Talk:Political marriages in India

This feels like WP:OR

I have opened a discussion on this at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Political marriages in India as I think this is an essay-type article constructed from various sources, almost none of which are about the topic "Political marriages in India", and thus feels WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion and the general consensus was that the article's scope should be expanded. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The 2nd AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajput Mughal marriage alliances (2nd nomination) was closed as "no consensus", with a lot of concerns about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH-most notably by yourself as the nominator? Aszx5000 (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I had but at that time the article was full of unsourced statements and was named "Rajput Mughal marriage alliances". You can see my comment here to understand how "Political marriages in India" was ultimately decided. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

OR/SYNTH is not about lack of sourcing, it is how editors use sources to create their own statements, as opposed to chronicling statements from reliable sources. What this article really needs are quality sources on the topic of "Political marriages in India". That is why is gets into OR/SYNTH, and also why it has an "essay like" feel to it (which was another tag that you removed without discussion). Aszx5000 (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

OR means "a statement that lacks any sources", and SYNTH means "combining two or more statements to make another statement not supported by the source. But this is a broader topic and each of the sentences here have been supported by the cited reliable sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

No, read WP:OR first paragraph: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented". You should as a new page patroller know this, and you should not be unilaterally removing OR tags placed by other patrollers who have raised concerns about it before talking to them. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you cite the statements that you think violate WP:OR? That definition of WP:OR matches with what I said while it contradicts your thoughts.Ratnahastin (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The core issue that there isn't a quality source in this article on the topic of "political marriages in India", which almost by definition (and per above), means that it is OR and SYNTH. That is why this article is problematic, and should be tagged as such to warn readers that this is not based on quality sources writing about the specific topic, but an editor's synthesis of other sources writing about other topics who may have mentioned things about such marriages, and thus may be their own view. That is why we have such tags. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

There is, Singh, Sabita (2019) The Politics of Marriage in India: Gender and Alliance in Rajasthan published by OUP India is all about politics of marriages in India.Ratnahastin (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

That is the only one that comes close, and it not about "political marriages in India" per se, but about the broader cultural aspects about marriage (and in Rajasthan). The book describes itself as The history of marriage is viewed as social history related to customs and laws, but it is also a reflection of an inner life—one that comprises tales of joy, suffering, and the mundane—most of it hidden from the historian’s eye. Analysing the institution of marriage in medieval Rajasthan, Singh reconstructs the regional social structures and cultures of the time. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Addition of pseudo historical claims backed by unreliable sources

Ratnahastin and LukeEmily, there has been addition of multiple unreliable sources to back up pseudohistorical claims in this article by ips and some WP:SPA. Feel free to remove them. One such edit is [1] Adamantine123 (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Your blanket revert removed reliably sourced content that I had added here. Please do not do this without providing valid rationale. Ratnahastin (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You can restore only that content but sources like DNA India, Indianrajput.com and many other unreliable sources were added to expand that section with pseudo historical claims. As I shown in above diff. and here [2]. Tagging RegentsPark, Ekdalian, Utcursch, Fylindfotberserk who are aware of the topic area. See, none of the source added. by this edit is WP:RSAdamantine123 (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ahirs

I have not seen any source that says that Ahirs and Mughals have a marital relationship. Can anyone show me any source here which has mention about the marital relationship between Ahirs and Mughals?. 2409:4085:9EBF:D7C5:0:0:8889:7700 (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Use of poor sources and falsification in some sections

• Fazl, Abu'l. Akbarnama. Vol. II. p. 518.
• The Mertiyo Rathors of Merta, Rajasthan. Vol. I. p. 4.

