Talk:Delhi Sultanate

message: Which is the Daulat Khan (1413 - 1414) listed in the table of delhi sultane . It links to another daulat khan who is lived in 1517-1526 period. required facts.--sunil (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daulat Khan 

message: Note:  Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under :Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag  TALK2ME 08:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:INDIA]] Banner/Delhi Addition 

message: The Delhi Sultanate is a term used to cover five short-lived, Delhi based kingdoms or sultanates, of Turkic origin in medieval India. 
This should be Turkic and Pashtun.
Pashtuns are not turkic and at least 3 of the dynasties were Pashtuns this should be changed especially as you have cited later in the article that certain dynasties were from afghanistan ( pashtun.
Khilji's lodhis and ghor's were pashtun.
thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranguna (talk • contribs) 14:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  incorrect ethnic references 

message: This article has a lot of content without cited sources. I have tagged some per WP:V requirement.  Please do not revert or remove "citation needed" tags without providing source. Similarly, please do not remove content that is sourced from peer reviewed journals and WP:RS publications of scholars. If you have concerns, I invite you to discuss them on this talk page. Beren Dersi (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced content tags and NPOV discussion 

message: People seem to have added a long list of successor States to the Delhi Sultanate. As far as I am concerned, it has only one successor: the Mughal empire. Is there any reason why other successors are needed? - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , YES, only Mughals. BTW, have you seen how wrong info is being propagated in this article. I am giving just two examples,
1) It says in the box that Lodis destroyed temples in Tamil Nadu. But, Lodis did not even cross central India, forget about going them to the Tamil Nadu.
2)Kashmir was NEVER RULED by Delhi sultanate. Native Muslim converts ruled Kashmir till Akbar came. So, how can Delhi Sultanate destroy temple in Kashmir?( It is even given in picture)
This articles confuses any Muslim state in India between 1206-1526 with this Delhi Sultanate. I am fed up correcting even this basic Indian History. Bye,Ghatus (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

text: See Peter Jackson's Delhi Sultanate book @ p. 162 etc. Jackson writes, Vijayanagara Empire took over southern regions from Delhi Sultanate in 1336. Just like Mughal Empire took over the north from Delhi Sultanate's last dynasty in 1526. Same happened in Bengal etc. There were more than one successor, after the peak reached during the Tughlaq dynasty, but it is not a long list. Ignore POV, go with what scholars have published. Beren Dersi (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Loss of territory doesn't count as "succession." Otherwise we would have zillions of successors for each State. Only those losses that are directly correlated with the ending of a regime should be counted as successors. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Template:infobox former country which recommends not listing even all the losses resulting from the ending of a regime. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The template says, "In some cases, most readers would expect to see every state that was formed, not just the official predecessor/successor. If so, list all states." Vijayanagara, Bengal and Gajapati fit this. These formed long before Delhi Sultanate's demise and continued for a while after the 1526 end of Delhi Sultanate. Mughal Empire started not as a peaceful succession to Delhi Sultanate, but after a war and the complete loss of left over Delhi Sultanate territory. What about predecessor states? do Sena, Tomara or Ghurid qualify by your logic (someone needs to fix the Ghurid dynasty article map and these three wiki articles). Beren Dersi (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Vijayanagara was a successor state to the Tughlaq Dynasty, not to Delhi Sultanate. It is a typical case of confusing a single dynasty with a succession of five dynasties (Delhi Sultanate). BTW, Gajapati, Rajputs were contemporary states or federations to Delhi Sultanate, not its successors. ONLY Mughals can claim to be the successors of the Delhi Sultanate, none other. Ghatus (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I got rid of all the predecessor/successor states other than Ghurid and Mughals. If it is wrong, somebody can contest it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Provide a WP:HISTRS, User:Ghatus for your OR, that says either (a) your alleged version of history, or (b) Tughlaq dynasty was not one of those five dynasties. Kautilya3, without WP:HISTRS from Ghatus, treat statements from Ghatus as potentially OR. Lets verify before making the infobox change. I have already given you Jackson reference, which supports the older version on succession. For predecessors, I will check Jackson and others again, before reverting or correcting that part, if necessary. Beren Dersi (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know where is the confusion. Tughlaqs were finished in the 14th century and Vijayanagar rose in the 14th century. But, Delhi Sultanate was overthrown in 1526. So, how can Vijayanagar become a successor state to the Delhi Sultanate as a whole? Successor states must come after 1526 and only Mughals fill the criteria. No need to confuse one dynasty with a succession of five dynasties. Why are you putting Gajapati in? How did they become successor? Who conquered it before?Ghatus (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   The issue has nothing to do with sources, but rather understanding the English meaning of "successor". A successor state of a regime X is the one that replaces it when the regime X ends. If the regime loses some of its territory to one or more other parties, we don't call them "successors." However, for each of those parties, the regime X would be counted as their "predecessor" because, for the region under their control, the regime preceded it. So Vijayanagar's predecessor is the Delhi Sultanate. However, Vijayanagara is not the Delhi Sultanate's successor. That is because Vijayanagara did not end the Delhi Sultanate, only ended its control over certain territory. I hope you understand the difference. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Kautilya3, thank you for clarifying the definition. If a governor of Delhi Sulatante declare himself independent and establishes new state, as Muzaffar Shah I established Gujarat Sultanate, the state can not said as successor as per your definition but can be attached as followed by if needed. Right? :) --Nizil (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure what you mean by "followed by." Are you talking about the infobox or something else? The point I made earlier is that Gujarat Sultanate can have Delhi Sultanate as its predecessor, but the Delhi Sultanate doesn't have Gujarat Sultanate as its successor. Losing territory is not counted as "succession." Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successor states 

