Talk:Political marriages in India

Vandalism under Jats header

Hey, vandalism is being done under Jats header in this article. Same stuff which was removed multiple times by other editors has been added again in Jats header.

Please remove "Moreover, Jats earned the zamindari from Mughals by submitting their daughters as tribute. As a result of this, the Jat clans who made this transaction were organised into a relatively higher social grade vis-a-vis their own brethren as they would only take daughters from other Jats but would only give their daughters in Mughal harem. Such grades came to be known as Akbari Jats, Jahangiri Jats, Shah Jahauni Jats and Aurangzebi Jats deriving from the regnal name of Mughal monarch in whose reign these leading Jat families made any such transaction. Such grades came to be known as Akbari Jats, Jahangiri Jats, Shah Jahauni Jats and Aurangzebi Jats deriving from the regnal name of Mughal monarch in whose reign these leading Jat families made any such transaction.[126][127][128]"

Source for said verbatim is Punjab Gazetter 1911 which is not considered reliable source. Apart from that content used in Gazetter was originally written by D.Elliot in his reports and under the Jahangiri,Akbari jat stuff in footer D.elliot clearly wrote that "It needs not too be said that Akbar, Jahangir etc never took Jat wives" so according to WP:RS ambiguous and non-verifiable claims are not suited for wiki articles.

And please remove "Moreover, Jats earned the zamindari from Mughals by submitting their daughters as tribute. As a result of this, the Jat clans who made this transaction were organised into a relatively higher social grade vis-a-vis their own brethren as they would only take daughters from other Jats but would only give their daughters in Mughal harem." because citized sources don't mention anything about "Jats earned the Zamindari from Mughals". It's clearly self authored non-verifiable claim.

I would also like to suggest that there's no need for a seperate section for "Jats" just like Rajput, Maratha, Mughal,Sikhs sections were not mentioned seperately, so "Jats" section should be removed imo as it doesn't have much reliable content anyways. Amitdabas123 (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

29th March, I would like to put it here that unsourced and contentious stuff that was removed by LukeEmily on 12th of March was reverted back vandal on 15th of March without any source for said contentious stuff. Vandal was later again seen engaging in disruptive behaviour with other editor. Amitdabas123 (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Please also refrain from hastily accusing editors of vandalism, which has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. Perception312 (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Perception312 I don't think there's need for consensus given that cited statements aren't backed by any source, you can check the sources yourself for the quoted statement, again it's not backed by sny source mentioned and made out of FreeWill Amitdabas123 (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the parts that didn't seem supported by the source. Perception312 (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Perception312 the changes made by you to make this article neutral and NPOV have been reverted back all together. Please look into it and fix it again. Amitdabas123 (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@HistorianAlferedo, please provide a source for the material removed in this edit [1] which you restored. The existing citation doesn't seem to support those parts. Perception312 (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I have once again removed the unsupported material [2] until a source is provided, per WP:BURDEN. Perception312 (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Inclusion of Mythical history

@HistorianAlferedo is insistent on adding a source of an AI generated photo captioned with a commander 'Man Singh' and a person who doesn't reliably exist, identified as being an adoptive niece of Akbar. Inclusion of supposed in-laws of the emperor Akbar I directly contradicts with the existing book source, to which you added the word "other", directly contradicting the book that clearly writes otherwise.

As already referenced,

In sharp contrast to Akbar’s marriages with Rajputs (where only Rajputs provided brides), Akbar gave his sisters and daughters as wives to Timurids and other high-born Central and West Asian Muslims.

this is the source that is being insisted on being included in an extended-protected article. Book quotes how Jahangir said there would be a capital punishment on someone who gave [Muslim] brides to [Hindu] Rajputs.

Stop including it. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear User:@RevolutionaryPatriot You should have carefully observed that there were many more citations for the information claimed, if still the information seemed to be a bit suspicious then a contributor must add a citation needed template rather than just removing all that information for no good reason. Every contributor on wikipedia must be respected and edit warring must be avoided. Also, why you so strongly want to change this information? Seems like forcing one’s opinion without attaining consensus that too with the use of a single citation. Please respect other wikipedia contributors and avoid such type of behaviour. Thank you HistorianAlferedo (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

there were many more citations for the information claimed

You have 0 history citations behind this made up story. Stop uploading an AI generated photo captioned "Bibi Mubarik".

Every contributor on wikipedia must be respected and edit warring must be avoided.

This isn't edit warring you are disrupting this extended protected article. It has had enough disruptions it doesn't need you to add your citation AI generated photo evidence. Don't revert this again. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Chill buddy and dare not to threat other contributors like you did here again. We’re all here to add unbiased and reliable info here, if you considered any citation to be unreliable you should have removed it rather than removing the content. Moreover read the other citations carefully before just forcing your opinion regarding this sub-section of this article. I don’t understand why are you so obsessed to the information that you alone think is correct. Attain consensus first, wikipedia is for all the contributors there is no sort of rank or anything so better don’t try to show me having more edit count means you can do anything or threat other users. Thank you HistorianAlferedo (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@RevolutionaryPatriot hey i would like to add in here, this other guy Historian Alfredo is also hell bent on adding unsourced material under Jats section.

I'm new to wikipedia editing so i didn't have enough authorisation to edit this article so LukeEmily helped to remove the Unsourced and contentious stuff on 12th of March but Historian Alfredo reverted it back on 15th of March without providing any source for the said contentious, controversial and unsourced stuff. I now noticed that this person is engaging in disruptive behaviour with edits done by you also. This person has certain Rajput POV. Editors shouldn't engage in disruptive behaviour and edit warring. Amitdabas123 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Amitdabas123

"This person has certain Rajput POV.", Please avoid making such personal accusations about other editors without clear evidence. Regarding HistorianAlferedo, they have provided citations and they are engaging here on the talk page to discuss the content & I think that's a constructive approach. Chronos.Zx (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chronos.Zx I would like you to cite the source where exactly this "Moreover, Jats earned the zamindari from Mughals by submitting their daughters as tribute." is written. It's very obvious what's going on here. Amitdabas123 (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Removal of Gokula case from this article

This article is about political marriages in india, which are done to improve political and economic relations. But in case of Gokula Jat, his daughter was married with mughal after Gokula execution by aurangzeb, as part of the punitive measures taken by the Mughal authorities against rebels. quotation (The Jat leader's limbs were hacked off one by one on the platform of the police office of Agra, his family was forcibly converted to Islam, and his followers were kept in prison in charge of the provost of the imperial camp.) @LukeEmily, @RevolutionaryPatriot, @Fylindfotberserk. TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC) TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@TheSlumPanda: That doesn't look like a 'political marriage' judging from the quotation. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@HistorianAlferedo, is adding again this Gokula daughter marriage here. I request editors to participate in this talk for consensus TheSlumPanda (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Just saw it. This editor also reverted the changes made by Perception312.

It's a well established fact that Gokula's daughter marriage was not a "political" marriage. Her father was murdered, her father didn't gain anything from it. It should be removed. Amitdabas123 (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

So far I see no reason to include the material in this article. Perception312 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@TheSlumPanda:, I agree with you that this is not a political marriage.LukeEmily (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)