I don't believe in the merit of these two sources. Also, I believe that whole section on Jats and Ahir are falsification of what source cited there says. Tagging Ratnahastin and LukeEmily, as both of you are active here in recent times. Adamantine123 (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by "merit" here.Saran, R.; Ziegler, N.P. (2021). The Mertiyo Rathors of Merto, Rajasthan: Select Translations Bearing on the History of a Rajput Family, 1462–1660, Volumes 1–2. Michigan Papers On South And Southeast Asia. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-03821-3. is clearly cited eight times in the body. The source does appear to back the preceding content. [3] Abu Fazl's Akbarnama is a primary source and does appear to mention Rai Kalyan. [4] You haven’t explained what makes you think the sections on Jats and Ahirs are falsifications. Ratnahastin (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I read the cited page and I can't see where it is written in the source what the paragraph on Jats says. This is a dangerous trend to keep such falsified content hanging here on wikipedia as some Indian newspaper will copy that and we will have news sources to back some unsubstantiated claims. So, I request you to revert such changes immediately from the next time if it is added by any IP or WP:SPA. Adamantine123 (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear Adamantine123 This user Ratnahastin adds wrong information in many articles without looking at the sources. He adds wrong information in articles related to Ahir/Yadav, Gurjar, Jats. Ratnahastin has declared Ay dynasty from his other account as Brahmin whereas this dynasty belongs to cowherd Yadavas of South. You can see the sources of this article in which it has been described as cowherd/Abhira/Yadava. 2409:4085:8E89:132D:0:0:8109:5803 (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Ip, can you provide the quotes from the source? Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 08:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Adamantine123:, please can you give more details?LukeEmily (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Adamantine123:, "Frontiers of Embedded Muslim Communities in India, was misrepresented to be derogatory to Jats. I am now suspecting other sources also. I am assuming good faith and not accusing any editor as I have not checked who added the content on Jat being a low caste or their women being offered as concubines to Rajputs. It is possible that I misread the source or did not find the content using the search, hence it is OK to reinstate if the source indeed supports the removed content.LukeEmily (talk) 08:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, I was talking about the same content. I tagged the paragraphs for quotes as I can't see the where the stuff about Jats giving their daughters as concubine was written in the source. Adamantine123 (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Sikhs

@Rasteem: What makes you think that the legend about the origin of this dynasty is not related to political marriages? Here are some quotes from the source which clearly states that it was opposition to the very idea of a political marriage with Akbar that made their progenitor leave his kingdom and settle in Punjab:

• Singh, Ganda (1999). Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia. Publication Bureau, Punjabi University. p. 2. ISBN 978-81-7380-504-2.:

Raval Jaisalmer had eight sons of whom Karam and Dharm became very famous. The descendants of Raval Karm are still existent in Jaisalmer, when some degraded Rajputs began to solemnize the marriages of their daughters. with the Mughals. Emperor Akbar asked the Bhatti Rajputs of Jaisalmer to follow suit. At that time Rana Hal' Rai occupied the throne of JaisaImer. He had no daughter. Therefore, Akbar asked his brother Tulsi to give his daughter in marriage. He was an honourable man. He opted for a life of poverty and privation, and, therefore,leaving the kingdom he came to Punjab with his family. [Page 2]

With the passing of time, they-got mingled with the Jats who constituted at that time the majority community of this area. They began to enter into matrimonial ailiances with them. Thus, graduaily they also became Jats. [Page 3]

You also sneakily removed the "Rajput" claim of Mandi state despite it being well sourced (here's another source backing the same claim [5] ) and left a ridiculous warning on my talkpage regarding not maintaining NPOV, can you explain how my edits are POV? Ratnahastin (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin Since the article primarily focuses on political marriages in India, discussing the origins of empires, dynasties, kingdoms, or states is beyond its scope. I have already clarified in my edit summary that origin details are relevant only on related state or kingdom pages.

Therefore, please only add sources on relevant pages, about Phulkian dynasty's origin here or Kapurthala state's origin here

Listing origin details for a particular state or dynasty would require mentioning the origin of Mughals, Mauryans, Tughlaqs, Khiljis, and many other.

