Talk:Sheikh Hamid

Modern consensus

There is no modern consensus on his origins, nor even his religion.

Per [1] - "The genealogy and political as well as religious affiliation of Sheikh Hamid have been vague and therefore disputed by various scholars." (Later talks about the different theories).

Another source also on the disputed origins: [2]

Further adding sources:

"Lodi is one among the so many tribes of the Afghans. In 970 AD one of the chiefs of this tribe, Sheikh Hamid Lodi was ruling the country between Multan and the Sulaiman range." [3]

[4]

Also I see that there is no sources referring to him as "Khan", which I have removed.

There is no clear consensus on his origins, so it would be clearly POV pushing to completely assert one origin. Noorullah (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:ONUS, its for you to discuss your point. You also claim Firishta didn't call him a Pashtun but every scholar says he did. Not sure what you're pointing out here. Noorullah (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

All of these sources except one[5] are snippet views hastily gathered from Google books, and one can't even check what was the conclusion of their authors afterwards. They also appear to be conference papers or journals, as far as I can see, none of them have been ever cited on goiogle scholars.

The one which does provide complete view notes that Changez is not a trained historian but his passion for the history of the subcontinent stems from his family, a terrible reference to dispute what other, academic sources state.

None of these are WP:RS. Please provide better references or revert to the prior version. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi K. S. Lal is a renowned historian, to discredit him and say he's not WP:RS is odd. [6]

Ahmad Nabi's source also follows WP:RS and is sufficient.

The snippets are more then sufficient, you can try checking through internet archive for more information, but it's very clear the implication. They all state Sheikh Hamid Lodi/Lawi was of Afghan origin (except what Changez and Nabi Khan go over the dispute on). Changez can be removed otherwise.

Heres my solution:

Per what you're saying as it was possibly a corruption of Lodi/Lawi, it is best to include this in the origins section then. Similar to how we came up with the solution at Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah such as through this formatting for example: "and that Bahman is a corrupted personalized form of Brahmin," (on that page)

While we could use that on this page by citing: "Sheikh Hamid's origins are disputed. Some sources state he was of Arab origin, and that his prefix was Lawi. Other (can be noted) sources including Firishta, state that Sheikh Hamid was a Lodi Afghan. -- (x) historian however, believes that "Lodi" is a corruption of Lu'ayy. [7] Noorullah (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

K. S. Lal is a general editor of the journal, not the author himself, who's most probably someone else and there is no way to determine who. Given the nature of the references, most probably you have no access to the other two too, and on Google books one can find all sorts of references by putting some key words. That's why I am not in favour of giving undue weight to Lodi theory when better academic sources reject it. Also, Firishta is a primary source, and is not even a contemporary reference. Hence we cannot add sources including Firishta, state that Sheikh Hamid was a Lodi Afghan, only what is interpreted by WP:RS. If you disagree, we can go for WP:DRN or WP:3O. Else you can add better citations for Lodi theory. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Will be responding today — Noorullah (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, Yogendra Mishra is not WP:RS at all, they are on google scholars for topics completely unrelated to history, how is this as you claim.. an academic source at all? They are also from a completely unknown publisher that has 0 results when you look for it.

"K. S. Lal is a general editor of the journal," -- Yes, that means it has been peer reviewed by one of the most esteemed historians on that field of topic, making it more then reliable.

Please don't nitpick and ignore other sources such as Ahmad Nabi's and use the argument "You don't have access to them", when it clearly states the conclusion of origins on said snippets. The other sources you describe don't "reject" it at all (in terms of arguing against it), but instead state the other theory.

Another more then reliable source to add on is the Encyclopedia of Islam; [8]

--

I quote: "The Lōdīs are related to a clan of the Ghilzay tribe of Afghanistān [see ghalzay] and ruled over parts

of north India for 77 years. Afghāns came to the Indus plains from Rōh [q.v.] as early as 934/711-12 with

the army of Muḥammad b. Ķāsim, the conqueror of Sind, and allied themselves politically with the

Hindū-Shāhī [q.v.] rulers of Lahore, and receiving part of Lāmghān [see lāmghānāt ] for settlement,

built a fort in the mountains of Peshawar to protect ¶ the Pandjāb from raids. During Alptigin's

government at Ghazna, when his commander-in-chief Sebüktigin raided Lāmghān and Multān, the

Afghans sought help from Rādjā Djaypāl who appointed their chief, Shaykh Ḥamīd Lōdī, viceroy of

the wilāyat s of Lamghān and Multān. Shaykh Ḥamīd appointed his own men as governors of those

districts, and thereby the Afghāns gained political importance; their settlements stretched southwards

from Lāmghān to Multān, incorporating the tracts of Bannū and Dērā Ismā‘īl Khān.

Later, a family of the Lōdī tribe settled at Multān, which was ruled in 396/1005 by Abu 'l-Fatḥ Dāwūd,

a grandson of Shaykh Ḥamīd. There was also a strong Afghān element in the forces of Sultan Maḥmūd

of Ghazna and Shihāb al-Dīn of Ghūr." Noorullah (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Weighing in a little, in cases like these when a historical individual is concerned, we should always use the highest quality sources available. Relying solely on Yogendra, an author who does not appear in a Google search, should be reconsidered. I tried, but I could not find any information about the publishing house either. The Samuel Stern reference is also from an old journal article (1949); if a new edition is available, it should be used instead. Additionally, its publisher, the "Islamic Culture Board," does not seem like a high-quality academic publishing house.

