as that would be misleading. The relation between different ethnic origins is also well explained. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

What are other "theories", other than Arab or Punjabi? You have been unnecessarily reverting. Also, how this would be "misleading"? Sutyarashi (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Where has Punjabi theory been discussed, only a passing remark by some citations. Also, a link with the so-called Punjabi origin has been explained well by other citations. No need to add them in the lead sentence when they are already mentioned in the section. Why do you want to add "Punjabi or Arab" in the lead sentence anyway? It was not there nor does it improve the article. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding passing remarks, they are no more "passing" than his so-called Arab origins.

The current statement is unsourced. Either you should provide source for it or replace it with what sources state. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not sourced for it requires no source as it is a literal sentence. There are variations in the theories regarding his ancestry, Google the word "variation". You can even seek third opinion regarding this. His Arab ancestry has been discussed unlike the so-called Punjabi ancestry. Even the relation between Punjab and his Arab ancestry has been mentioned in the section already.

Also, why do you want to add "Punjabi or Arab" in the lead sentence anyway, how does it improve the article? Kindly explain it to the other editors. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead sentence should summarize what the section is about. That's how WP articles are structured. Now, especially since you cannot provide any source for the suppose variation and no source claims it, there's no reason to oppose its rephrasing. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Sutyarashi, Here is the website for the Institute of Objective Studies. They do publish scholarly work and also award scholarships for higher education. There is an agenda to the type of materials they publish but plenty of publishers specialize in a certain type of book and are still considered reliable. Muhammad Ilyas Nadvi was more of a challenge as the majority of his work is in Urdu. He is fairly prolific as an author. One of his publications was from the Academy of Islamic Research & Publications (Lucknow, India). Maybe someone else can read and learn more from this website, but I get the sense that their publications use experts. I cannot 100% confirm this source as reliable, but also found nothing to suggest that it isn't okay to use. Does that make sense? With regards to the lede sentence, I actually believe it is an unnecessary summary of what is to follow. Both origin theories are explained in the section which is short enough to stand on its own. Removing the sentence also addresses any concern about it needing a source.Rublamb (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Rublamb the source is a snippet view, and from what few bits can be seen, it supports both origins. In this particular situation, where none of the editors have access to its full page view (and so we can't verify what it actually concludes), is it ok to use it for any one particular claim? Sutyarashi (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi, Sources do not have to be accessible online to be used in Wikipedia. Many editors (including myself) use print sources--actual books. Others use articles found in college databases that the average person has access to. Sometimes editors link a print source to Google Books, either for convinience when creating a citation (visual editor will create the ciitation for you if you do this) or so that others can learn more about the book. This does not mean that the citation and its related content are incorrect; it just means they are harder to fact check. Your intial approach of trying to learn more about the author and publisher is the correct. This challage for me is doing so wast that this is an Indian source, and I cannot read much on the online information about the author as it was in Urdu. However, what I could read revealed that the publisher seems to publish scholarly works and the author is prolific in the field. Wikipeans assume good faith when it comes to edits by others unless there is a reason to suspect vandalism. Thus, I have no reason to suspect that I would not find the stated contented in the print book if I had access to it. If you want to learn more, depending on where you live, you can probably borrow a copy of this book through Interlibrary Loan through the public library. But instead, I encourage you to let this one go. If it is wrong, someone else will either find a copy of the book or anouther source to disprove the content. That is the beauty of Wikipedia. It is a process and we do not have to solve all of its issues ourselves. Rublamb (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't support both origins. It clearly states that the origin is Arab and the family passed through Afghanistan, Punjab and other places before eventually settling in Mysore. CrashLandingNew (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Give it a break

There seem to be many disagreements on this article. I am not going to get into why or whether or not certain editors have an agenda or a specific belief. Let's just say that this topic evokes strong opinions. It is possible to disagree and still collaborate successfully on an article. One approach is to include both sides. For example: Author X says...., while Author Y says.... Presenting both sides gives readers a broader understanding of the topic and reduces disagreements as to "who is right". By agreeing to include the opposite opinion as well as your own, you also end a cycle of debate and anger toward other editors. That being said, I encourage those involved in these disagreements to take a break from editing and monitoring this article for a month or so. Let it go, cool off, and work on other (different) articles for a while. I think everyone involved is a passionate and capable editor. However, the cycle of your disagreement is not healthy for you and is not what Wikipedia is about. Rublamb (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

OK thanks Rublamb, for your efforts. Probably it's better to remove that particular sentence, as well as the particular source above. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Please, let it go. I know it is hard to do so, but it really is the best thing in this situation.Rublamb (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)