Regarding the Mandi State page, there is no information linking its origin to Rajputs. There is no intention to remove the word Rajput state from Mandi State's paragraph but was removed per not clearly mentioned in the source. Further from Muzaffarid king Muzaffar Shah I's paragraph I removed the word Jat because there is a dispute regarding Muzaffarid being Jats even cited source mentioned him being a Jat. ®asteem Talk 08:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are ignoring my point. Origin legend becomes relevant when it pertains to political marriage, which it did in this case.

The source I listed here clearly states that Mandi was a rajput ruled princely state, did you see that? Also there's no dispute regarding the caste of ruling dynasty of Mandi state, so your Gujarat sultanate example is a red herring. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring any of your points. I've reviewed the source you provided regarding Mandi State, which mentions six or seven states claimed as Rajput states. Since you used the term "Rajput," I removed the word "Rajput" and explained my reasoning, also providing another example for removing the word "Jat."

However, I've now added Mandi State to as a Rajput state, despite the related state page not explicitly stating that the state is Rajput. If you still disagree with my explanations, I'd like to invite Adamantine and LukeEmily to share their insights, drawing from their experience with caste or Indian history-related articles. ®asteem Talk 08:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This again completely ignores the point I'm making about the origin legend. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I was tagged here, although I didn't received notification but I am a regular visitor to this page so saw the discussion. I agree with Rasteem. This page is about political marriages, not for pushing the idea that how many dynasties were originated from Rajputs. Infact, the points that are being discussed are about a legend of origin. Anyways, It is WP:UNDUE to keep that stuff on this page. Also, I noticed that this page was moved to present version by Ratnahastin. The Mughal Rajput marriage alliance is also a notable topic and if any one of you is interested, a seperate page can be created for all the stuff related to Rajput and Mughal marriage alliance. Adamantine123 (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

pushing the idea that how many dynasties were originated from Rajputs - No one is pushing that idea here, the dispute is about inclusion of origin legend which pertains to opposition to a political marriage.

The page was moved from that title and the topic was significantly broadened following suggestions by multiple editors on an AFD. You are aware of WP:ARBIPA and have narrowly escaped a topic ban from the caste area a few weeks ago, you should avoid thinking about re-creating a POV fork and undoing all the community effort that went into broadening that fork Ratnahastin (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Would you consider adding the "origin legend" to the Pulkian dynasty and Kapurthala state pages, rather than including it here on Political marriages in India, which exclusively focuses on political marriages and does not cover other historical details or backgrounds?. ®asteem Talk 09:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to disagree on this point. Also, I can see that it was not thoroughly discussed with external inputs from uninvolved editors that whether this page should exist in present form or in earlier from. As per WP:RMUM, it can be restored to earlier name and a broad discussion can still take place. Also, please don't use this page for personal attack. I was not banned because barring one comment which was against the policy of WP:AGF, my edits were always genuine. Anyways, this is not a case of WP:POVFORK. The Rajput Mughal marriage alliance is a notable topic and is an important topic of Indian History in higher studies. I am myself a Junior Research Fellowship holder and a person from History background and I am aware of its importance. I have created Foreign relations of the Mughal Empire and similar other articles, no one can say that they are also POVFORKS. A single integrated article doesn't mean that articles cannot be created on notable sub-topics. Adamantine123 (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

So your position is to restore a POV fork,what would you even include there that does not already exists here? It will quickly be merged to this article as this article is straight up improvement. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

As of now, I have three high quality sources which have in-depth stuff about the marriage alliance between Rajput and Mughals. It is not merely about the incidents of such marriage, but also about implications and necessity. All such stuff can be woven into a fair article, which can be considered. Adamantine123 (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

No you don't have to create a POVFORK for that. You can instead expand this article which is not even big. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Adamantine123, Thank you for your attention. I sought your expertise per your past experience. I support creating a separate page for Mughal Rajput marriage alliance.

@Ratnahastin, I haven't ignored any of your points and have already addressed your questions. You introduced the origins of the Phulkian dynasty and Kapurthala state that they originated from Bhatti Rajputs; I merely clarified my position.

