| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Khafi Khan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Quotations
editIn line with WP:INTEGRITY (and our policies on WP:OR/WP:SYNTH), I request Ms Sarah Welch to provide quotations for the two lines which are tagged. I ended up at this article since it mentioned Audrey Truschke, an article I had created. TIA, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- You write,
Khafi Khan version of history and Haq's translation is one of the main sources of information
. How do you arrive at the word: "main"? The quote, that you have provided, does not mention any degree of use and your editorializing violates WP:OR. - Please link to the
past community discussions
where it was held thatcounting in a source and stating the count when it can be verified is welcome and meets WP:NOR.
Tags must not be removed unless the issues are satisfactorily resolved. - Why does Truschke's usage of the source (rather than commentary) get a separate section or even a mention? Is it you claim that other historians haven't used it and Truschke is in some novel territory? That would contradict Faruqi's statement —
Khafi Khan is a much used source on Deccan India during the Aurangzeb and post-Aurangzeb period
— you have added in the article. Or, do you plan to make a commentary on all scholars who have used it in their works? Which, I believe, would comprise of a few hundred. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)- Maybe, Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93 can evaluate if I am making some sense? To summarize, the entire usage section is undue — the original research need to be removed, and Truschke's comments about the source folded within the legacy section. Unless and until reviewers of Truschke's work choose to comment on her use of this source, we cannot have this subsection. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused; the linked section is about a supposed ban on music, but the concerns seem to be with the footnotes section? Regardless; I'm not seeing how footnote 15 supports the word "main" in the sentence it's used for. Whether this requires removal of the section is debatable, but if Truschke has used the source more than other authors, then someone besides Truschke needs to make that point. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, I had added two quotations needed tags in this edit alongside tweaking the sentence on ban of music.
- I agree with the rest of your reply. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I changed "main" to "favorite", which has direct support in the cited source. On counting/calculations, please see WP:CALC. If you have the cited book, this is easy to verify. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- TrangaBellam: Vanamonde93's comments are already addressed by changes Kautilya3 and I have made. If not, what bothers you now and why? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ms Sarah Welch, you are not Vanamonde93. So, you are not the one who will be deciding whether their concerns have been addressed. V93's latest edit is interesting.
- Neither you are Kautilya3, whom I will let speak for himself. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused; the linked section is about a supposed ban on music, but the concerns seem to be with the footnotes section? Regardless; I'm not seeing how footnote 15 supports the word "main" in the sentence it's used for. Whether this requires removal of the section is debatable, but if Truschke has used the source more than other authors, then someone besides Truschke needs to make that point. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe, Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93 can evaluate if I am making some sense? To summarize, the entire usage section is undue — the original research need to be removed, and Truschke's comments about the source folded within the legacy section. Unless and until reviewers of Truschke's work choose to comment on her use of this source, we cannot have this subsection. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I was uncomfortable with "appears to prefer" that Kautilya3 tried as a fix.... which indeed is analysis. I was going to change it to:
"Truschke cites the Khafi Khan's version of Aurangzeb's history far more and in many more chapters than Saqi Khan's version, which preceded Khafi Khan's by two decades.[1][note 1]
That is just a statement of a count that can be easily verified, without any "analysis". Comments? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Truschke, A. (2017). Aurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India's Most Controversial King. Stanford University Press. pp. 117–130. ISBN 978-1-5036-0259-5.
- The trouble is that even counting citations is textual analysis in this case, because it's implying that the number of citations is in fact significant. It's the sort of thing that would be appropriate to include if a book review highlighted it, but in the absence of such a source, it's still original research. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- For the record, I am fine with not including the sentence with the count and "implied significance" till a review is found. Perhaps, even then, that may be better in an article on Truschke or her book, if or when we have an article on either. This is an article on Khafi Khan, fwiw. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Good, then we're in agreement. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Glad to see it gone. It would have been a BLP violation even more than anything else. It is fine to make attributed statements about Truschke actually says. But we can't draw summative conclusions from anything in the book. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Kautilya3, I agree about the BLP violation aspect.
- That being said, how does Truschke's commentary on Kafi belong at usage? How is her commentary any different than Faruqi's? What important information do we lose in this version? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think Truschke's comments belong in the usage section, because they were made in the context of the usage as a source of history. They seem out of place in the other section, where Faruqi et al. are being covered for their more extensive analysis. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Glad to see it gone. It would have been a BLP violation even more than anything else. It is fine to make attributed statements about Truschke actually says. But we can't draw summative conclusions from anything in the book. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Good, then we're in agreement. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- For the record, I am fine with not including the sentence with the count and "implied significance" till a review is found. Perhaps, even then, that may be better in an article on Truschke or her book, if or when we have an article on either. This is an article on Khafi Khan, fwiw. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- The trouble is that even counting citations is textual analysis in this case, because it's implying that the number of citations is in fact significant. It's the sort of thing that would be appropriate to include if a book review highlighted it, but in the absence of such a source, it's still original research. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).