In my opinion, depending on these two references alone for a significant change, such as altering the article's title from "Lodi" to "Lawi," should be reconsidered. The Brill reference appears to be of high quality and is clearly a more recent edit than all the present references in the article. Cheers. Sir Calculus (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

With a little effort you could've found out that Yogendra Misra has a degree of doctorate in history[9], not sure how is he not a WP:RS as you claim. K. S Lal, while a historian of Indian history, is not by any stretch most esteemed in it and there has been fair criticism upon his work. Sorry, you can't pass snippet views neither you or I have any access to for content dispute, any experienced editor would tell you the same. While Encyclopedia of Islam is considered generally reliable for history of Islam, the section you quoted contains claim I haven't gone through in any other source. For instance, it claims that Raja Jayapala appointed Shaikh Hamid as ruler of Multan, while the academic sources I presented above clearly mention that this dynasty came to power as a result of Isma'ili activity in the region.

Also, you have a quite skewed view of what WP:ONUS is. The inclusion of this dynasty in the list of Pashtun dynasties is pretty much under dispute, hence you needed to achieve consensus at talk page first. Still, you reverted twice, first claiming that it is not how WP:ONUS works and second time as There is already a consensus formed against you on the page while there was none.

This Afghan/Pashtun theory really only needs to be added as a minority view, as this identification is solely based on rendering of the name as Lawi or Lodi. (see WP:DUE) If you still disagree, a neutral editor can be opined for it. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry but this is starting to become WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Another editor has already involved themself and weighed their opinion, I’m gonna be moving the page back when I can and reform the origins section to adequately include such. Sources were given that adequately explain such, while you gave sources like Mishra who has not been posted from a reliable publisher at all. Noorullah (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It is strange that you're applying WP:IDHT over me, even though you haven't shown the reliability of the snippet view sources at all or how WP:ONUS applied upon me when you were the one adding it into the list article... Also please elaborate how the source is not a reliable publisher at all, when it has been not blacklisted as predatory or self-publishing source as far as I can seen at WP? Needless to say, its author is WP:RS as I have shown above. If you think otherwise, please take it to WP:RSN.

I am doubting that any talk page discussion is going to be fruitful when you claim consensus at talk page when there is none and continue revision and mass editing articles. I'm a little busy at the moment due to my exams, if you could wait for a few days, I will open thread at DRN about this content dispute. Till then, please avoid editing any of the articles under dispute. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

[10] has given their input forming a consensus when they agreed with me. I do not see any point of a 3PO when we already have a 3rd opinion, stop reverting before you are reported to ANI for ignoring an established consensus. Noorullah (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that may not satisfy everyone completely, but indicates the overall concurrence of the group. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise—with the understanding that the page is gradually improving—than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately."

I offered you a solution which you disagreed with. -- Another editor interjected and said that the name change of the article was not justified at all, and disputed your sources. Noorullah (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The editor didn't give consensus for your changes, only their views regarding the reliability of the two sources. This is now becoming disruptive. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Then I'll clearly ask to clarify their opinion. @Sir Calculus Could you read the above? Noorullah (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Noorullah21 I just finished reading the above. I clarify that I am of the opinion that the name change from "Lodi" to "Lawi" was unnecessary based on those two sources alone. There is not even a publishers note in Yogendra's book which is not a good sign. The journal articled published by Islamic Culture Board publications is also very old (1949). I was in a similar situation once and an experienced editor told me to avoid sources older than 1951 when possible.

Furthermore, here is an another recent ref from 2016 in support of the Lodi name. This reference holds weight because the focus of the journal article is "PATTERN OF AFGHAN MIGRATIONS TO INDIA DURING MEDIEVAL PERIOD". So it is probably more reliable on Lodi than the other way older refs in discussion. Here is a quote from pg 172:

"Moreover, we see the Afghans were influential and politically strong in eastern Afghanistan, Peshawar, the borderland areas and its suburbs at a time when Ghaznavids were making inroads into Indian territories. It was in the latter half of the 10th century that Afghans politically established themselves on the Indian soil under Hamid Lodi who held the governance of Laghman and Multan from Raja Jaipal of Lahore with a promise to defend India from Invasions of central Asia. With the political expansion of Afghans under Hamid Lodi in the territories of Multan, Lamghan, Peshawar, many Afghan settlements sprung up in those places. Hamid Lodi was succeeded by his son Nasir at Multan and he was succeeded by his son Abul Fath Daud."

This should settle the dispute since the main concern seems to be snippets. The above reference can be accessed at JSTOR. Sir Calculus (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the self-revert. I will ask you to wait till the editors to whom I've requested their opinions can answer. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, SirCalculus. @Noorullah21 I have just read the reply of my enquiry about the use of snippet view sources, they seem to be of opinion that references providing a snippet views can be cautiously cited if the information they are intended to be supported is verifiable. I earlier objected over their use because in some of my prior content disputes other editors disapproved them. However, I still believe you can replace two of these sources (the specific authors of which are not known) with EoI and the one Sir Calculus provided above. In my opinion, it could be rewrite as:

• The observations of contemporary accounts as were present in the article earlier
• Account of Firishta
• Both differing views regarding their origins
• Dispute regarding the rendering of name as Lodi or Lawi

Morever, I think the page can be renamed just as Shaikh Hamid as there is definitely dispute regarding the last name (see, for instance, McLean's source). Sutyarashi (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi I agree with the origins area, we can render such like that, the name can also be changed to Sheikh Hamid for neutrality.

I'm gonna revert to pre-origins section, and you can add whatever you want to add per your suggestion. Noorullah (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)