message: Regarding this edit , the sentence says that the Delhi Sultanate lasted for 320 years. Can you specify during what periods it was limited to the "Punjab region"? - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Delhi Sultanate has never only been limited to Punjab. In fact the Delhi Sultanate has never even been limited to only Delhi either. That sentence concerns with where they were based in. If you take a look at the maps in the article and some other ones you can see that while losing and gaining other parts of the Indian subcontinent, they never lost  Delhi and Punjab.Filpro (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punjab region 

message: Following sentence is in article:
According to Eaton, there were a total of 37 instances of Hindu Temple desecration in span 320  years. I think it is an understatement. It should not be "total instances" but "recorded instances" as many instances may not have been documented in any texts. It is likely that only major temples desecration are recorded. Current sentence also omits/ignores Jain and Buddhist temples. It also seem that Eaton has also omitted several instances which are recorded elsewhere, like in inscriptions. They should be taken under consideration. So total of 37 is understatement. If Qutb complex was built from stones of 27 temples (according to some sources as written in article), how only 37 temples were destroyed during whole Delhi Sultanate period? I think some serious rewording needed to reflect this. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some minor changes to reflect the opinion.--Nizil (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Temple desecration

message: The article writes: The sultanate is noted for being one of the few states to repel an attack by the Mongol Empire. There is a reference given, but not what the referenced text says.
There is a big difference between the following two statements: The sultanate has repelled an attack of the Mongol empire and the sultanate is noted for having repelled an attack of the Mongol empire. Further, since the attack mentioned may have been by Neguderi, as the linked articles state, it is not clear whether it has been an attack by the Mongol empire or by other Mongol forces - making the claim as is wrong. What we need is the text in the reference, a specification of the invasion, and proof it has been an attack by the Mongol empire itself that has been repelled. -- Zz (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noted for repelling an attack of the Mongol empire 

message: Is there any source for the native name of the Delhi Sultanate being "Chirag"? I couldn't find anything. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for "Chirag" being the native name? 

message: English 2409:4066:E98:BCC5:0:0:A7C8:6710 (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tge names of the delhi contribution and rulers 

message: I thought you should be aware that User:Maestro2016 has been banned as a sockpuppet of User:Jagged_85. Jagged_85 received a community ban for misrepresenting and abusing sources on a massive scale, especially in the areas of Islamic history and inventions.
I would therefore strongly recommend taking a close look at Maestro2016's contributions to this article. Any edits made, even if referenced, should be considered dubious unless the exact reference has been validated. Merlinme (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maestro2016 has been banned as a sockpuppet of Jagged_85 

message: I’ve already brought this issue up on the main page of the khalji dynasty, but there is even more issues on this page. For example, this sentence still remains despite the fact that it was removed months ago from the main page of the khalji dynasty for various reasons. “After their settlment in India they assimilated into the mass Indian Muslim settlements due to their century long domicile in India since the early Ghorid invasions.”
There’s a lot of references to an Indian Muslim nobility/state within this article but as I explained in the talk page of the khalji dynasty, this is false. 
Talk:Khalji dynasty
Amazingly Satish Chandra’s is cited here, and his source has been greatly misconstrued. I’ll quote both the article and Chandra’s exact quote. 
“The Alai era saw the emergence of an Indian Muslim state, as Indian Muslims gained power to replace the old nobility”
this claims that the Aladdin era saw an emergence of an Indian Muslim state, and that Indian Muslims replaced the old nobility. This is not only completely false but also misconstrued because satish chandra doesn’t write this in the source cited. Here’s the quote. 
“This was the reason why, Alauddin was able to choose, and promote to the top, many non Turks” 
in the entire paragraph, there is no mention of a creation of an Indian Muslim state. Satish Chandra only states that there was a promotion of some non Turks into the government. This doesn’t at all imply that Indian Muslims replaced the nobility and that there was an Indian Muslim state. In fact Satish Chandra explains why this view is false so not only is his source misconstrued, the same author seems to deny the claims written here. I cited his quote in the other talk page and I’ll cite it here as well. 
“Thus, in a highly fragmented society it is hardly possible to speak of an "integrated" Indo-Muslim state.”
pg 268
https://knowledgevalley2017.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Satish-Chandra.pdf 
id recommend reading the full page because he gives an excellent explanation but nonetheless, Chandra is far more authoritative than any of the sources listed here in support of this claim. I’d recommend checking out the talk page of the khalji dynasty because there is a lot more information there. The same user who made these edits seemed to also misconstrue other sources such as John bowman. 
It is for these reasons that I have decided to remove parts of the article. If anyone wants to discuss this with me feel free to use the talk page. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the cleanup! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem! I’m glad I can help and I appreciate your edits as well. Someguywhosbored (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khalji dynasty(indo muslims)  

message: Is there any particular reason why "Islamic" is mentioned in lead? No other articles like that of Ottoman Empire, Saudi Arabia, or the Sultanate of Gujarat where the official state religion is/was Islam and rulers were Muslim mention "Islamic" in their lead. This word was added arbitrarily without talk page discussion recently on 26 February 2024 by Solblaze. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously? To have no mention of this in the (rather long) lead seems highly POV to me. Johnbod (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've till now never seen an article mentioning the official religion of the state. There so many Islamic states now. None of the articles mention that specifically in the lead. Mentioning the religion of the monarchs in this article but no other article seems PoV pushing to me. Even other state articles with long leads do not mention the state religion. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary mention of "Islamic" in lead 

message: can you two please stop the WP:EDITWAR
you both already violating the Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The three-revert rule|The three-revert rule 
it will be taken immediate action if you not stopping Ahendra (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop Edit war