If someone will introduce the origins (or Origin Legend) of Kapurthala & Phulkian dynasties, it would necessitate mentioning the origins of every state, kingdom, dynasty, or empire in this article (including the Mughals, Tughlaqs, Khiljis, Muzaffarids, and other dynasties). ®asteem Talk 09:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You are right, I will request Ratnahastin to stick to the topic. There are individual pages for origin of these dynasties. Adamantine123 (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the understanding. I also request, Ratnahastin, to just focus on the main topic, Political marriages in India, and avoid adding information about the origins of states or dynasties here. ®asteem Talk 09:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Too tired today to discuss more but agree with both @Rasteem: and @Adamantine123:.LukeEmily (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Luke ®asteem Talk 21:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Muzaffarids

Putting Jat as the caste of Zafar Khan is nothing more than a highly problematic attempt at caste glorification by Rasteem. Zafar Khan is variously described as belonging to a Tank Rajput or a Khatri clan , not a Jat according to WP:SCHOLARLY consensus. The source cited by Rasteem is so abysmally poor that it does not even have author information and it comes nowhere near to challenge the academic consensus on the origin of Zafar Khan and Muzaffarids. Here's a brief overview about their caste by academic scholars. :

Sources

Kapadia, Aparna (2018). Gujarat: The Long Fifteenth Century and the Making of a Region. Cambridge University Press. pp. 8 and 120. ISBN 9781107153318. These men, a certain Saharan and his brother Sadhu, were, most likely peasants or pastoralists, a non-Muslim Tank Rajputs from Thanesar ..... the Gujarati historian Sikandar does narrate the story of their ancestors having once been Hindu 'Tanks', a branch of Khatris Wink, André (2003). Indo-Islamic society: 14th - 15th centuries. BRILL. p. 143. ISBN 978-90-04-13561-1. Similarly, Zaffar Khan Muzaffar, the first independent ruler of Gujarat was not a foreign muslim but a Khatri convert, of low subdivision called Tank, originally from southern Punjab. Khan, Iqtidar Alam (2004). Gunpowder and Firearms: Warfare in Medieval India. Oxford University Press. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-19-566526-0. Zafar Khan (entitled Muzaffar Shah) himself was a convert to Islam from a sub-caste of the Khatris known as Tank.

Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

Ratnahastin, one of your recent edits are not helpful.[6] I don't know why you're trying to hide marriages of the Mughals with local north Indian families. Mughals need a separate section because in the Early modern period we have to discuss other marriage events that are not related to 'Mughals'. Even section of the Mughals have not discussed the marriages of Mughals with South Indian, northeast Indian, and even Persian families.®asteem Talk 20:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are you assuming bad faith? No body is trying hide anything here, if you read the sections itself you will know that it's subsections contains marriages of rajputs with other rajputs, therefore it's a misleading heading. And the Mughal section is not even big so it does not need to be made a separate section, what you're doing is POV pushing, because it goes against how the rest of article is written. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I think at this point we need a separate article on Mughal Rajput marriage alliance. Adamantine123 (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead, create one. We might aswell get a consensus on why that POV fork should never be recreated. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You are edit warring on number of pages with different editors and all of them belonging to Rajput community. On this page you are on the verge of violating WP:3RR. In your recent edits, I saw you removing lot of material without prior consensus. Let me tag Ekdalian, LukeEmily, Fylindfotberserk.Adamantine123 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

You reverted over a dozen edits that were only fixing grammar and prose issues , there's absolutely no way you can justify that edit, kindly revert yourself right now. - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

We will work on that, but I found that a lot of content was also removed in your recent edits. The stuff about Chhatrasal and Morvi state were removed altogether in your edits.Adamantine123 (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Which edits removed content? - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I did not remove anything about chhatrasal, the Morvi State one was removed because there's nothing political about a Princess marrying a commoner or a business man. Everything else was simple WP:MOS related changes and copy editing, your wholesale revert did not help at all in improving the article. - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Two of the editors you pinged have never edited this article before, why are you engaging in blatant canvassing? - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)